Who Is The Holy Spirit?

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Luke

If I were saying the the firstborn was God the Father then yes I could see the problem, but as a trinitarian I would put forth that it is speaking of Jesus both the Son of God and yet fully man fully God equal to the Father but not the Father. As is clear from this post and others I am a trinitarian but I also am not attempting to start a oneness vrs trinity argument just trying to answer the question asked me.

All this time I thought you were oneness. Not that it matters.

I agree that this image of God, this firstborn, was Jesus and not God the Father. If Jesus is God though, then God (the Son?) would still be identified as the firstborn of all creation. I don't see scripture supporting the idea that God the Son is the firstborn of all creation. Of God's many attributes and descriptions in scripture, firstborn of all creation isn't one of them, IMO. It is a description of this image of God (the Father) though.

Whether 'firstborn' means the first born, or is a positional reference, makes no difference in recognizing the problem with God being identified with either of those definitions.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by seekerman

All this time I thought you were oneness. Not that it matters.

I agree that this image of God, this firstborn, was Jesus and not God the Father. If Jesus is God though, then God (the Son?) would still be identified as the firstborn of all creation. I don't see scripture supporting the idea that God the Son is the firstborn of all creation. Of God's many attributes and descriptions in scripture, firstborn of all creation isn't one of them, IMO. It is a description of this image of God (the Father) though.

Whether 'firstborn' means the first born, or is a positional reference, makes no difference in recognizing the problem with God being identified with either of those definitions.

If you take the term FIRSTBORN to mean the preeminent one or as the one above all others and before all others in rank then yes it does for the attributes of God because He is the first, and He is above all others. As I stated earlier there is no other way to interpret the term firstborn (in my opinion) without ending up in pagan ideas.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Luke

If you take the term FIRSTBORN to mean the preeminent one or as the one above all others and before all others in rank then yes it does for the attributes of God because He is the first, and He is above all others. As I stated earlier there is no other way to interpret the term firstborn (in my opinion) without ending up in pagan ideas.

If preeminent one or one above all others and before all others in rank is used for the definition of firstborn, that results in this image is being spoken of in terms which presents a comparison to others who exist like Him. If He is first in rank, then there are others who follow Him in rank in other words. This would result in the image having rank over God the Father, for the firstborn (first in rank) is the image of God, not the God (the Father) which produced the image. If the image is Jesus, and I think we both agree that it is, then Jesus, the Son of God, has preeminence, is first in rank above His God and Father, God the Father.

This would present an insurmountable problem, IMO.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by seekerman

If preeminent one or one above all others and before all others in rank is used for the definition of firstborn, that results in this image is being spoken of in terms which presents a comparison to others who exist like Him. If He is first in rank, then there are others who follow Him in rank in other words. This would result in the image having rank over God the Father, for the firstborn (first in rank) is the image of God, not the God (the Father) which produced the image. If the image is Jesus, and I think we both agree that it is, then Jesus, the Son of God, has preeminence, is first in rank above His God and Father, God the Father.

This would present an insurmountable problem, IMO.

It is not that Jesus is above the Father rather Jesus is equal with the Father.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes...I'm glad you agree with us

Lol . I didn't know you were a closet trin.

[navygoat1998]

Originally Posted by Luke

Lol . I didn't know you were a closet trin.

Glory!!!!!!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by seekerman

If preeminent one or one above all others and before all others in rank is used for the definition of firstborn, that results in this image is being spoken of in terms which presents a comparison to others who exist like Him. If He is first in rank, then there are others who follow Him in rank in other words. This would result in the image having rank over God the Father, for the firstborn (first in rank) is the image of God, not the God (the Father) which produced the image. If the image is Jesus, and I think we both agree that it is, then Jesus, the Son of God, has preeminence, is first in rank above His God and Father, God the Father.

This would present an insurmountable problem, IMO.

It's not used FOR the definition of Firstborn, it's simply one of the ways Firstborn is used as I showed earlier.

Therefore it does not mean "firstborn" always means the same thing.

Second in being LIKE Jesus that does not mean we existed all in the past or that we all were the first creation of God and then we created everything else, which is what you believe. So if you applied your logic to your own views we should all be a quasi-deity that was the first creation of God and then created everything else.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Luke

Lol . I didn't know you were a closet trin.

By "us" I meant the rest of us Oneness. Welcome to the club

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Luke

It is not that Jesus is above the Father rather Jesus is equal with the Father.

There is a hierarchy suggested by the 'rank' view of firstborn though. Scripture indicates that Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal to God....

Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The passage isn't making Jesus God, but the passage is revealing that Jesus, in agreement with the image of God in Cor 1:15, is the likeness, similar, to God. "Equal" means "from G1492 (through the idea of seeming); similar (in amount or kind): - + agree, as much, equal, like." The hierarchy is also presented in 1Co 11:3...."But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." The head of God isn't God, but the head of Jesus, who isn't God, is God. Also, God didn't highly exalt God but highly exalted His Son, Jesus the Christ, who isn't God. God isn't the head of God, God is the head of us all, including Christ.

The view of Jesus being the same as His God and Father because He's equal to Him is misusing the word "equal" as presented in scripture. It's also misunderstanding the term 'firstborn' in 1 Cor 15.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by seekerman

There is a hierarchy suggested by the 'rank' view of firstborn though. Scripture indicates that Jesus thought it not robbery to be equal to God....

Php 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The passage isn't making Jesus God, but the passage is revealing that Jesus, in agreement with the image of God in Cor 1:15, is the likeness, similar, to God. "Equal" means "from G1492 (through the idea of seeming); similar (in amount or kind): - + agree, as much, equal, like." The hierarchy is also presented in 1Co 11:3...."But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." The head of God isn't God, but the head of Jesus, who isn't God, is God. Also, God didn't highly exalt God but highly exalted His Son, Jesus the Christ, who isn't God. God isn't the head of God, God is the head of us all, including Christ.

The view of Jesus being the same as His God and Father because He's equal to Him is misusing the word "equal" as presented in scripture. It's also misunderstanding the term 'firstborn' in 1 Cor 15.

I understand where you are coming from because i have asked these questions myself and have had to study through them myself as it applies to the hierarchy of the Godhead.

As to the passage in Phil 2 this is used to show the diety of Jesus not just because of the phrase EQUAL WITH GOD but also it should be noticed that in vrs 10 Jesus is said to recieve worship but Jesus Himself says that we are to worship none but God.

Three of the passages that helped me out the most when i was working and studying through these questions on the diety of Jesus is John 1 and Titus 2 Hebrews 1. In all of these passages (and others) Jesus is said to be God. I have never found a place in the Bible where Jesus denies His diety nor did He ever refuse worship (unless you take the one place where He questions the man for calling Him good, but this is more a questioning of the mans motives not refusing worship).