Christ as the firstborn

[Insight]

So Nomad lead us to Hebrews 1:8 to prove Jesus is God whereas we have found that many kings have sat upon His Throne though none as righteous and holy as the Firstborn Son.

but of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. Heb 1:8NET

So let’s allow the OT to speak beautifully to the NT and vice-versa.

We know the seed of David (Rom 1:3) after the flesh will eventuate in Jesus Christ sitting upon his Fathers Throne as rightful heir to David's throne. We also know he will reign from Jerusalem. Like a the prophet like unto Moses (Deut 18:15,16, 17,18,)

The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen

Jesus during his earthly ministry proclaimed the will of God to his people who rejected and despised him, though at some future time he will deliver them from their bondage and oppressors.

It is at " Shiloh" that we the true Jesus being a member of the royal tribe of Judah, who will soon wield a sceptre of righteousness over the twelve tribes of Israel like his Father David.

In case Nomad demands evidence here are the references to support Heb 1:8

• Gen 49:10NLT

• Num 24:17NLT

• Psa 45:6NLT

• Psa 108:8NLT

• Isa 30:31NLT (note the wielding of that sceptre is Yahweh of Armies!

• Matt 27:29NLT

• Heb 1:8NLT

Insight

 

[Nomad]

Insight wrote:

Then Solomon sat on THE THRONE OF THE LORD as king instead of David his father (1 Chron. 29:23 and Luke 1:32).

The throne of the Lord means the throne that God gave him as vice-regent. Was God not the ultimate authority of Israel's theocracy? Yes? Did David's or Solomon's rule extend beyond Israel? No? Then neither of them sat on God's throne in the sense that you take it. Let's dispense with this silly nonsense. This all started with that ridiculous translation of Hebrews 1:8 which attempts to make God himself a creatures throne. How you guys made the leap from "God himself is a throne???" to "God employs creatures as vice-regents" to "this somehow proves that the Son isn't God" is beyond me. Be that as if may, I will say more about Hebrews 1 below.

Yesterday, I presented the fact that the writer to the Hebrews has Yahweh referring to the Son as "God." He then immediately applies a portion of a Psalm about Yahweh to the Son. This challenge went unmet. No surprise there. That being the case, we will move on.

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

If God gives his glory to no other, how can Jesus, a creature according to Unitarians, make such a blasphemous request?

Answer: He is God the Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Vengle]

Hebrews 1:9 "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

I see the highlighted portion there above to refer to the line of righteous kings that sat on the throne of God in Israel.

The throne of the Lord means the throne that God gave him as vice-regent. Was God not the ultimate authority of Israel's theocracy? Yes? Did David's or Solomon's rule extend beyond Israel? No? Then neither of them sat on God's throne in the sense that you take it. Let's dispense with this silly nonsense. This all started with that ridiculous translation of Hebrews 1:8 which attempts to make God himself a creatures throne. How you guys made the leap from "God himself is a throne???" to "God employs creatures as vice-regents" to "this somehow proves that the Son isn't God" is beyond me. Be that as if may, I will say more about Hebrews 1 below.

Yesterday, I presented the fact that the writer to the Hebrews has Yahweh referring to the Son as "God." He then immediately applies a portion of a Psalm about Yahweh to the Son. This challenge went unmet. No surprise there. That being the case, we will move on.

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

If God gives his glory to no other, how can Jesus, a creature according to Unitarians, make such a blasphemous request?

Answer: He is God the Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity.

It does not surprise me that it was Trinitarians that put so many innocent people to death in such hideous ways over the last couple thousand years. You most certainly birth a greater number of haughty ones that would do such things as your own attitude well shows.

 

[Insight]

The throne of the Lord means the throne that God gave him as vice-regent.

Quote for vice agent please?

Was God not the ultimate authority of Israel's theocracy? Yes?

Agreed.

Did David's or Solomon's rule extend beyond Israel? No?

Agreed

Then neither of them sat on God's throne in the sense that you take it.

Provide the implication rather than an empty accusation

So you deny David, Solomon sat upon the Throne of the Lord? and that Jesus will sit upon the same as per Heb 1:8?

Interesting.

Let's dispense with this silly nonsense.

Yes I agree…thus far your post is nonsense, clearly unscriptural.

This all started with that ridiculous translation of Hebrews 1:8 which attempts to make God himself a creatures throne. How you guys made the leap from "God himself is a throne???" to "God employs creatures as vice-regents" is beyond me. This somehow proves that the Son isn't God? Be that as if may, I will say more about Hebrews 1 below.

Thus denying the sceptre from Judah.

So describe for us the Throne of David and Jesus inheriting his position as King of the Jews upon this exact Throne as given him by his Father? Luke 1:32

Yesterday

You made a fool of yourself.

I presented the fact that the writer to the Hebrews has Yahweh referring to the Son as "God." He then immediately applies a portion of a Psalm about Yahweh to the Son. This challenge went unmet. No surprise there. That being the case, we will move on.

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

If God gives his glory to no other, how can Jesus, a creature according to Unitarians, make such a blasphemous request?

So you imply the exalted Jesus no longer being a creature, who did not profane His name, who never worshipped carved idols, who did everything for His names sake, is unable to receive such Glory?

Your theology is a bucket with holes.

Answer: He is God the Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity.

Answer: He is the Son of God.

By the way, I looked for "God the Son" in many translations with zero hits.

Insight

 

[Nomad]

That's not an answer. That's a dodge. Here it is again. Focus.

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

If God gives his glory to no other, how can Jesus, a creature according to Unitarians, make such a blasphemous request?

Do you see the problem? If God gives his glory to no other, and Jesus isn't God, his request is blasphemous. I can't make it an more plain than that.

 

[Insight]

That's not an answer. That's a dodge. Here it is again. Focus.

Isa 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.

Isa 48:11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.

Joh 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.

If God gives his glory to no other, how can Jesus, a creature according to Unitarians, make such a blasphemous request?

Do you see the problem? If God gives his glory to no other, and Jesus isn't God, his request is blasphemous. I can't make it an more plain than that.

Nomad

Now you would force me to explain how the Son was glorified in the presence of Yahweh?

John 12:16,23; 13:31,32 for context.

What "act" allowed Jesus to make this request?

After you have answered this please explain how Rev 13:8KJV impacts your answer.

And once you have grasped this maybe you could explain to us how Jesus could say "the glory I HAD with you"?

Insight

 

[Vengle]

In the absence of humility he gets angry rather than feels appreciation when the light begins to cut through his darkness. Some are happy to see the light and come out of the dark by walking toward that light. Not this one. He hates the light. He actually spoke abusively of Jesus in that post saying that if Jesus did not meet his requirement of who he says he is then "his request is blasphemous".

This man has an evil spirit.

 

[Nomad]

Once again you fail to answer. We're not talking about glory Christ would receive for faithful service during his incarnation. Once again, God says that he will give his glory to no other. Jesus requests the glory that he had with the Father before the world began. This would be blasphemous for any created being seeing that God says very plainly that he will give his glory to no other. Therefore Jesus is God. Got it this time? I doubted.

 

[Insight]

Once again you fail to answer. We're not talking about glory Christ would receive for faithful service during his incarnation. Once again, God says that he will give his glory to no other. Jesus requests the glory that he had with the Father before the world began. This would be blasphemous for any created being (who is sinful) seeing that God says very plainly that he will give his glory to no other. Therefore Jesus is God. Got it this time? I doubted.

I corrected your post for the sake of truth with ().

John 12:16,23; 13:31,32 for context.

What "act" allowed Jesus to make this request? And what took place in this act that allowed Jesus to make this request?

After you have answered this please explain how Rev 13:8KJV impacts your answer.

And once you have grasped this maybe you could explain to us how Jesus could say "the glory I HAD with you"?

Nomad is very proficient at asking questions but not good at answering them.

Insight

I am trying to hep you Nomad...you must see this!

"The Son of man shall come in the GLORY of his Father, with his, angels; and THEN shall he reward every man according to his "works"(Matt 16:27).

Even in his glorified state who Glory is it?

 

[Vengle]

Once again you fail to answer. We're not talking about glory Christ would receive for faithful service during his incarnation. Once again, God says that he will give his glory to no other. Jesus requests the glory that he had with the Father before the world began. This would be blasphemous for any created being seeing that God says very plainly that he will give his glory to no other. Therefore Jesus is God. Got it this time? I doubted.

Well there is something yet that you are leaving out. The solution to your claim that he would be committing blasphemy with such a request is in the following three verses, and particularly verse 3:

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 ¶Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Because you Trinitarians have butchered what it means that Jesus is the "express image of His [God's] person" rather than seeing that it says he is the image in a way that we too are supposed to aim at bearing you cannot see the answer.

And the answer is that being his image the glory he and we would bear is glory that shines toward God to glorify God in reciprocation for His goodness toward us.

I see Insight just posted John 13:31-32 which contains that thought.

Everything God touches He fills with His glory. The heavens declare the glory of God. (Psalms 19:1) Jesus held the highest position in the heavens next to God. But his glory extols God just as the glory God made in his heavens extols Him.

 

[Insight]

Well there is something yet that you are leaving out. The solution to your claim that he would be committing blasphemy with such a request is in the following three verses, and particularly verse 3:

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4 ¶Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Because you Trinitarians have butchered what it means that Jesus is the "express image of His [God's] person" rather than seeing that it says he is the image in a way that we too are supposed to aim at bearing you cannot see the answer.

And the answer is that being his image the glory he and we would bear is glory that shines toward God to glorify God in reciprocation for His goodness toward us.

Amen again.

 

[Nomad]

Well it looks like you guys are avoiding this challenge like the plague, and no wonder. There's no way around it. Let's recap. Yesterday we saw how the writer to the Hebrews applies a portion of a Psalm about Yahweh to the Son. Today we see that the Son requests to have back the glory that he had with the Father before the world began. God says very clearly that he would give his glory to no other. Jesus' request would be blasphemous for a created being. Therefore, once again, we see that the Son is in fact God. More tomorrow.

 

[Insight]

I will say this Nomad in agreeing with your comment regarding the blasphemous claim that should a sinner make such a request I doubt it would be entirely blasphemous.

Paul wrote:

"All have sinned, and come short of the glory of "God" Rom. 3:23

Now you know that Moses sought to see the divine glory (as per Exod. 33:18), but not rebuked in making such a claim but was not permitted the full manifestation (Exo 33:23) We both acknowledge no fleshly man could withstand the Divine Glory. The glory was then revealed in a Covenant Name (Exo 34:6,7), which demonstrated that divine glory was seen in a perfect character as well as in perfection of nature.

Moses later saw a representation of that glory on the Mount of Transfiguration (a future glorified Christ), and spoke of the means by which that glory would be realised: in "the exodus (translated "decease" in Lk 9:31) " which was the atoning sacrifice of the Lord. Nomad has failed to acknoweldge the scarifice in his argument.

Christ manifested the Yahweh Name perfectly (Jn 17:6), and as such demonstrated His glory (John 12:28).

Nomad should "rejoice in hope of the glory of God" (Rom. 5:2) to be obtained when his "vile body" (like Christ) becomes like Christ's "glorious body" (Phil 3:21) through the process of immortalisation.

Meanwhile, the glory of God must firstly be seen in the moral perfection of character (Exod 33:18; Jn. 1:14), which must be developed through the imprint of the Inspired Word.

Insight

 

[Vengle]

Well it looks like you guys are avoiding this challenge like the plague, and no wonder. There's no way around it. Let's recap. Yesterday we saw how the writer to the Hebrews applies a portion of a Psalm about Yahweh to the Son. Today we see that the Son requests to have back the glory that he had with the Father before the world began. God says very clearly that he would give his glory to no other. Jesus' request would be blasphemous for a created being. Therefore, once again, we see that the Son is in fact God. More tomorrow.

Of course God would not give his glory away. Stop and think. You give your glory away when you allow others to take your dignity from you, such as in returning evil for evil.

He said He would give His glory to no other gods. He is talking about not allowing these false gods to represent him as though they are commissioned of Him and so reflect bad on Him.

BECAUSE THEY WOULD MAKE HIM LOOK BAD. THEY WOULD ROB HIM OF GLORY IN THAT WAY. AND HE WILL NOT GIVE AWAY HIS GLORY LIKE THAT TO THEM.

Do you realize that all of the violence and hideous murders that Trinitarians have committed over the last couple thousand years has done much the same thing to the glory of His name in this earth? Every militant sect of religion has done so.

 

[Insight]

If God gives his glory to no other, how can Jesus, a creature according to Unitarians, make such a blasphemous request?

Christ was raised up from the dead by the GLORY of the Father Rom 6:4

And Nomad wonders how Jesus was able to claim this Glory for himslef? John 17:5

I wonder if it has something to do with the Masters words "It is finished!" (John 19:30).

Just a thought.

Nomad has got himself into a bind with this one.

If God gives his glory to no other, how can Jesus, a creature according to Unitarians, make such a blasphemous request?

Rom 2:7 "...eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek GLORY and HONOUR and IMMORTALITY". Of course revealing that John 17:5 actually corresponds with Yahweh alone is the One Who possesses Glory, Immortality as an inherent attribute.

This leaves me thinking what is Nomad seeking if not the Glory of God?

Anyone like to answer?

Of course, if we take Nomads comment to its extreme as he is wonton to do.

If God gives his glory to no other, how can Jesus, a creature according to Unitarians, make such a blasphemous request?

What hope is there for any of the Sons and Daughters of God?

 

[Vengle]

Christ was raised up from the dead by the GLORY of the Father Rom 6:4

And Nomad wonders how Jesus was able to claim this Glory for himslef? John 17:5

I wonder if it has something to do with the Masters words "It is finished!" (John 19:30).

Just a thought.

Those words certainly marked the successful completion of his course in this world whereby he set in place all things needed to reclaim the glory to his Father that man's sin has dimmed among them.

Nomad has Isaiah 42:8 in mind: "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

There is no way he even really believes all the objections he is posing. What I see him doing is taking pleasure in challenges.

 

[Insight]

Are we not like Christ in this regard?

“For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). ​

“But,” Paul states, “we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.”​

But what of Nomads comment?​

​

If God gives his glory to no other, how can Jesus, a creature according to Unitarians, make such a blasphemous request?

​

​

So the treasure in us, is that not the knowledge of that Glory? Why deposited it in us, if we are not to SEEK for that same Glory? ​

A blasphemous request Nomad?​

The conclsion to Nomads folly is this. ​

There are many attributes to Gods Glory but our view must be dominated by “the excellency of the power is of God.” And se we are taken to Pauls testimony “All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation: to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them: and hath committed unto us the Word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18, 19).​

This work of reconciliation now places us in a like position to Jesus Christ who truimphed over flesh.​

'By whom, also, we have access by faith, into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Rom. 5:2).​

But Nomad would reply...

If God gives his glory to no other, how can Jesus, a creature according to Unitarians, make such a blasphemous request?

 

[Vengle]

I said, "You give your glory away when you allow others to take your dignity from you, such as in returning evil for evil." in a previous post.

I retract and correct that. We really have no glory that is our own. God glorifies us in that we live by the words of His mouth. So our glory is really His glory. It is His glory that we give away and He puts a stop to our doing that.

If we would think like as Jesus we would not pray for our glory but for His glory to rest upon us. That is why at places in scripture His glory is likened to a crown of glory resting upon our heads.

Psalms 4:2 "O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing? Selah."

Psalms 62:7 "In God is my salvation and my glory: the rock of my strength, and my refuge, is in God."

Proverbs 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
8 Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.
9 She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

 

[Insight]

Its rather embarrassing when you take these foolish and unlearned questions (which we should avoid) 2 Tim 2:23 as they undermine not just the teaching of a single God, but the entire foundation of the Gospel message, which he has endeavoured to erode by his intellectualism and not spiritualism.

“That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ: Whom having not seen ye love: in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory” (1 Pet. 1:7, 8).

Nomad how do you expect to be found at the judgement?

It is enough.

 

[Nomad]

I know I said tomorrow, but a question is in order before I retire.

Insight and Vengle,

Does "theos" only refer to Yahweh when it is preceded by the direct article?