Jesus is God

[Paidion]

Micah 5:2 - "But as for you, Bethlehem ... from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity."

Micah is telling us that Jesus is eternal, as only God is. He not only pre-existed but He existed in eternity.

Existed in eternity? According to the apostle Paul, He had a beginning:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Col 1:15 ESV)


The ESV, NASB, NRSV, RSV, YLT, ASV, and Darby, all translate it as "the firstborn of all creation".

Nothing in all of creation came into being prior to the only-begotten Son of God who was begotten as the first of God’s acts.

[dwight92070]

Existed in eternity? According to the apostle Paul, He had a beginning:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. (Col 1:15 ESV)

Dwight - You are taking this verse out of context and interpreting it like the Jehovah's Witnesses do, or at least similarly. The context of the verse is seen by looking 3 verses later, where Paul says that Jesus is "the firstborn from the dead." He was the first to take on a glorified body after His resurrection. Just like Jesus took on an incorruptible body, so "the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." (Romans 8:21), when Christ returns on the last day. So, not only is He "the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29), by His resurrection with an incorruptible body, but He is also "the firstborn of all creation", since He precedes His creation into that glorified state.

Dwight - This interpretation fits into the entire context of verses Col 1:15-20, where Christ is exalted and lifted up in praise, as the Creator of all things, the One who holds all things together, the Head of the body, the church, the firstborn from the dead, the One who will have the first place in everything, in whom the Father placed ALL HIS FULLNESS, Who made peace through the blood of His cross. But your interpretation and the Jehovah's Witnesses interpretation, besides not fitting the context, lowers Christ to a little more than His own creation.

Nothing in all of creation came into being prior to the only-begotten Son of God who was begotten as the first of God’s acts.

Dwight - Neither this verse (Col 1:15), nor any other, agrees with your statement. Your continued insistence that the Son of God was begotten as the first of God's acts, not only does not fit the context, but continues to not even make sense. It is illogical for God, Who is eternal, to have a "first act". That implies that HE DID NOTHING BEFORE THAT, which is ridiculous. The Bible speaks of ONLY TWO TIMES, when Christ was begotten: 1. His birth, when He took on a physical body and 2. His resurrection, when He took on a spiritual, incorruptible body. There is NO MENTION of Jesus being begotten BEFORE His birth.

[Paidion]

It is illogical for God, Who is eternal, to have a "first act". That implies that HE DID NOTHING BEFORE THAT, which is ridiculous.

Nothing at all ridiculous about it, for there HAD NOT BEEN a "before that"! For God's first act—the begetting of His Son— marked the beginning of time!

[dwight92070]

It is illogical for God, Who is eternal, to have a "first act". That implies that HE DID NOTHING BEFORE THAT, which is ridiculous.

Nothing at all ridiculous about it, for there HAD NOT BEEN a "before that"! For God's first act—the begetting of His Son— marked the beginning of time!

Dwight -Okay, this sounds like a discussion that could evolve into a philosophical and scientific quagmire, which is, IMO, a rabbit trail. My main point is that I don't interpret "the firstborn of all creation" to mean what you think it means. Your interpretation, IMO, does not fit the context of Colossians 1. You say that God created Jesus (I know, you call it "God, begetting Jesus" - which, in essence, is a distinction without a difference). I say that the Creator of all things, who is Jesus, did not need to be created - He always was.

Dwight - To me, "the firstborn of all creation", taken in context, inescapably relates to verse 15, where Paul calls Him "the firstborn from the dead." When Christ was raised from the dead, something happened that had never happened before - that is that He was the first person to ever be raised in a NEW body! A glorified body! Many others had been raised from the dead before Jesus, but NONE of them were raised in a NEW body. ALL of them were raised with the SAME body they had before they died. So when the scripture calls Jesus "the firstborn from the dead", it means the FIRST PERSON TO BE RAISED IN A NEW, GLORIFIED BODY. When Christ returns, WE TOO WILL GET OUR BODIES TRANSFORMED INTO GLORIFIED BODIES, perfectly suited for the New Heaven and the New Earth. Again, when Christ returns, this old earth will be destroyed by fire and God will create a New Heaven and a New Earth. On that day, we who believe, will enter that NEW realm - that NEW creation. But Jesus has ALREADY ENTERED THAT REALM, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT HE ALREADY HAS A NEW BODY. In this way, HE IS THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION. When He returns. we all will follow Him into that NEW CREATION.

[Paidion]

You say that God created Jesus (I know, you call it "God, begetting Jesus" - which, in essence, is a distinction without a difference)

"A distinction without a difference." Really?

So for you, there is no difference between saying your human father begat you when he copulated with with your mother, and saying that your human father CREATED you.

[dwight92070]

You say that God created Jesus (I know, you call it "God, begetting Jesus" - which, in essence, is a distinction without a difference)

"A distinction without a difference." Really?

So for you, there is no difference between saying your human father begat you when he copulated with with your mother, and saying that your human father CREATED you.

Dwight - Once again, you're ignoring the main point, and zeroing in on a minor point, which is another rabbit trail. My point was that "the firstborn of all creation" does NOT refer to Jesus being begotten OR being created. In context, it refers to Him being the first of all creation to enter into the realm of "dwelling" in a glorified body. Not even the saints in heaven have that privilege yet. Even the creation itself has not been set free yet from it's slavery to corruption, as Romans 8:21 tells us. But Jesus HAS entered into that realm, ever since His resurrection. Therefore He is called "the firstborn of all creation".

[dwight92070]

So then "the firstborn of all creation" and "the firstborn from the dead" are really pointing to the same event: the resurrection of Jesus, with His glorified body.

In one sense, He is the firstborn of all the saints, who will also be resurrected with new bodies.
In another sense, He is the firstborn of all creation, which will also be "resurrected" from, or "set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God." Romans 8:21

Both of these resurrections (of the saints and of creation) will take place at Christ's 2nd coming.

[Paidion]

So then "the firstborn of all creation" and "the firstborn from the dead" are really pointing to the same event: the resurrection of Jesus, with His glorified body.

You haven't presented any RATIONAL justification for this ludicrous idea!

My brother David was the firstborn of my mother's. According to your reasoning, that fact is really pointing to the same event — that he will be the first of her children raised to life in the resurrection.

[dwight92070]

As if you have presented any rational justification that the first act of God was to "beget" Jesus. You have not.

[Paidion]

"The firstborn of all creation" is a pretty rational justification for the begetting of the Son being God's first act.
However, the claim that it refers to His resurrection, is totally irrational.