For those who think Christ is not God.

[Johann]

Romans 8:29 you are not interested in being in Christ's image as he was of His Father?

How do you understand Christ as being the firstborn?
Was He "created", or better still, Christ was not, and then He was?
J.

 

[Johann]

He was MADE sin for us.

Oh boy
J.

 

[face2face]

How do you understand Christ as being the firstborn?
Was He "created", or better still, Christ was not, and then He was?
J.

Read the text J! Not hard!

Romans 8:29 because those (Johann) whom he foreknew he also predestined (why?) to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

Jesus Christ is the firstborn of many whose likeness he shares and we him - all created beings!!! i.e Not a God!

Revelation 1:5 nails it!

 

[marks]

Yes.

Her egg cell was fertilized to make Jesus.

How do you figure? Was Adam made from a fertized egg?

Much love!

 

[face2face]

Oh boy
J.

Paul is using "sin" as a synonym for human nature i.e the flesh has the propensity to sin which is why Jesus had to be like us in every way (no exceptions!!!), otherwise he wouldn't represent us at all. Hebrews 2:14

2 Corinth 5:21 God made the one (created Jesus) who did not know sin to be sin (flesh & blood) for us, so that in him (in Christ) we would become the righteousness of God.

 

[Johann]

Jesus Christ is the firstborn or many who is is like i.e Not a God!

Not a God?
Maybe rephrasing the answer?
Firstborn

This word "firstborn" (prōtotokos) is used in the Bible in several distinct senses
its OT background refers to
the firstborn belongs to YHWH (BDB 114, KB 131, cf. Exod. 13:2,12; 22:29; 34:19; Num. 3:13)
the pre-imminence of the firstborn son of the family (cf. Deut. 21:17; Ps. 89:27; Luke 2:7; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 11:28)
its use in Col. 1:15 speaks of Jesus as the first of creation which is a possible OT allusion to Prov. 8:22-31, or God's agent of creation (cf. John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2)
its use in Col. 1:15,18; 1 Cor. 15:20,23; Rev. 1:5 refers to Jesus as the firstborn from the dead
it is an OT title used of the Messiah (cf. Ps. 89:27; Heb. 1:6; 12:23); it is a title which combines several aspects of the primacy and centrality of Jesus.
Now take a concordance and look at all the references re Christ Jesus as first born...
J.

 

[TLHKAJ]

Well perhaps you don't understand it. But it's plain enough to me.

The symbol is pagan, but maybe they didn't know when they put that illustration together? I can see what they're trying to say.

 

[face2face]

Not a God?
Maybe rephrasing the answer?
Firstborn

This word "firstborn" (prōtotokos) is used in the Bible in several distinct senses
its OT background refers to
the firstborn belongs to YHWH (BDB 114, KB 131, cf. Exod. 13:2,12; 22:29; 34:19; Num. 3:13)
the pre-imminence of the firstborn son of the family (cf. Deut. 21:17; Ps. 89:27; Luke 2:7; Rom. 8:29; Heb. 11:28)
its use in Col. 1:15 speaks of Jesus as the first of creation which is a possible OT allusion to Prov. 8:22-31, or God's agent of creation (cf. John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:15-16; Heb. 1:2)
its use in Col. 1:15,18; 1 Cor. 15:20,23; Rev. 1:5 refers to Jesus as the firstborn from the dead
it is an OT title used of the Messiah (cf. Ps. 89:27; Heb. 1:6; 12:23); it is a title which combines several aspects of the primacy and centrality of Jesus.
Now take a concordance and look at all the references re Christ Jesus as first born...
J.

I think you missed the point being made.
Jesus is the firstborn i.e born of a woman and the firstborn from the dead - resurrected to life, all of which is in relation to us - firstborn among men! If he was a God-Man he wouldn't be a firstborn from among us but from something entirely different therefore he wouldn't qualify as a High Priest Hebrews 5:1 as he would again be something else.
You making Jesus God disqualifies him on every doctrinal point Paul makes.

 

[face2face]

@Johann

Heb 5:8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through the things he suffered. 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him

Note Paul's reference "although he was a son" again same a Phil 2:7-10 and Heb 1:3

Jesus learned obedience - like you and I (God doesnt learn or obey Himself)
Jesus suffered - like you and I (God suffers but not in the flesh like we do!)
Jesus was being perfected - like you and I (God cannot be perfected He is Perfection)
Jesus became - He didn't preexist, that's the point being made (God doesn't become anything He IS!)

Jesus learned,suffered, was perfected by God and became what he is today.

And we haven't even touched on his inheritance :cool:

 

[Waiting on him]

So you stopped at truth.
You don't believe Jesus is the firstborn among many sons. Not born at all you say?

I believe the confusion is when was Jesus born, all the recordings in the New Testament don’t seem to be sufficient.

 

[Johann]

2 Corinth 5:21 God made the one (created Jesus) who did not know sin to be sin (flesh & blood) for us, so that in him (in Christ) we would become the righteousness of God.

Christ is not a created being and in inputation is important to remember...


(Certainly Christ's being made sin, is not to be explained of his being made sin in the abstract, nor of his having actually become a sinner; yet it does imply, that sin was charged on Christ, or that it was imputed to him, and that he became answerable for it.

Nor can this idea be excluded, even if we admit that "sin-offering" is the proper rendering of ἁμαρτία hamartia in the passage. "That Christ," says an old divine commenting on this place, "was made sin for us, because he was a sacrifice for sin, we confess; but therefore was he a sacrifice for sin because our sins were imputed to him, and punished in him."

The doctrine of imputation of sin to Christ is here, by plain enough inference at least. The rendering in our Bibles, however, asserts it in a more direct form. Nor, after all the criticism that has been expended on the text, does there seem any necessity for the abandonment of that rendering, on the part of the advocate of imputation.

For first ἁμαρτία hamartia in the Septuagint, and the corresponding אשׁם 'aashaam in the Hebrew, denote both the sin and the sin-offering, the peculiar sacrifice and the crime itself.

Second, the antithesis in the passage, so obvious and beautiful, is destroyed by the adoption of "sin-offering." Christ was made sin, we righteousness.

There seems in our author's comment on this place, and also at Romans 5, an attempt to revive the oft-refuted objection against imputation, namely, that it involves something like a transference of moral character, an infusion, rather than an imputation of sin or righteousness. Nothing of this kind is at all implied in the doctrine. Its advocates with one voice disclaim it; and the reader will see the objection answered at length in the supplementary notes at Romans 4 and Romans 5. What then is the value of such arguments or insinuations as these: "All such views as go to make the Holy Redeemer a sinner, or guilty, or deserving of the sufferings he endured, border on blasphemy," etc. Nor is it wiser to affirm that "if Christ was properly guilty, it would make no difference in this respect, whether it was by his own fault or by imputation." What may be meant in this connection by "properly guilty," we know not. But this is certain, that there is an immense difference between Christ's having the guilt of our iniquities charged on him, and having the guilt of his own so charged.

It is admitted in the commentary, that God "treated Christ as if he had been a sinner," and this is alleged as the probable sense of the passage. But this treatment of Christ on the part of God, must have some ground, and where shall we find it, unless in the imputation of sin to him? If the guilt of our iniquities, or which is the same thing, the Law obligation to punishment, be not charged on Christ, how in justice can he be subjected to the punishment? If he had not voluntarily come under such obligation, what claim did law have on him? That the very words "sin imputed to Christ" are not found in scripture, is not a very formidable objection. The words in this text are stronger and better "He was made sin," and says Isaiah, according to the rendering of Dr. Lowth, "The Lord made to meet upon him the iniquities of us all. It was required of him, and he was made answerable." Isa, Isaiah 53:6.)

Now, you need to see the Hebrew words, the laying on of hands and sins "transferred" or Laid, sin-bearer on the goat...did that made the goat sinful?


Lev_16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
Lev_16:22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Did Christ became sin in the sense that it interpenetrated Him?
J.

 

[Waiting on him]

@Johann

Heb 5:8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through the things he suffered. 5:9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him

Note Paul's reference "although he was a son" again same a Phil 2:7-10 and Heb 1:3

Jesus learned obedience - like you and I (God doesnt learn or obey Himself)
Jesus suffered - like you and I (God suffers but not in the flesh like we do!)
Jesus was being perfected - like you and I (God cannot be perfected He is Perfection)
Jesus became - He didn't preexist, that's the point being made (God doesn't become anything He IS!)

Jesus learned,suffered, was perfected by God and became what he is today.

And we haven't even touched on his inheritance :cool:

So wait a minute, are you saying when Jesus was hanging on the cross saying my god my god why have you forsaken me, he wasn’t talking too and forsaking himself. What a revolutionary way of thinking.

 

[face2face]

Christ is not a created being and in inputation is important to remember...


(Certainly Christ's being made sin, is not to be explained of his being made sin in the abstract, nor of his having actually become a sinner; yet it does imply, that sin was charged on Christ, or that it was imputed to him, and that he became answerable for it.

Nor can this idea be excluded, even if we admit that "sin-offering" is the proper rendering of ἁμαρτία hamartia in the passage. "That Christ," says an old divine commenting on this place, "was made sin for us, because he was a sacrifice for sin, we confess; but therefore was he a sacrifice for sin because our sins were imputed to him, and punished in him."

The doctrine of imputation of sin to Christ is here, by plain enough inference at least. The rendering in our Bibles, however, asserts it in a more direct form. Nor, after all the criticism that has been expended on the text, does there seem any necessity for the abandonment of that rendering, on the part of the advocate of imputation.

For first ἁμαρτία hamartia in the Septuagint, and the corresponding אשׁם 'aashaam in the Hebrew, denote both the sin and the sin-offering, the peculiar sacrifice and the crime itself.

Second, the antithesis in the passage, so obvious and beautiful, is destroyed by the adoption of "sin-offering." Christ was made sin, we righteousness.

There seems in our author's comment on this place, and also at Romans 5, an attempt to revive the oft-refuted objection against imputation, namely, that it involves something like a transference of moral character, an infusion, rather than an imputation of sin or righteousness. Nothing of this kind is at all implied in the doctrine. Its advocates with one voice disclaim it; and the reader will see the objection answered at length in the supplementary notes at Romans 4 and Romans 5. What then is the value of such arguments or insinuations as these: "All such views as go to make the Holy Redeemer a sinner, or guilty, or deserving of the sufferings he endured, border on blasphemy," etc. Nor is it wiser to affirm that "if Christ was properly guilty, it would make no difference in this respect, whether it was by his own fault or by imputation." What may be meant in this connection by "properly guilty," we know not. But this is certain, that there is an immense difference between Christ's having the guilt of our iniquities charged on him, and having the guilt of his own so charged.

It is admitted in the commentary, that God "treated Christ as if he had been a sinner," and this is alleged as the probable sense of the passage. But this treatment of Christ on the part of God, must have some ground, and where shall we find it, unless in the imputation of sin to him? If the guilt of our iniquities, or which is the same thing, the Law obligation to punishment, be not charged on Christ, how in justice can he be subjected to the punishment? If he had not voluntarily come under such obligation, what claim did law have on him? That the very words "sin imputed to Christ" are not found in scripture, is not a very formidable objection. The words in this text are stronger and better "He was made sin," and says Isaiah, according to the rendering of Dr. Lowth, "The Lord made to meet upon him the iniquities of us all. It was required of him, and he was made answerable." Isa, Isaiah 53:6.)

Now, you need to see the Hebrew words, the laying on of hands and sins "transferred" or Laid, sin-bearer on the goat...did that made the goat sinful?


Lev_16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:
Lev_16:22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.

Did Christ became sin in the sense that it interpenetrated Him?
J.

Seems a copy and paste faith you have there...if this your work or someone else's?

It is admitted in the commentary, that God "treated Christ as if he had been a sinner," and this is alleged as the probable sense of the passage.

You dont say!
It pleased Yahweh to bruise His Son. (read Isaiah 53! its all prophesied of the coming Messiah)
He was numbered with the transgressors and for good reason - he had to represent us in everywhere. God himself could never do this, He could never dwell in corrupting flesh - boy He cant even look upon sin!

Here is a question for you J.

Was Jesus Christ exactly as you are today - a flesh and blood dying creature?

Yes or No?

Paul says yes emphatically!!

 

[Johann]

Paul is using "sin" as a synonym for human nature i.e the flesh has the propensity to sin which is why Jesus had to be like us in every way (no exceptions!!!)

You mean the sinless Jesus had the propensity TO sin?
Do you know how ridiculous this is?
J.

 

[Johann]

Seems a copy and paste faith you have there...if this your work or someone else's?

Which is in order, forgot the source, my bad.
J.

 

[face2face]

So wait a minute, are you saying when Jesus was hanging on the cross saying my god my god why have you forsaken me, he was talking too and forsaking himself. What a revolutionary way of thinking.

The idea is so illogical and what a puppet show it would be if that was true!

 

[face2face]

You mean the sinless Jesus had the propensity TO sin?
Do you know how ridiculous this is?
J.

Wow you didn't just question that (head bowed low)

Hebrews 4:15

So you believe in more puppetry?

 

[Waiting on him]

The idea is so illogical and what puppet show it would be if that was true!

So this means when Jesus was praying to the Father he wasn’t praying too himself, or when he asked the Father to forgive them for they knew not what they were doing,,,,, he wasn’t asking himself to forgive them?

 

[face2face]

So this means when Jesus was praying to the Father he wasn’t praying too himself, or when he asked the Father to forgive them for they knew not what they were doing,,,,, he wasn’t asking himself to forgive them?

Jesus existence to that point was about 33.5 years - that's it!
He died on that cross a mortal man seeking redemption for himself and those he represented.
He prayed for salvation just like any of us do and would Hebrews 5:7
Jesus never prayed to himself.
Yahweh heard him and delivered him from death after being 3 days in the ground as prophesied. (3 sign's of Jonah!)

 

[APAK]

@Johann @farouk @marks @Pearl one question on Isaiah 9:6 for now

The orthodox Christian doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one Essence in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, Isaiah 9:6 calls the Messiah “the everlasting Father.” How can Jesus be both the Father and the Son?