No doubt, but if Christ is God then he is not only pre-existing creation but rather exists eternally, without regard to time of the Mormon of creation.
He continues "Note that Jesus is called the first-born, not the first-created. The word 'first-born' (Greek word "prototokos") signifies priority."
Really? here is a definition form a Biblical Greek lexicon (my emphasis):
Prototokos: the firstborn
Beasts too...
Then he says "Finally, the phrase recognizes Him as the Messiah: 'I will make Him [Christ] My first-born, higher than the kings of the earth' (Psalm 89:27)."
Needless to say Psalm 89 is not at all about Christ. But more importantly, your apologists is either misquoting Psalm 29 or his version of the Bible is. You see the Bible doesn't says "higher than the kings on the earth" but "the highest of the kings on earth." (in other words one of the earthly kings).
I suppose I would see Him having the ability to sin as being a "confusion" in His united natures.
Hardly. Sinlessness is "natural" only to God, so a human who cannot sin is not really, human is he? It appears that Christ's divine inability to sin was "leaking" into his humanity, making it impossible for him to sin which can only suggest that his will was not free. Since men sin it means they have free will which is not always in ahmrony with God's will.
He knew the story and it's a very long stretch, imo, to say he ever wrote anything contradicting the idea.
He did, he called Mary "a woman" when her virginity is of such central importance to overlook or ignore, or disregard.
Even if we translate it "born of a woman" it is very conspicuous that Paul would not mention the (human) father at all.
I don't think so, FK. First, he wasn't making a genealogy, and second the two genealogies we do have identify +Jospeh as the father. Either way, the Chirtsians will find a way out by rationalizing that if a father is mentioned he is only a "legal guardian" and if not that much better... :) The matter was about him coming into this world, and Paul said he came into existence by a woman under the law. That sounds pretty ordinary to me.
Mormon of creation = Mormon of creation
Psalm 29 = Psalm 89
Chirtsians = Christians
sorry
You raise a perfectly good point. Interestingly, the NIV translates it the same as you, and the context is clear in any event. The "him" in that passage is David. So, if the author was making a new point for his "finally" then I agree with you that he/she is wrong. However, if he/she was following up from two paragraphs earlier in describing the inheritance and authority aspect of "firstborn", i.e. "The first-born possessed the inheritance and leadership." then he/she might deserve a pass because the example was of "firstborn" generally, not of Christ specifically. It wasn't written well in either case.
FK: I suppose I would see Him having the ability to sin as being a "confusion" in His united natures.
Hardly. Sinlessness is "natural" only to God, so a human who cannot sin is not really, human is he?
It depends on how we define "human". I wouldn't limit it to our born natures. Our natures are changed by God once during life for the saved, and then again before entering Heaven finally. Once the saved finally enter Heaven are they no longer "human"? I would say no, they are still human, but changed.
It appears that Christ's divine inability to sin was "leaking" into his humanity, making it impossible for him to sin which can only suggest that his will was not free.
Christ says over and over again that He came to do the will of the Father (as opposed to His or anyone else's will). That plays out clearly when He asks to have the cup taken away. So really the concept of a completely unencumbered free will is not present in Christ on earth.
Since men sin it means they have free will which is not always in harmony with God's will.
Well, what is "God's will" can be a very complicated subject, as we all remember. :)