@Duran
Christian
theology does not actually use terms like "spirit sons" or
"first created spirit son" to describe Jesus or any relationship
between Him and other beings. Instead, it emphasizes the unique and uncreated
nature of Jesus as the eternal Son of God.
Scripturally,
terms like "firstborn" (Greek: prototokos) in passages such as
Colossians 1:15 do not imply that Jesus was created. Instead, they denote His
authority and preeminence over all creation, not His being part of creation.
Jesus is described as the "only begotten" Son (John 3:16), meaning He
is uniquely God’s Son in an eternal, uncreated sense. All created beings —
whether angels or humans — are viewed in Christianity as part of creation and
distinct from Jesus, who is God.
While God
created all spiritual beings through Jesus (Colossians 1:16), orthodox
Christianity does not view Jesus as a “first created spirit son.” Instead, the
term “firstborn” (or "first" in some translations) when applied to
Jesus, especially in contexts like Colossians 1:15, refers to His supreme
position over all things. It signifies His sovereignty, not a created
beginning.
You
mentioned Scripture passages where Jesus is called the "second Adam"
or "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45, 22). The term "second
Adam" indeed reflects Jesus’ redemptive role, contrasting with the first
Adam, who introduced sin and death into the world (Romans 5:12–19).
Jesus as the
"last Adam" is essential because, unlike the first Adam, Jesus brings
life and reconciliation through His death and resurrection. Thus, while Adam is
the "first human son" in a created sense, Jesus is uniquely the
eternal Son of God who becomes incarnate to redeem humanity, not just another
created being. Jesus’ resurrection, referred to in 1 Peter 3:18 as being
"made alive in the spirit," emphasizes that His divine nature remains
fully intact even as He takes on human flesh.
Yes, I agree
with the Scriptures you referenced, and orthodox Christianity wholeheartedly
affirms these verses. They teach that:
- The first Adam brought sin and
death, while Jesus, as the last Adam, brings spiritual life (1 Corinthians
15:45).
- Christ's sacrificial death
reconciles believers to God (1 Peter 3:18).
- In Adam, humanity experiences
physical death, but in Christ, believers find resurrection and eternal
life (1 Corinthians 15:22).
These verses
affirm Jesus’ role in restoring life to humanity, contrasting with the death
introduced through Adam’s disobedience. However, these verses do not imply that
Jesus is a created being. Instead, they underscore His unique divine mission:
to redeem and restore creation. In summary, Christian theology holds that while
Adam is a created human, Jesus is the eternal Son who took on human nature for
the purpose of redemption.
Thus, Jesus
is not a "first created spirit son" but the eternal, uncreated Son of
God. Orthodox Christianity understands Him to be both fully divine and fully
human in His incarnation, emphasizing His unique, uncreated nature. This
distinction preserves the scriptural teaching of Jesus' deity while recognizing
His redemptive work as the "second Adam," who brings life to all who
believe.
@Blotty
The phrase "living rent-free in someone’s head" is an idiomatic
expression meaning that someone is frequently on another person’s mind, often
in a negative or preoccupying way. My use of it here suggests that instead of
focusing on the arguments I presented, you have become fixated on attacking my
character. The personal insults and attempts to undermine my credibility
reflect more attention on me than on the actual discussion at hand.
When I said that "you won’t get very far without my translation,"
I did not mean to underestimate your intelligence or language skills. My point
was to illustrate that the source in question is in a language you mentioned
not understanding, and therefore, my translation could be beneficial to your
comprehension of it. This wasn’t a comment on your academic abilities or
personal worth. If you believe you can understand the material fully without
assistance, I encourage you to do so and engage with the content directly
rather than making assumptions about my motives.
Your claim that I have “made up other crap” and that you have “plenty of
evidence to prove it” is an ad hominem attack without substance here. If
you have specific examples of inaccuracies in my citations or evidence to
support your accusations, I encourage you to provide them directly and let’s
examine them together. Unsupported accusations do not contribute to scholarly
dialogue; rather, they divert attention away from the discussion on the topic
and reflect more about your frustrations than the content of our arguments.
You argue that all academic articles cite their sources in full, regardless
of language barriers. In academic discourse, it’s standard practice to provide
translated excerpts for non-English sources when necessary to make the
information accessible to readers who do not understand the original language.
This practice does not invalidate the translation or the original source.
Additionally, while Reddit or other online forums may require full citations,
they are not necessarily models of rigorous academic scholarship. If you’d
prefer, I can provide the title and page number of the non-English source for
transparency. However, dismissing my translated portion without engaging its
actual content avoids addressing the argument itself.
My translations were not peer-reviewed in the way that published academic
articles are, but that does not inherently discredit them. Scholarly
discussions on forums like this often involve individuals who independently
translate or interpret ancient texts. Peer review is a valuable process, but it
is generally limited to published material. In cases where peer-reviewed
sources are unavailable, we rely on standard lexicons and established scholarly
resources like HALOT or BDB, which I have consistently referenced. If you’d
like a translation verified by a third party, I’m open to discussing it with
another reputable source.
You mention that I previously didn’t provide a source you requested and
instead made a remark about a “2+2 meme.” My intention was never to avoid
providing sources but rather to streamline our discussion when it seemed a
particular request was, in my judgment, not relevant to our main arguments. If
specific sources are missing from my arguments here, I am open to providing
them directly. Dismissing my openness to source requests without citing
specific instances where sources were withheld detracts from the focus on the
argument itself.
You express distrust in my translation and claim that I am “known to lie
about a lot of things.” However, repeating accusations of dishonesty without
presenting verifiable examples or addressing my actual argument does not
strengthen your position. If you disagree with the translation itself, I
encourage you to present your interpretation of the text or consult another
translator for verification. This is a reasonable approach if you believe I am
intentionally misleading you, but merely labeling my arguments as “lies”
without proof does not support a productive discussion.
Regarding the issue of nomina sacra in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, you
claim that I omitted details about the singular versus plural forms. This does
not equate to “lying” about the nomina sacra. Disagreements or
misunderstandings in scholarly interpretation are common and do not inherently
involve dishonesty. If there’s a specific aspect of my interpretation of the nomina
sacra that you disagree with, I invite you to clarify it directly so that
we can examine the linguistic or contextual evidence together.
Your response seems to be fueled by frustration, leading to personal
attacks and unsubstantiated accusations rather than engagement with the primary
arguments. Accusations of dishonesty, blanket dismissals of translations, and
assumptions about motivations detract from a constructive debate. Scholarly
dialogue relies on mutual respect, clear argumentation, and willingness to
engage with sources in good faith. If you are open to resuming a more focused,
evidence-based discussion, I welcome the opportunity to continue examining our
differences with specific references and detailed analysis.
