Col.1:15 mean Jesus created?

[PioneerSDA]

I am amazed at trinitarians who agree with arians about this passage.
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature." Colisians 1:15

They say Jesus is created but that He just was not created first. Trinitarians say first born means protokos and that he has preiminence over created beings because he is most important. Well I don't believe that Colosians 1:15 talks about Jesus being created at all. He is not only God's first born, He is His only born and is above all the angels for he is their creator and not created himself.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Hebrews 1:3

And He was God's only born before His incarnation for How could God give "His only begotten Son" to the world as Jesus claims in John 3:16 if God did not already have an only born Son. "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that GOD SENT HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON INTO THE WORLD, that we might live through him."1st John 4:9 He was God's only born Son before He was ever sent. I found these following commentators interesting.

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon: “Christ is called, firstborn of all creation, who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things”. Wigram’s Greek Lexicon tells us the following: “Or it may be; born before all creation”. Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Bible Commentary has this to add: “first-born of every creature-- (Heb_1:6), "the first-begotten": "begotten of His Father before all worlds" [Nicene Creed]… Translate, "Begotten (literally, 'born') before every creature," as the context shows, which gives the reason why He is so designated. "For," &c. (Col_1:16-17) [TRENCH]. Matthew Henry’s Commentary states the following: “He was born or begotten before all the creation, before any creature was made;”

[themuzicman]

Firstborn refers to the resurrection.

Michael

[wfaber]

"Firstborn refers to the resurrection.

Michael "

Agreed. Just look three verses later, "He is the beginning, the first-born from the dead." (v. 18)

(Someday I will learn how to do quotes)

[PioneerSDA]

Reply to WFAHBER and THEMUZICMAN

Just because Jesus is also the firstborn from the Dead does not cancel out that Jesus is also God's literal first born and only begotten male offspring younger than himself.
What let's me know that Colosians 1:15 is not talking about his resurection but rather His literal sonship is how the same verse calls him the image of the invisible God. This word image is used nowhere in the Bible dealing with the resurection but it is used alot of ways comparing children to their parents. "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth." Genesis 5:3 Adam begat a son in his own likeness,and after his image. That is similar to how God begat His Son in eternity. "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Hebrews 1:5 The Bible is clear that God's first and only born in "the express image of his person" Hebrews 1:3 The greek word for express image is charakter {khar-ak-tare'} which means exact copy or precise reproduction. My conclusion is that Colosians 1:15 proves that Jesus is not created but that he is the true Son of God born berfore all of creation before time started in eternity.

[Solly]

It might also refer to his being the first-born in reference to the passover - remember the firstborn there? He is the substitute, through whom his 'family' go free. The hebrew firstborn themselves had a substitute in the passover lamb; but Jesus in the firstborn who dies, and is raised.

This from a book I read recently.

[PioneerSDA]

Repy to SOLLY

Before his ressurection, before his death,before he was God's first earthy born, before the passover, before the Jews, before any thing was created before all of creation. God gave birth to a Son in eternity and this is what the Colosians writer was writing about. The Hebrews writer which I believe was the same person was commenting on when he wrote "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? " Hebrews 1:5 People insist that Colosians is referring to Christ ressurection instead of His birth in eternity as God's first and only born and still noone has even tried to answer my question. Then why does the Colosians writer write also in the verse that He is "the image of the invisible God" Surely it is talking about his literal birth in eternity just as the Hebrew writer says that Jesus was born from the Father as "the express image of His person." express image in greek is charakter {khar-ak-tare'} which means exact copy or precise reproduction. No creation could ever be like Jesus for he is exactly like God. The Divine Son of God is equally divine in nature as His Father and can rightfully becalled our God even though He called His Father "the only true {original} God" John 17:3

[themuzicman]

You have to keep in mind the "begotten" doesn't refer to birth, but to existance.

Michael

[PioneerSDA]

DEAR MUZICMAN

You say begotten doesn't mean birth it means existence. Arians say begotten doesn't mean birth it means creation. I have never seen any dictionary that has these false definition. If you have found one, please show me. But that is not important right now. What is important that when God gave birth to an equally divine being in eternity's past this divine being who came into existence at that time became His male offspring younger than himself. He became His Son as He says so Himself and this is how He uses the word "begotten." "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? " Hebrews 1:5 And when the Divine Son of God came into existence with the same divine nature as his Father because he was born from him as "the express image of his person" Hebrews 1:3 and the greek word for express image is charakter {khar-ak-tare'} which means exact copy or precise reproduction. He really is the only born Son of God. He is God's first and only born. You have a great day.

[PioneerSDA]

It might also refer to his being the first-born in reference to the passover - remember the firstborn there? He is the substitute, through whom his 'family' go free. The hebrew firstborn themselves had a substitute in the passover lamb; but Jesus in the firstborn who dies, and is raised.

This from a book I read recently.

"Let no one, then, judge you in eating or in drinking, or in respect of a feast, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths,which are a shadow of the coming things, and the body 'is' of the Christ;" Colosians 2:16,17Young's Literal Translation

Thank you very much for replying. I hope you and your family are blessed. I could agree with your statement if it was turned around. Because Jesus wasn't called the firstborn because of the Passover. But the Passover insitution was made to show how God would give his first born. Jesus was God's first and only born before He ever came to earth. "God sent His only begotten Son into the world" 1st John 4:9

I believe that before all of creation when there was just God and His only born Son who He gave birth to in eternity equally divine to Himself that they already agreed that if Adam would sin than God's Son would sacrifice himself to save sinners. God's first and born the True Passover was with him before he sent into the world to be born as a human to die to save us.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him." Hebrews 1:5,6

I pray for you that you may follow Paul who said "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." "...I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." 1st Corinthians 11:1 ; Galations 2:20

[themuzicman]

DEAR MUZICMAN

You say begotten doesn't mean birth it means existence. Arians say begotten doesn't mean birth it means creation. I have never seen any dictionary that has these false definition. If you have found one, please show me. But that is not important right now. What is important that when God gave birth to an equally divine being in eternity's past this divine being who came into existence at that time became His male offspring younger than himself. He became His Son as He says so Himself and this is how He uses the word "begotten." "For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? " Hebrews 1:5 And when the Divine Son of God came into existence with the same divine nature as his Father because he was born from him as "the express image of his person" Hebrews 1:3 and the greek word for express image is charakter {khar-ak-tare'} which means exact copy or precise reproduction. He really is the only born Son of God. He is God's first and only born. You have a great day.

Arians are a victim of Jerome, who inadvertantly identified the root of monogenhj as gennaw rather than ginomai. The former is "give birth to", whereas the latter is a form of "to be." Thus we have "begotten" in many translations and traditional church language, which theologians just wink at each other knowing that it doesn't mean birth.

Michael

[John Reece]

Arians are a victim of Jerome, who inadvertantly identified the root of monogenhV as gennaw rather than ginomai. The former is "give birth to", whereas the latter is a form of "to be." Thus we have "begotten" in many translations and traditional church language, which theologians just wink at each other knowing that it doesn't mean birth.

Michael

Michael,

See the first definition of ginomai in BDAG:


ginomai
to come into being through process of birth or natural production, be born, be produced

gennaw and ginomai are cognates.

Jerome was not mistaken.

Blessings,

John

[Sparko]

Pioneer

Trinitarians do not think that firstborn means Jesus was created.

He was not created. He always was. He IS the creator. He created all things. read the next verse.

16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

And read John 1 where it says:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
(shows that the Word is Jesus)

[mickiel]

[QUOTE=PioneerSDA]I am amazed at trinitarians who agree with arians about this passage.
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature." Colisians 1:15



The verse means simply what it states, God birthed Jesus. Birthed, not created-- birthed. Jesus came from inside of Gods inner being. When God creates, he does so from either thin air, something out of nothing, or he creates things taken from something he has already created. Jesus was not created, the bible never states that. The bible very plainly states Jesus was born of God, which means a birth. God is neither male or female, so the only way to explain God birthing Jesus, is by imagination, we have not much else to go on.

Since God is eternal, then if he births something, it to must be eternal, meaning it was always inside of God, now its just outside of him. When it was in God , it was eternal, now outside of him, its still eternal. In that sense, Jesus has no beggining of days, or no particular orgin. Eternal begets eternal, it can do no less.

Even humans, once birthed by God, will be eternal. Born again, is an actual birth.

It is not some kind of weird heresey to understand that God gave birth to his son.

[Tsmith]

[QUOTE=PioneerSDA]I am amazed at trinitarians who agree with arians about this passage.
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature." Colisians 1:15



The verse means simply what it states, God birthed Jesus. Birthed, not created-- birthed. Jesus came from inside of Gods inner being. When God creates, he does so from either thin air, something out of nothing, or he creates things taken from something he has already created. Jesus was not created, the bible never states that. The bible very plainly states Jesus was born of God, which means a birth. God is neither male or female, so the only way to explain God birthing Jesus, is by imagination, we have not much else to go on.

Since God is eternal, then if he births something, it to must be eternal, meaning it was always inside of God, now its just outside of him. When it was in God , it was eternal, now outside of him, its still eternal. In that sense, Jesus has no beggining of days, or no particular orgin. Eternal begets eternal, it can do no less.

Even humans, once birthed by God, will be eternal. Born again, is an actual birth.

It is not some kind of weird heresey to understand that God gave birth to his son.

Assuming this is true, you still face the problem that Jesus has thus not eternally been a person. What you speak of is nothing that cloning is not, yet you would never claim that the clone is the same age as the original.

[mickiel]

[QUOTE=mickiel]

Assuming this is true, you still face the problem that Jesus has thus not eternally been a person. What you speak of is nothing that cloning is not, yet you would never claim that the clone is the same age as the original.




I understand. Still, I do not believe Jesus was always a personage, he was just whatever he was inside of God. We were what we were inside of our mothers womb, but we were not born. The things that had to come together to produce human birth, are many, but each of the many, was already there to begin with. They simply had to combine inside of the womb. Now, God designed human birth in this manner. It would be absolutely nothing to God, to do this, in some ultimate superior way, to give birth to Christ. I think its what he did.

John 1:1, should read In "A" beginning was the word, and the Word was WITH God. It shouldnot read in "the" beginning-- Why?-- because God HAS NO BEGINNING! You cannot say, "in the beginning when referencing God", that would be contridiction. God has no beginning, so one must say in "A" beginning was the word. Jesus has not always been an individual. Jesus said himself" I proceeded forth and came from God-- those exact words ( I do not have my bible, but you can reference that phrase), I think its in John. That sounds like a birth to me. Christ also stated that he owes his existance to the Father. He said God is greater than him. He said he could do nothing without God. He said he lives BECAUSE of God. He said he does only Gods will, NOT his OWN. Jesus said all these things, and he MEANT THEM. People just do not believe Jesus, they believe their own interpitations.

God gave Jesus protozoan, or inner life that is now outer-life and independant, living on its own. Jesus said the Father PUT LIFE IN HIM. I mean how much more simpler does it need to get. It is complicated, I admit, but traditional knowledge taught of God makes understanding it even worse.

[JAY-PC]

(Gen 41:51 ESV) Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh. "For," he said, "God has made me forget all my hardship and all my father's house."

(Jer 31:9 ESV) With weeping they shall come, and with pleas for mercy I will lead them back, I will make them walk by brooks of water, in a straight path in which they shall not stumble, for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.


(Psa 89:20 ESV) I have found David, my servant; with my holy oil I have anointed him,
(Psa 89:27 ESV) And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.


These passages show that "firstborn" dosn't always mean the first one literaly born. David was not the firstborn but he will be made firstborn by God. Manasseh and Ephraim are both firstborn. Manasseh literal and Ephraim in a differant way.

[Shadow Phoenix]

Even if it did mean first created, I wouldn't have a problem. The Son is eternally coming forth from the Father and the Holy Spirit is birthed from the love between the two of them eternally as well. If the Son is not always the Son, then the Father is not always the Father. To attack the deity of the Son is to attack that of the Father.

I also don't take it to refer to resurrection. It makes sense as you read it from the start. You can tie 18 back to 15, but it's best to use 15 to exegete 18 and not the other way around.

[Cal_Minian]

Even if it did mean first created, I wouldn't have a problem. The Son is eternally coming forth from the Father and the Holy Spirit is birthed from the love between the two of them eternally as well. If the Son is not always the Son, then the Father is not always the Father. To attack the deity of the Son is to attack that of the Father.

I also don't take it to refer to resurrection. It makes sense as you read it from the start. You can tie 18 back to 15, but it's best to use 15 to exegete 18 and not the other way around.

What bible writer teaches tht the Son is eternally coming forth from the Father?

Again with the flooding by bumping old threads? If you are trying to get put in the matrix this is a good start.

[Anarthrous]

If you changed ‘first-born’ to ‘pre-eminent’, Jesus is still ‘the pre-eminent of creation’ by God


Which means Jesus is the greatest in the category of things created

[Cal_Minian]

If you changed ‘first-born’ to ‘pre-eminent’, Jesus is still ‘the pre-eminent of creation’ by God


Which means Jesus is the greatest in the category of things created

You are quite right. This is because the phrase "firstborn of creation" is an example where the word firstborn is the head noun of a gentive phrase. (Creation is gentive here).

Anyone with a Strongs or a bible searching program can check out all of the examples where one finds the phrase "firstborn of something" in both OT and NT and in each and every case the firstborn is part of a group.


Regards,
Cal Minian

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

You are quite right. This is because the phrase "firstborn of creation" is an example where the word firstborn is the head noun of a gentive phrase. (Creation is gentive here).

Anyone with a Strongs or a bible searching program can check out all of the examples where one finds the phrase "firstborn of something" in both OT and NT and in each and every case the firstborn is part of a group.
I'm curious about the validity of your ascertion if one looks at the original languages.

The best I've ascertained A.Paul didn't use protoktisis=first created,
nor protogonos=firstborn but prototokos, which though such is usually the firstborn, it doesn't have to be and in fact doesn't even need to be a member of the family (eg: an adopted child or best friend).

Two comments you might find of interest...

The firstborn [male, takes] precedence in the family. Prototokos seems to have been chosen by the LXX translators when indicating this advantage. Becor and prototokos seem to be equivalents, because becor is almost always translated with prototokos. The Hebrew becor is used synonymously with prototokos, but becor is not related to the Hebrew word meaning "to give birth,"(yalad) or to the word meaning "first," (ehad) or to the word meaning "head" (rosh).
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/97-02/0416.html

Pietas in Ancestor Worship...
"Where Robertson Smith [in The Religion of the Semites] supposed parenthood and kinship to underly the worship of their gods by the Semites, Fustel argued (1864, bk. ii, chap. v) that it is the ancestral cult of the Romans which imposed agnatic kinship. 'The source of kinship', he says, 'was not the material fact of birth; it was the religious cult;' and he goes on (chap. vii) to demonstrate brilliantly how succession and inheritance are interlaced with the domestic ancestor cult. I quote: 'Man dies but the cult goes on ... While the domestic religion continues, the law of property must continue with it,' and further, with regard to the law of succession, 'since the domestic religion is hereditary ... from male to male, property is so too ... what makes the son the heir is not the personal wish of his father ... the son inherits as of full right ... the continuation of the property, as of the cults, is an obligation for him as much as a right. Whether he desires it or not it falls to him'. The essential point, by his reasoning, was that in early Greek and Roman Law descent in the male line exclusively determined the right to inherit and succeed to a father's property and status but it was primarily a religious relationship. Hence a son who had been excluded from the paternal cult by emancipation was also cut off from his inheritance, whereas a complete stranger who has made a member of the family cult by adoption thus became a son entitled to inherit both the worship and the property."
http://lucy.ukc.ac.uk/ERA/Ancestors/fortes1.html

The second cite has relevence to the death of the Egyptian firstborn. And the adoption of God of the Israelites as his firstborn.

Any insights you might have would be appreciated.

All the best.

[FlimFlamboyant]

As far as "this day have I begotten thee" goes, I believe that is concerning his resurrection:

(Act 13:33) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

As to whether or not this is tied to the fact that Jesus is the "firstborn":

(Col 1:18) And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

... Sure.

[NonTrinitarian]

Hi Cal,

I'm curious about the validity of your ascertion if one looks at the original languages.

The best I've ascertained A.Paul didn't use protoktisis=first created,


If my memory serves me correctly, the word protoktisis didn't even exist in the first century. A review of all the available greek literature was done by Greg Stafford and the earliest greek manuscript to contain that word was several centuries after Christ. Since language evolves and there's no documented use of that word in the first century, it's really an invalid argument to point out that Paul didn't use it.

[Cal_Minian]

Does firstborn in Colossians 1:15 merely mean pre-eminence?

πρωτοτοκοσ does not merely have the connotation of temporal priority in the Colossian hymn. In the normative usage of the word it carries both senses. As BDAG says:


1. lit. pert. to birth order, firstborn ... The special status enjoyed by a firstborn son as heir apparent in Israel is an implicit component of pr. in ref. to such a son and plays a dominant role in

2. pert. to having special status associated with a firstborn, firstborn, fig. ext. of 1 ... This expr., which is admirably suited to describe Jesus as the one coming forth fr. God to found the new community of believers, is also used in some instances where the force of the element -τοκοσ appears at first glance to be uncertain, but s. comment on status at end of 1

What are some of the things in Colossians 1 which place the Son as part of creation?

1. Syntax - The normative way the word firstborn is used in Scripture when it is the head noun of a genitive phrase such as in Colossians 1:15 is to carry both senses. I find four such examples in the GNT, Col 1:15,18; Heb 11:28 and Rev 1:5. If we exclude verse 15 for the moment the firstborn is the first part of the group of "the dead" who are resurrected to heavenly life and also the literal firstborn. In all these examples both senses in BDAG, 1 and 2, pre-eminence and temporal priority are in view. The word is not common in the GNT but as you note it is a synonymn with becor in Hebrew. There are also no examples of this syntax in the Greek LXX which do not place the "firstborn of something" as part of a group. (Cp. Exod. 11:5; 12:29; 13:13; Num. 1:20; 18:15; Deut. 12:6; 14:23; 15:19; 33:17; Jos. 6:26; 2 Sam. 3:2; 13:21; 2 Ki. 3:27; 1 Chr. 2:13; 8:1, 38f; 9:5, 44; Ps. 104:36; 135:10; Ezek. 44:30)

2. Context - The hymn has a Chiastic Structure which splits the hymn into a strophe for creation in the absolute sense and the new creation. The two instances of firstborn are thus parallel. The relationship between the Christ and the elements of both creations is also parallel. This preserves the coherence of the discourse. We can thus interpret Scripture with Scripture.

The Son is the firstborn from the dead and as such is the pre-eminent one of those resurrected to heavenly life as part of the new creation. However he is also part of that group. Both senses of #1 and #2 are preserved.

This runs through the entire hymn, the Christ being both first in time as well as the pre-eminent one of a group. He is the head of the body. He is the pre-emininent one of the body but he is also part of it. A head is a part of a body.

In fact BDAG also makes this direct application:
BDAG - EN = εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα (prob. to be understood as local, not instrumental, since εν αυ. would otherwise be identical w. δι αυ. in the same vs.) everything was created in association with him 1:16

Thus the Son is also the pre-eminent one of all creation but also a part of it, the first part of it, the firstborn of Creation.

[apostoli]

Greetings NonTrinitarian,

If my memory serves me correctly, the word protoktisis didn't even exist in the first century. A review of all the available greek literature was done by Greg Stafford and the earliest greek manuscript to contain that word was several centuries after Christ. Since language evolves and there's no documented use of that word in the first century, it's really an invalid argument to point out that Paul didn't use it.I wasn't aware of that. So thankyou.

However, protogonos=literal firstborn, dates at least back to Homer. So, the best I have ascertained, by A.Paul using using prototokon, his meaning isn't that of first in a generative way.

From my studies I'm detecting that prototokon, is in the context of the responsibilities/rights of the Logos/Son, a legal rather than a generative term.

Given Col 1:19, I consider Col 1:15 a neutral text. It also pleased the Father to make Israel his firstborn.

All the best

[apostoli]

Greetings Cal,

Does firstborn in Colossians 1:15 merely mean pre-eminence?

πρωτοτοκοσ does not merely have the connotation of temporal priority in the Colossian hymn. In the normative usage of the word it carries both senses. As BDAG says:


1. lit. pert. to birth order, firstborn ... The special status enjoyed by a firstborn son as heir apparent in Israel is an implicit component of pr. in ref. to such a son and plays a dominant role in

2. pert. to having special status associated with a firstborn, firstborn, fig. ext. of 1 ... This expr., which is admirably suited to describe Jesus as the one coming forth fr. God to found the new community of believers, is also used in some instances where the force of the element -τοκοσ appears at first glance to be uncertain, but s. comment on status at end of 1

What are some of the things in Colossians 1 which place the Son as part of creation?

1. Syntax - The normative way the word firstborn is used in Scripture when it is the head noun of a genitive phrase such as in Colossians 1:15 is to carry both senses. I find four such examples in the GNT, Col 1:15,18; Heb 11:28 and Rev 1:5. If we exclude verse 15 for the moment the firstborn is the first part of the group of "the dead" who are resurrected to heavenly life and also the literal firstborn. In all these examples both senses in BDAG, 1 and 2, pre-eminence and temporal priority are in view. The word is not common in the GNT but as you note it is a synonymn with becor in Hebrew. There are also no examples of this syntax in the Greek LXX which do not place the "firstborn of something" as part of a group. (Cp. Exod. 11:5; 12:29; 13:13; Num. 1:20; 18:15; Deut. 12:6; 14:23; 15:19; 33:17; Jos. 6:26; 2 Sam. 3:2; 13:21; 2 Ki. 3:27; 1 Chr. 2:13; 8:1, 38f; 9:5, 44; Ps. 104:36; 135:10; Ezek. 44:30)

2. Context - The hymn has a Chiastic Structure which splits the hymn into a strophe for creation in the absolute sense and the new creation. The two instances of firstborn are thus parallel. The relationship between the Christ and the elements of both creations is also parallel. This preserves the coherence of the discourse. We can thus interpret Scripture with Scripture.

The Son is the firstborn from the dead and as such is the pre-eminent one of those resurrected to heavenly life as part of the new creation. However he is also part of that group. Both senses of #1 and #2 are preserved.

This runs through the entire hymn, the Christ being both first in time as well as the pre-eminent one of a group. He is the head of the body. He is the pre-emininent one of the body but he is also part of it. A head is a part of a body.

In fact BDAG also makes this direct application:
BDAG - EN = εν αυτω εκτισθη τα παντα (prob. to be understood as local, not instrumental, since εν αυ. would otherwise be identical w. δι αυ. in the same vs.) everything was created in association with him 1:16

Thus the Son is also the pre-eminent one of all creation but also a part of it, the first part of it, the firstborn of Creation.Thankyou for the info.

In my studies I'm detecting the term is legalistic not geneological nor empirical. Eg: A king is the head of his kingdom but distinct from his subjects. As is a Father to a Son or a maker to the thing made.

Your cite to Heb 11:28 underlines this. The Egyptians dedicated their firstborn to their god, but "Moses forsook Egypt" (Heb 11:27) and obeyed his God. Of interest: later the firsborn dedication was depreciated/escalated to the priesthood of the Levites.

It seems to me that the the term used by A.Paul describes a position held rather than a generative thing or a priority.

All the best.

[Cal_Minian]

Greetings Cal,

Thankyou for the info.

In my studies I'm detecting the term is legalistic not geneological nor empirical. Eg: A king is the head of his kingdom but distinct from his subjects. As is a Father to a Son or a maker to the thing made.

Your cite to Heb 11:28 underlines this. The Egyptians dedicated their firstborn to their god, but "Moses forsook Egypt" (Heb 11:27) and obeyed his God. Of interest: later the firsborn dedication was depreciated/escalated to the priesthood of the Levites.

It seems to me that the the term used by A.Paul describes a position held rather than a generative thing or a priority.

All the best.

Hello apostoli,
You also might want to consider BDAG on Heb 11:28 where they categorize is as firstborn pertaining to birth order, see below. 1. lit. pert. to birth order, firstborn ... Hb 11:28 (cp. Ex 11:5).

That being said, the firstborn of Israel was an Israelite. And so the grammatical argument where the word firstborn is the head noun of a genitive phrase points to the Son of God as being the firstborn of creation and having the same relation to creation... that is both pre-eminent and part of it.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Sparko]

apostoli you better ask cal what he left out in the elipsis and get the previous and following sentences too.

[Cal_Minian]

apostoli you better ask cal what he left out in the elipsis and get the previous and following sentences too.

Dear Sparko,
I have no doubt that apostoli has access to BDAG considering the arguments he is making in the thread on Arius. I find it interesting that many Trinitarians want to attack the rendering of Greek to English in the NWT but rush to complain that I use references for which they do not have access. If someone is going to criticize the rendering based on the Greek they can only be taken seriously if they can work with the Greek themselves. Those that can have access to BDAG. Here is what you requested below:



τα. πρ. the firstborn=all the firstborn (ta. pr. Ex 22:28; Num 18:15 al.; Just., D. 84, 1; 111, 3) Hb 11:28 (cp. Ex 11:5). τα. πρ. των προβατων the firstborn of the sheep 1 Cl 4:1 (Gen 4:4). The special status enjoyed by a firstborn son as heir apparent in Israel is an implicit component of pr. in ref. to such a son and plays a dominant role in

[Cal_Minian]

Greetings NonTrinitarian,

I wasn't aware of that. So thankyou.

However, protogonos=literal firstborn, dates at least back to Homer. So, the best I have ascertained, by A.Paul using using prototokon, his meaning isn't that of first in a generative way.

From my studies I'm detecting that prototokon, is in the context of the responsibilities/rights of the Logos/Son, a legal rather than a generative term.

Given Col 1:19, I consider Col 1:15 a neutral text. It also pleased the Father to make Israel his firstborn.

All the best

Apostoli,
I think I see your position. Do you take the entire hymn to refer to the new creation of which Christ is a part? That is a possible interpretation except for the fact that the phrase in Colossian 1:15 does not qualify creation in the way it is qualified later in the hymn. He is the firstborn of ALL creation that is created in the image of God in verse 15. This applies to verses 15-16. This is strophe A of the hymn.

Strope B is transitional. (Verse 17)

Later the group is qualified by various means in the hymn to refer to the new creation (verses 18-20 are strophe C of the hymn.

However there appears to be agreement between us that the inclusive language makes the Christ part of creation in both phrases where firstborn is found, 15 and 18.

That being the case there is no need on your part to argue that the word firstborn merely indicates pre-eminence and not that he is part of a group, is there?


Regards,
Cal Minian

[apostoli]

Greetings Cal,

I think I see your position. Do you take the entire hymn to refer to the new creation of which Christ is a part?In terms of Col 1:15, no. I go with Novation's conclusion (end of last chapter)
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-138.htm

and what A.Paul says at Col 1:16-17,19 and Heb 1:2-3 (NWT). In the case of the later, the catch words for me are "appointed heir" and "sustains all things by the word of his power" which indicate to me, to be consistent A.Paul is using the legal sense of prototokon.

In that context I match Col 1:18 with Rev 1:18. The Son having the keys, indicates authority and responsibilty.

That is a possible interpretation except for the fact that the phrase in Colossian 1:15 does not qualify creation in the way it is qualified later in the hymn. He is the firstborn of ALL creation that is created in the image of God in verse 15. This applies to verses 15-16. This is strophe A of the hymn.Given Heb 2:17, I guess it is possible Col 1:15 refers to his humanity, but given Col 1:17 I think not.

I doubt A.Paul was following Philo in his exposition, especially given what he says at Heb 1:3. The Son isn't just the image of God, but "the exact replication of the [Father's] very being" (NWT). Which accords with Jesus' words at John 14:7-11.

Strope B is transitional. (Verse 17)

Later the group is qualified by various means in the hymn to refer to the new creation (verses 18-20 are strophe C of the hymn.I find the context in vs 19 & 20

However there appears to be agreement between us that the inclusive language makes the Christ part of creation in both phrases where firstborn is found, 15 and 18.Given in its legal usage prototokon can be appointed outside of the "family" I think our views diverge.

My reasoning is based on the question "How many firstborns does God have?"

That being the case there is no need on your part to argue that the word firstborn merely indicates pre-eminence and not that he is part of a group, is there?I believe the word prototokon has a greater implication in the hymn given the Son is proteuon (see NWTI)

I think my understanding aligns with the teaching of 1 Cor 15:20-28.

All the best

[Cal_Minian]

Dear apostoli,
I had concluded:
That being the case there is no need on your part to argue that the word firstborn merely indicates pre-eminence and not that he is part of a group, is there?


To which you replied:


I believe the word prototokon has a greater implication in the hymn given the Son is proteuon (see NWTI)

I think my understanding aligns with the teaching of 1 Cor 15:20-28.

All the best

I have been arguing that most examples of "first-born" include both the sense of temporal priority (first in time) and pre-eminence. This includes Colossians 1. To support this I appeal to:

1. The usage of first-born in both GNT and OT, particularly when found in the same syntax of "firstborn" as the head noun of a genitive phrase like in Colossians 1:15 and 18 overwhelmingly supports an instance with both senses.

2. The lexical description in BDAG which says that pre-eminence is a figurative extension of being born first and that when the word primarily refers to one who is born first "The special status enjoyed by a firstborn son as heir apparent in Israel is an implicit component of pr[wtotokos]." Thus being born first and being pre-eminent go hand in hand.

3. The lexical description in BDAG when in reference to one who is primarily pre-eminent includes "This expr., which is admirably suited to describe Jesus as the one coming forth fr. God to found the new community of believers, is also used in some instances where the force of the element -tokos appears at first glance to be uncertain." Thus being pre-eminent and being born first are clearly related in Scripture in most instances.

4. In the context of Colossians 1:15 and 18 where the word is used by Paul in parallel in the same context, this is also found to be the case. Paul illustrates that as the Son is the firstborn of the new creation but also part of it he is also the firstborn of creation in the universal sense and thus part of it.

5. Finally you appeal to "proteuon" in verse 18 but see Louw-Nida on this word specifically in this verse "87.46 πρωτευω: to be in the first position, with the implication of high rank and prominence - 'to be the first, to have superior status.' ινα γενηται εν πασιν αυvτοσ πρωτευων 'in order that he might have first place in all things' Col 1.18. - Thus "proteuon" is based upon being "the first" in time which implies prominence.

I did not see that any of your references proved that the Son was merely pre-eminent as firstborn and not first in time. In fact your references don't support that at all, particularly "proteuon" in verse 18.

I realize that you preface this with what you believe and I respect that. However I have offered convincing contextual and lexical proof that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever to limit the use of the term firstborn with respect to the Son of God to merely pre-eminence and not temporal priority.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Shazard]

What JW does not realize (they actually can't think about anything what is expressed longer than in 2 verses of Bible) is about implications of "Jesus being created before everything else".

Let me show you my point

I will cite several Jesus passages (if I lie, point to it, just for quick response I won't point exact scriptures)

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world.[...]"
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life.[...]
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. [...]

If Jesus is created, then by logical implication before he was created there were no light nor truth nor life. It is absurd to claim that truth and life was created. These are two very attributes of God himself. By claiming that they were created is to say that God himself was created whichi is nonsense.

When there were truth and life there were Jesus Christ. And it is true what is sayed in John 1:1 that truth and life (represented by Logos) was in God and was God. God is source of life and truth, so it is truth to say that God beggets Son, truth and life are begotten off God.

And as it is sayed... "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;" & " that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. "

Who sees Jesus Christ sees Father coz Father is in Christ and Christ is in Father for Father and Son are ONE!

[Cal_Minian]

What JW does not realize (they actually can't think about anything what is expressed longer than in 2 verses of Bible) is about implications of "Jesus being created before everything else".

Let me show you my point

I will cite several Jesus passages (if I lie, point to it, just for quick response I won't point exact scriptures)

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the light of the world.[...]"
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life.[...]
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. [...]

If Jesus is created, then by logical implication before he was created there were no light nor truth nor life. It is absurd to claim that truth and life was created. These are two very attributes of God himself. By claiming that they were created is to say that God himself was created whichi is nonsense.



Dear Shazard,

1. Jesus is the light of the world not all the light there is. In fact he said that his disiples were also the "light of the world." (Mt 5:14) There was a time when his disciples did not exist but that does not mean there was no light before them.

2. One of the ways Jesus is the life is because the Father resurrects through him and because we can live because of his ransom sacrifice. He said "the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world" at John 6:51. However he was not the ultimate source of that life. He continues in verse 57 with "57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. In fact, Jesus did not have "life in himself" until his Father gave it to him. "NET John 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself."


3. As your point out, Jesus said at John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." But you cut off the reason why. He continues with "No one comes to the Father except through me."

Jesus is the way to the Father who is the source of all life, including the source of the life of the Son himself!

There is no contradiction here and with your own reasoning you have been refuted.

Who sees Jesus Christ sees Father coz Father is in Christ and Christ is in Father for Father and Son are ONE!

I agree the Father and the Son are one. However he said that his disciples were one just like his Father and he were one.

NET John 17:21 that they will all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. I pray that they will be in us, so that the world will believe that you sent me. 22 The glory you gave to me I have given to them, that they may be one just as we are one-- 23 I in them and you in me--that they may be completely one, so that the world will know that you sent me, and you have loved them just as you have loved me.

In conclusion, this little diversion did not prove that Jesus was not created. In fact it proves that Jesus derived his life from his Father just as we derived our lives from our Fathers. The passage in Colossians 1:15 which starts the hymn calls the Son the "image of the invisible God." Just as all of us were made in the image of God, (Ge 1:26) so too was the Son, be he was the firstborn of all creation.

See my previous posts for the sense of firstborn in Colossians 1.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

I realize that you preface this with what you believe and I respect that. However I have offered convincing contextual and lexical proof that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever to limit the use of the term firstborn with respect to the Son of God to merely pre-eminence and not temporal priority.My apologies, you seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not arguing a exclusively pre-eminance position.

I agree the text is referring to the birth order and priority of position but I believe the teaching follows the Law, as regards the Father's true Son.

I missed replying to your post #27. And I didn't give a direct reply to a couple of items in your post #24, so I'll attempt to clarify my position by giving my response.

My premises:

1. The scriptures put the Son as existing before time.
2. Creation did not begat the Son.
3. The Son is a perfect sacrifice in accord with the Law.

Does firstborn in Colossians 1:15 merely mean pre-eminence?No. In the priestly and sacrificial systems it was particular to the first male child begotten - direct offspring - (either human or animal).

Pointedly, neither creation nor the dead begot the Son. Both are impossible propositions. Your appeal to the grammar would insist they did (see below). So, the text is telling us something different.


What are some of the things in Colossians 1 which place the Son as part of creation?

2. Context - The hymn has a Chiastic StructureThe two instances of firstborn are thus parallel. The relationship between the Christ and the elements of both creations is also parallel. This preserves the coherence of the discourse. We can thus interpret Scripture with Scripture.
Imu: The hymn has a theme starting in vs12-13 and confirmed in vs19-20. vs17 and the start of vs18 punctuate vs15&16 from the climax of vs18. Col 1:12 we give thanks to the Father, vs13 we are saved by his Son. vs14 through whose blood. vs15 the very Son of the Father vs16-17, the very maker of all things. vs18 [who had died] has risen from the dead. vs 20 So that by him we are reconciled to his Father.

The new creation is implied but isn't referred to in the chapter (see below). In vs 13 A.Paul talks of us being "made suitable for participation", and vs20-23 talks of our reconciliation. A.Paul's emphasis is the reconcilaition.

1. Syntax - The normative way the word firstborn is used in Scripture when it is the head noun of a genitive phrase such as in Colossians 1:15 is to carry both senses [of birth order and special status].I concede your arguments from grammar but not the meaning you attach (see below).

Greek constructs can be evasive to the non Greek. For instance John 1:1 has a grammar that says "what God was the Word was" (NEB). See Mantey. http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/dr_mantey_lt.html

In scripture birth order is often irrelevent to the appointment to the special status, but the actual firstborn maintains a status even though he may lose the special status (cp. 1 Chron 5:1). For instance David, Jacob etc were not a firstborn but became a firstborn. As did the nation of Israel. This cannot be said of a Father's son who remains true.

In the context of the last, I agree the text is referring to the birth order and priority of position of the Father's Son.

In the priestly and sacrificial systems it was specifically the the first male offspring that was dedicated to God (but only those without imperfection).

Imu: the text is in the realms of the firstborn sacrifices. Except in this case God sent his only begotten (firstborn) Son, firstborn offspring, by whom all things were made, to be the sacrifice (cp. Heb 9:26-10:4; 1 Jn 4:9; Rom 8:3). And as the perfect high priest and sacrifice...

The Son is the firstborn from the dead and as such is the pre-eminent one of those resurrected to heavenly life as part of the new creation. However he is also part of that group. Both senses of #1 and #2 are preserved.

This runs through the entire hymn, the Christ being both first in time as well as the pre-eminent one of a group. He is the head of the body. He is the pre-emininent one of the body but he is also part of it. A head is a part of a body.Pointedly, the dead didn't beget the Son. However, his Father did give him a rebirth - causing him to be alive - and so once again the Son is firsborn of his Father.

Imu: He isn't part of the group, the group "new creation" is extended to him. (cp. Col 2:10-12; Jn 17:22). 2 Cor 5:17 where we encounter "the new creation" is read in the context of vs 14-15: We being dead in Christ (but not actually dead).

1 Cor 12:27 says we are the body of Christ and members in particular. In this regard the Son has a duty of headship to the church, just as his Father has a duty of headship over him and a husband has a duty of headship over his wife (1 Cor 11:3). Each willingly submitting one to the other (Eph 5:20-28).

Another distinction: we are not sons begotten of God but adopted sons, begotten through Christ (Gal 4:5-7), God having sent forth the spirit of his Son into your hearts.

You also might want to consider BDAG on Heb 11:28 where they categorize is as firstborn pertaining to birth order, see below.
1. lit. pert. to birth order, firstborn ... Hb 11:28 (cp. Ex 11:5).I presume you'd agree that the Son was not begotten by the dead nor by the creation. Which would be neccessities if one understood prototokon as correlated to direct origin.

There are several issues in understanding Col 1:15 as prodigeny of creation. Primarily it implies that the creation precedes the Son. Which can't be, as vs 16 says the Son created all things. And as vs 17 says he is before all things. So, logically, he is before the creation. Before time (see Genesis).

The scriptures only speak of one beginning (Gen 1:1) and A.John believed the Logos already was (en ache en ho logos) before things were made (Jn 1:1-3).

A.Paul seems to explore this in verse 18 saying "he is the beginning" (which I take to refer to vs 12-13) proven in that he is "the firstborn from the dead that he might become the one "holding the first place" in all things. (see NWTI). Compare Rom 7:4 ; 1 Cor 15:20-21; Rev 3:14.

As pre-existent Logos he is before sin and death. But both A.Paul & A.John tells us the Logos took on flesh (cp. Jn 1:14; Heb 2:14). And we all believe that he died and was resurrected by his Father.

In the three origins, Logos, man, savior the Father was instrumental. But nowhere in scripture are any of these referred to as creations.

That being said, the firstborn of Israel was an Israelite. And so the grammatical argument where the word firstborn is the head noun of a genitive phrase points to the Son of God as being the firstborn of creation and having the same relation to creation... that is both pre-eminent and part of it.I take your grammatical point, but the Son is premeditated at vs13 and identified as being so of the Father.

Vs15 goes into vs16 and A.Paul fully explains his meaning "the firstborn of all creation because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth".(NWT)

The "[other]" is logical as the Son didn't create himself nor his Father. (cp. 1 Cor 15:27)

To understand vs 15 & 18 as meaning "first created" would via vs14 would teach that the Son's sacrifice was blemished and therefore under the law unacceptable to the Father. Jesus died sinless. Elsewhere A.Paul calls him the perfect sacrifice, and so at vs14 A.Paul says "we have redemption through [the Son's] blood, even for the forgiveness of sins."

The WT&TS' IotS, page 835 notes "The firstborn is primarily the oldest son of a father...the beginning of the father's generative power (De 21:17)" Which is indicative, that the Son is not an external creation.

All the best.

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

You said to Shazard...

In fact it proves that Jesus derived his life from his Father just as we derived our lives from our Fathers.Agreed. But we weren't created by our Fathers but direct offspring.

The passage in Colossians 1:15 which starts the hymn calls the Son the "image of the invisible God." Just as all of us were made in the image of God, (Ge 1:26) so too was the Son, he was the firstborn of all creation.If we are the image of our creator then we are the image of the Son - as A.Paul indicates in vs16. However, Gen 1:26 has the plural "our image" so logically we are created by proxy in the image of the Father also. Same for the new creation us being adopted through the Son.

I presume you are aware that the interpretation "first born of all creation" means creation gave birth to the Son. A.Paul contradicts such an understanding at vs 16&17.

All the best.

[Cal_Minian]

Hi Cal,

My apologies, you seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not arguing a exclusively

pre-eminance position.

I agree the text is referring to the birth order and priority of position but I believe

the teaching follows the Law, as regards the Father's true Son.

I missed replying to your post #27. And I didn't give a direct reply to a couple of

items in your post #24, so I'll attempt to clarify my position by giving my response.

My premises:

1. The scriptures put the Son as existing before time.
2. Creation did not begat the Son.
3. The Son is a perfect sacrifice in accord with the Law.



Dear apostoli,
I will expect you to support your premises from Scripture. I am unaware of any

Scripture which articulates the creation of time. I do not argue that Creation begot

the Son and neither my argument nor the grammar support this. I do agree with your

point #3.



No. In the priestly and sacrificial systems it was particular to the first male child

begotten - direct offspring - (either human or animal).

Pointedly, neither creation nor the dead begot the Son. Both are impossible

propositions. Your appeal to the grammar would insist they did (see below). So, the text

is telling us something different.



The grammatical argument for the partative genitive does not deal at all with the source

of the firstborn. The grammatical evidence supports that the head noun of a gentitive

phrase is part of a group. It does not grammaticize the source. This seems to be a

major theme of your response. However it does not have anything to do with the grammar

or my argument.

Imu: The hymn has a theme starting in vs12-13 and confirmed in vs19-20. vs17

and the start of vs18 punctuate vs15&16 from the climax of vs18. Col 1:12 we give thanks

to the Father, vs13 we are saved by his Son. vs14 through whose blood. vs15 the very Son

of the Father vs16-17, the very maker of all things. vs18 [who had died] has risen from

the dead. vs 20 So that by him we are reconciled to his Father.



If you maintain that the Son is being presented as maker here, I will disagree. If

this is your intent you will need to prove this. The grammar dictates that it is the

Father who creates in the Son. Therefore the Father is the creator.

The new creation is implied but isn't referred to in the chapter (see below). In

vs 13 A.Paul talks of us being "made suitable for participation", and vs20-23 talks of

our reconciliation. A.Paul's emphasis is the reconcilaition.

I concede your arguments from grammar but not the meaning you attach (see below).



I will see below, but need to point out that there are no examples where the word

firstborn is the head noun of a genitive phrase in the entire LXX or GNT which does not

make the firstborn part of a group. It does not dictate that the genitive phrase is

the source of the firstborn. For example, Exodus 13:13 speaks of the "firstborn of your

sons" and Deut 15:19 is "the firstborn of your bull." "Sons" are not the source while

"your bull" is the source. However both firstborn are part of a group.

Greek constructs can be evasive to the non Greek. For instance John 1:1 has a

grammar that says "what God was the Word was" (NEB). See Mantey.

http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/dr_mantey_lt.html


Is is irrelevant that because one construction is debated, in another controversial

text. The grammar of John 1:1 has nothing in common with the text we are discussing.

In scripture birth order is often irrelevent to the appointment to the special

status, but the actual firstborn maintains a status even though he may lose the special

status (cp. 1 Chron 5:1). For instance David, Jacob etc were not a firstborn but became

a firstborn. As did the nation of Israel. This cannot be said of a Father's son who

remains true.

This example actually support my argument. Reuben is the firstborn of Israel and as

such is the first one born of a group of Israels' sons. He did not retain his status as

the one born first in a group. I do not argue that one must have the status of

pre-eminence is what makes the firstborn a part of the group. Quite the opposite! It

is when the word firstborn is the head of a genitive phrase as in this example that

makes the firstborn part of a group.

In the context of the last, I agree the text is referring to the birth order and

priority of position of the Father's Son.

In the priestly and sacrificial systems it was specifically the the first male offspring

that was dedicated to God (but only those without imperfection).

Imu: the text is in the realms of the firstborn sacrifices. Except in this case God sent

his only begotten (firstborn) Son, firstborn offspring, by whom all things were made, to

be the sacrifice (cp. Heb 9:26-10:4; 1 Jn 4:9; Rom 8:3). And as the perfect high priest

and sacrifice...

If Paul had not used the Greek construction that he used you might have an argument.

But he uses language that makes the Son the firstborn who is both pre-eminent and a part

of creation. In the same manner he is the firstborn from the dead... the first to be

raised to heavenly life but still part of that group.

In addition your description of "in the realms of the firstborn" would indicate that you

view the Son as a member of a group of firstborns. However the word firstborn is not a

group in the context of Colossians 1! That is the opposite of the context. He is the

unique firstborn, the only pre-eminent one in various groups -- creation, the new

creation, his brothers who are resurrected, etc.


Pointedly, the dead didn't beget the Son. However, his Father did give him a

rebirth - causing him to be alive - and so once again the Son is firsborn of his Father.

Imu: He isn't part of the group, the group "new creation" is extended to him. (cp. Col

2:10-12; Jn 17:22). 2 Cor 5:17 where we encounter "the new creation" is read in the

context of vs 14-15: We being dead in Christ (but not actually dead).

1 Cor 12:27 says we are the body of Christ and members in particular. In this regard the

Son has a duty of headship to the church, just as his Father has a duty of headship over

him and a husband has a duty of headship over his wife (1 Cor 11:3). Each willingly

submitting one to the other (Eph 5:20-28).

Another distinction: we are not sons begotten of God but adopted sons, begotten through

Christ (Gal 4:5-7), God having sent forth the spirit of his Son into your hearts.




Whenever there are two similar contexts there will be distinctions, otherwise it would

be redundant. However none of your distinctions harm my exegesis. When you mention

"headship" to the church and the family you emphasize the pre-eminence of the Son. But

remember it is I who argue that the word firstborn generally contains both senses andin

particular I have documented this in Colossians 1, both contextually and grammatically.

So pointing out that the Son is pre-emeninent as firstborn merely confirms my exegesis.

As can be clearly seen the pre-eminence and temporal priority of a firsborn are not

mutually exclusive. In fact most of the time they are mutually inclusive.


I presume you'd agree that the Son was not begotten by the dead nor by the

creation. Which would be neccessities if one understood prototokon as correlated to

direct origin.

And as I have already shown, the grammatial construction of firstborn as the head of a

genitive noun does not signal the source, but being part of a group. If Colossians 1:15

does not make the Son a part of creation it is the only example with this construction

in Scripture.

There are several issues in understanding Col 1:15 as prodigeny of creation.

Primarily it implies that the creation precedes the Son. Which can't be, as vs 16 says

the Son created all things. And as vs 17 says he is before all things. So, logically, he

is before the creation. Before time (see Genesis).

You presume what you should be proving. The Son is not presented as the creator at

all. BDAG and Wallace both assign the Father as the ultimate agent with the Son as the

intermediate agent in creation. Additionally the EN AUTWi (in him=instrumental and

locative) indicates that the Father creates the new creation is association with the Son

and that the Father creates literal creation by means of the Son. The Son is never

presented as the one who performs the act of creation, neither grammatically or

contextualy. I have already shown that the argument that the creation must precede the

Son in order for the Son to be part of creation is neither indicated by the grammar, the

context or my argument.


The scriptures only speak of one beginning (Gen 1:1) and A.John believed the

Logos already was (en ache en ho logos) before things were made (Jn 1:1-3).

The grammar of John 1:1 does not say that the Word already was. The imperfect of EIMI

(to be) which is HN does not have this meaning. Additionally he was EN (in the)

beginning, not before it. If John had used PRO (before) it would have the meaning you

need. But it is not there. Actually the HN is probably inceptive as in "In the

beginning the Word came to be." From your discussion on Arius you know that the

Fathers intepreted the Greek here so that beginning was the Son who was "in the Father"

and then the Son became a person. That is the beginning, the beginning of the Son.

A.Paul seems to explore this in verse 18 saying "he is the beginning" (which I

take to refer to vs 12-13) proven in that he is "the firstborn from the dead that

he might become the one "holding the first place" in all things. (see NWTI). Compare Rom

7:4 ; 1 Cor 15:20-21; Rev 3:14.

The beginning is the first part of something else, in the case of Revelation 3:14 he is

the beginning of creation. I have already quoted Louw-Nida earlier which shows that the

Son is pre-eminent because of being first in time.

As pre-existent Logos he is before sin and death. But both A.Paul & A.John tells

us the Logos took on flesh (cp. Jn 1:14; Heb 2:14). And we all believe that he died and

was resurrected by his Father.

The Greek word GINOMAI literally says that the Logos BECAME flesh. The word is

transitive and means to become or change nature into something else. See BDAG. Hebrews

2:14 does not contradict this.

In the three origins, Logos, man, savior the Father was instrumental. But

nowhere in scripture are any of these referred to as creations.

I take your grammatical point, but the Son is premeditated at vs13 and identified as

being so of the Father.

Vs15 goes into vs16 and A.Paul fully explains his meaning "the firstborn of all creation

because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the

earth".(NWT)



The term firstborn of creation in Colossians 1:15 refers to none of those three things.

It refers to creation in the absolute sense, in the sense that the Son is the beginning

of creation. It is interesting that you understand that as LOGOS the Son had an

origin. Most Trinitarians would never do this.


The "[other]" is logical as the Son didn't create himself nor his Father. (cp. 1

Cor 15:27)

Agreed.

To understand vs 15 & 18 as meaning "first created" would via vs14 would teach

that the Son's sacrifice was blemished and therefore under the law unacceptable to the

Father. Jesus died sinless. Elsewhere A.Paul calls him the perfect sacrifice, and so at

vs14 A.Paul says "we have redemption through [the Son's] blood, even for the

forgiveness of sins."

There is nothing in the context of the Son as firstborn of literal creation or the new creation that would impute sinfullness to him. Verse 14 tells us we have forgiveness of sins by being in Christ. Being part of creation does not make the Son imperfect any more than Adam was created imperfect. Jesus is the last Adam according to Paul.


The WT&TS' IotS, page 835 notes "The firstborn is primarily the oldest son of a father...the beginning of the father's generative power (De 21:17)" Which is indicative, that the Son is not an external creation. All the best.

It will not do to quote the WT as if it does not agree with me. We both know this is not the case. As a matter of fact, the power of the Father is the source of all creation. (Isa 40:26) The Father creates Ex Nihilo.

Conclusion
==========

In conclusion you have argued against a position that I did not make and that the grammar does not dictate. The firstborn as the head noun of a genitive phrase does not define source. In all of Scripture in this construction the firstborn is a part of a group.

The Son as firstborn is not a member of a group of firstborns. He is the first one in a group as the firstborn.

The Son as perfect sacrifce is not diminished with him as part of creation. In fact he is the last Adam. His being part of creation as sacrifice is the perfect ransom.

No Scripture gramaticizes the Son as the ultimate agent in creation and he is nowhere called creator.

He is never presented as existing before time and nowhere does Scripture state that time was created.


Regards,
Cal Minian

[Cal_Minian]

Hi Cal,

You said to Shazard...

Agreed. But we weren't created by our Fathers but direct offspring.

If we are the image of our creator then we are the image of the Son - as A.Paul indicates in vs16. However, Gen 1:26 has the plural "our image" so logically we are created by proxy in the image of the Father also. Same for the new creation us being adopted through the Son.

I presume you are aware that the interpretation "first born of all creation" means creation gave birth to the Son. A.Paul contradicts such an understanding at vs 16&17.

All the best.

Dear apostoli,
As I showed in my lengthy post to you, when the word firstborn is the head noun of a genitive phrase, including phrases like "firstborn of my sons" and "firstborn of a bull" it always means the firstborn is a part of a group, not that the head noun is the source of the firstborn, which would certainly not make sense in the case of "firstborn of my sons." However the firstborn is one of the sons. Likewise the firstborn is part of creation.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Shazard]

Dear Shazard,
2. One of the ways Jesus is the life is because the Father resurrects through him and because we can live because of his ransom sacrifice. He said "the bread that I shall give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world" at John
6:51. However he was not the ultimate source of that life. He continues in verse 57 with "57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. In fact, Jesus did not have "life in himself" until his Father gave it to him. "NET John 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself."

But this is what Christians teach. The life of God is Christ. Read 1 John several first verses. John just speaks about it... as the life (Christ) was allways with God, it come to us on earth in the form of Jesus Christ. Logos became flesh. Logos, Life, Love which was with God before everything was was begotten into this world. But ethernally Christ allwas was with God. God's Logos and Life allways was with him - ethernally. He trascendents time and his source is God himself. God is source of God ethernaly. Because before the world was created there was nothing except God. God was/is/will be. This is the very name of his nature "I AM" :)


3. As your point out, Jesus said at John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." But you cut off the reason why. He continues with "No one comes to the Father except through me."

Can you go through door without going TO the door? That is another topic about praying and putting your trust in Christ. Do you put your trust of salvation on Christ?


Jesus is the way to the Father who is the source of all life, including the source of the life of the Son himself!

Ofcourese coz Son is the means of salvation. This is how God comes to man. Read 2 Cor 5: 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Christ is how God comes close to man. Christ is the way how God can "walk among them and be their God" Christ is temple of God, God is in Christ and Christ is in God. Who sees Christ sees the Father! Christ is Logos, Logos is God's wisdom, life, truth which was with him ethernally and became Christ when it became flesh. God's very nature incarnate in Jesus Chirst. Paul testifies about it... whole God's fullnes dwells in Him BODILY. ALL fullnes. God is ethernal, there can't be "part" of ethernal... all the God dwells in Chirst. If you don't recognize God in Christ, then you just don't know God. You are not fullfilling John 17:3, coz you rejcet Christ as your God and you don't honor Son as you honor Father.


I agree the Father and the Son are one. However he said that his disciples were one just like his Father and he were one.

Typical JW tactics. Take one meaning out of context and put it into other context and thus define context. Sorry, but I live otherwise... for me context defines meaning of words.


In conclusion, this little diversion did not prove that Jesus was not created. In fact it proves that Jesus derived his life from his Father just as we derived our lives from our Fathers.

Correct... and are we created by our fathers or born off them? Do we share the very nature of our fathers or we became something very differnt by nature? I am human coz my father was human. I am human coz my mother was human. The same goes with Christ. He shares his nature from father and from mother. From father he shares God's nature (which can't be divided) and from Marry he shares his human nature. So just wat Christians teach - fully man and fully God.


The passage in Colossians 1:15 which starts the hymn calls the Son the "image of the invisible God." Just as all of us were made in the image of God, (Ge 1:26) so too was the Son, be he was the firstborn of all creation.

BORN! Not created. Can you distinguish two different words. When I begget something it is the same I am - human. When dog beggets something it is dog by nature when flower beggets something it becames flower. When GOD beggets something it is God by nature. There is one nature - GOD. God by definition is what brings reality into existence. It is ethernal beeing which creates everything - YHWH is his very core name - Creator in english. Jesus shares this nature with his father.
And if you read Collosians fully, then will see that in Christ all the fullnes of God dwells. Can you say about every human that? Read Hebrew 1:3 where it is stated that he is representation of God's nature.
But you still does not recognize your creator even when he stands in front of you as man and does God's work. And even after he rises from dead you still don't believe what Thomas believed!

[Cal_Minian]

But this is what Christians teach...
Typical JW tactics. Take one meaning out of context and put it into other context and thus define context. Sorry, but I live otherwise... for me context defines meaning of words....

BORN! Not created. Can you distinguish two different words. When I begget something it is the same I am - human.

Dear Shazard,
I exegeted the text and you make claims with no proof. Should I call this a typical Trinitarian tactic?

Your entire argument rests on a distinction that you make, with no proof, that in biblical language to be born is different than being created.

Begotten or Created - is there a difference?


At Proverbs 8:22,25 the phrase created me in the Greek (EKTISEN ME, created me) is used in parallel with the phrase begets me (GENNA ME).

22 The LORD created me at the beginning [ 1 ] of his work, [ 2 ] the first of his acts of long ago. [1] Or me as the beginning [2] Heb way 25 Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth-- (NRSV)
22 The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. 25 before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begets me. (Brenton LXX)
22 KURIOJ EKTISEN ME ARXHN ODWN AUTOU EIJ ERGA AUTOU 25 PRO TOU ORH EDRASQHNAI PRO DE PANTWN BOUNWN GENNA ME (LXX)


At Psalm 90:2 it is said of the mountains that they were born using the same word as Proverbs 8:25 GENAW. However we know that mountains are created.

2 Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (NAB) 2 PRO TOU ORH GENHQHNAI (GENAW) KAI PLASQHNAI THN GHN KAI THN OIKOUMENHN KAI APO TOU AIWNOJ EWJ TOU AIWNOJ SU EI (LXX)


Conclusion
The artificial distinction that Trinitarians make to avoid calling the Son of God "created" by making a distinction between "begotten" and "created" is not Scriptural. When Scripture uses the word begotten or only-begotten in reference to the Son it is speaking of his origin. (c.f. John 1:18)

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Shazard]

Dear Shazard,
I exegeted the text and you make claims with no proof. Should I call this a typical Trinitarian tactic?

John 10:30. Very different context, exactly speaking about relationship between Father and Son. This is another context then John 17 you referr to. So I read context and I have no problem to agree with you in John 17, as context of "one" is different there as context requires. But context of John 10 is different and it speaks about nature of Fatehr and Son, which is ONE!

Begotten or Created - is there a difference?

You use Bible to learn elementary language.
There are 2 different words, so there are difference :)
And to be born is not the same as to be created. No rule can change it. And as far as I know to be born adn to be created never was the same ever in history of man.
This is normal semantics of word, and again, do not go to different context. Keep on the context we are talking and it is crystal clear. I don't need ANY other book of Bible to understand first 18 verses of John. And even more... John Gospel is sufficient for salvation as John claims it in John 20:31. You are one who seeks workarounds of what is crystal clear, as you don't believe Bible you believe WT. I DO NOT believe in WT so I am not bound to your interpretation. I belive in Bible so if it sayse "fistborn" then it is is NOT "firstcreated" and I don't care how much you want it to be so... it is not... as God's Word is stronger than your word and WT word. And that the WT word is not GOd's word is shown by their history of false prophecies. So I follow God's Word - it is false prophet do not fear off him. :)
You are afraid of WT I am not :) I am afraid of God, but you can't distniguish God and WT

[NonTrinitarian]

Cal made this comment about your tactics: "Dear Shazard,
I exegeted the text and you make claims with no proof. Should I call this a typical Trinitarian tactic?

Your entire argument rests on a distinction that you make, with no proof."

Then you say this:

John 10:30. Very different context, exactly speaking about relationship between Father and Son. This is another context then John 17 you referr to. So I read context and I have no problem to agree with you in John 17, as context of "one" is different there as context requires. But context of John 10 is different and it speaks about nature of Fatehr and Son, which is ONE!
Cal hit it on the head. Where in John 10:30 does it speak of "nature"? Show me the context, highlight it if you can find it. You make arguments with no proof. Yep, a typical Trinitarian tactic.

Begotten or Created - is there a difference?

You use Bible to learn elementary language.
There are 2 different words, so there are difference :)
And to be born is not the same as to be created. No rule can change it. And as far as I know to be born adn to be created never was the same ever in history of man.
Thus saith Shazzard... And it came to pass. :lol:


This is normal semantics of word, and again, do not go to different context. Keep on the context we are talking and it is crystal clear. I don't need ANY other book of Bible to understand first 18 verses of John.

This comment says enough. I'll let it stand on its own:ahem:


And even more... John Gospel is sufficient for salvation as John claims it in John 20:31. You are one who seeks workarounds of what is crystal clear, as you don't believe Bible you believe WT.
Coming from a guy who just said " I don't need ANY other book of Bible to understand first 18 verses of John."

But if you ask him what the beginning is at John 1:1 he'll take you right to Genesis 1:1:lol:

I DO NOT believe in WT so I am not bound to your interpretation. I belive in Bible so if it sayse "fistborn" then it is is NOT "firstcreated" and I don't care how much you want it to be so... it is not... as God's Word is stronger than your word and WT word.
For a man who loves the Bible so much he sure jumped down Cal's throat for using it to show how the BIBLE uses the words born and created. And since the greek word for "firstcreated" apparently wasn't in existence in the first century I find it difficult for him to expect the Apostle Paul to have used it to describe Christ.


And that the WT word is not GOd's word is shown by their history of false prophecies. So I follow God's Word - it is false prophet do not fear off him. :)
You are afraid of WT I am not :) I am afraid of God, but you can't distniguish God and WT
Oops! Did I reply to the wrong thread? I thought this was about Col 1:15. Isn't it funny how, when Trinitarians get whipped, they jump off to another topic to avoid the spotlight?

It's obvious you have no real argument and the basis of yor reply is emotion, not fact. Ever heard of the verse about not throwing pearls to swine? If there's one area both Cal and myself need to work on, that's probably it.

[Jeannot]

Some general considerations:--

Paul does not seem to have a doctrine of the Trinity, at least a fully worked-out one. That didn't come along until a couple of centuries later, and is part of Tradition. This would make the RCC okay with the doctrine, but not the "sola scriptura" crowd.

I think the Arians pointed to Proverbs 8:22ff as evidence that the Son--depicted here as "Wisdom," was "born" before Creation:

"The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, before His works of old . . . . and I was beside him, as a master workman. And I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before Him rejoicing in the world, His earth, and delighting to be with the children of men."

This passage would fit with the opening of John's prologue.

On a side issue: God is pure spirit, which is beyond biology. Male and female are biological distincitons.

[Sparko]

LOL, nontrin is like a little puppy following cal around yipping "me too! me too!" but contributing nothing.

The word prototoko does not mean first created. deal with it. wiggle all you want, it doesn't mean first created. It is using "firstborn" in the sense of the owner of creation. The firstborn in ANE had special privileges and rights over the property of his Father, he ran the family business and made sure everything was in order. It didn't mean that he WAS the family business itself. If the family were sheepherders and the firstborn was in charge of the sheep it didn't mean he was a sheep. It meant he owned and managed the sheep.

This verse is equating Jesus with those rights over creation.

Again, you JW's can't even read in context because the very next verse explains why Jesus is the firstborn over all creation, because HE CREATED IT.

16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

He not only created everything (see John 1:3 too) he maintains everything in the universe (which means he is omnipotent and omnipresent)

When JWs actually learn to read in context, they become trinitarians. That is why the Watchtower discourages reading the bible without the watchtower mag as a guide, and puts down independent thinking. They know once you start reading the bible without the watchtower and using your God-given brains, you will become "apostate" trinitarians.

Your friend,

the apostate Sparko.

[NonTrinitarian]

LOL, nontrin is like a little puppy following cal around yipping "me too! me too!" but contributing nothing.

The word prototoko does not mean first created. deal with it. wiggle all you want, it doesn't mean first created. It is using "firstborn" in the sense of the owner of creation. The firstborn in ANE had special privileges and rights over the property of his Father, he ran the family business and made sure everything was in order. It didn't mean that he WAS the family business itself. If the family were sheepherders and the firstborn was in charge of the sheep it didn't mean he was a sheep. It meant he owned and managed the sheep.

This verse is equating Jesus with those rights over creation.

Again, you JW's can't even read in context because the very next verse explains why Jesus is the firstborn over all creation, because HE CREATED IT.

16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

He not only created everything (see John 1:3 too) he maintains everything in the universe (which means he is omnipotent and omnipresent)

When JWs actually learn to read in context, they become trinitarians. That is why the Watchtower discourages reading the bible without the watchtower mag as a guide, and puts down independent thinking. They know once you start reading the bible without the watchtower and using your God-given brains, you will become "apostate" trinitarians.

Your friend,

the apostate Sparko.

Sparko,
Provide ONE example from ANYWHERE in the Bible where someone is said to be the firstborn of something and is not PART of the GROUP he is said to be firstborn of and I will become a Trinitarian. Deal?

Otherwise, why would I assign a definition to the term at Col 1:15 that is never used anywhere else in the Bible?

[Cal_Minian]

Cal made this comment about your tactics: "Dear Shazard,
I exegeted the text and you make claims with no proof. Should I call this a typical Trinitarian tactic?

Your entire argument rests on a distinction that you make, with no proof."

Then you say this:


Cal hit it on the head. Where in John 10:30 does it speak of "nature"? Show me the context, highlight it if you can find it. You make arguments with no proof. Yep, a typical Trinitarian tactic.

Thus saith Shazzard... And it came to pass. :lol:
This comment says enough. I'll let it stand on its own:ahem:

Coming from a guy who just said " I don't need ANY other book of Bible to understand first 18 verses of John."

But if you ask him what the beginning is at John 1:1 he'll take you right to Genesis 1:1:lol:


For a man who loves the Bible so much he sure jumped down Cal's throat for using it to show how the BIBLE uses the words born and created. And since the greek word for "firstcreated" apparently wasn't in existence in the first century I find it difficult for him to expect the Apostle Paul to have used it to describe Christ.


Oops! Did I reply to the wrong thread? I thought this was about Col 1:15. Isn't it funny how, when Trinitarians get whipped, they jump off to another topic to avoid the spotlight?

It's obvious you have no real argument and the basis of yor reply is emotion, not fact. Ever heard of the verse about not throwing pearls to swine? If there's one area both Cal and myself need to work on, that's probably it.

Dear NonTrin,
I can't improve upon your response. I will allow it to speak for me as well. Good job.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Sparko]

Sparko,
Provide ONE example from ANYWHERE in the Bible where someone is said to be the firstborn of something and is not PART of the GROUP he is said to be firstborn of and I will become a Trinitarian. Deal?

Otherwise, why would I assign a definition to the term at Col 1:15 that is never used anywhere else in the Bible?

Exodus 4:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=4&verse=22&version=31&context=verse)
Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,

Does that make Israel part of God or a God?


Welcome brother trinitarian.

[Cal_Minian]

LOL, nontrin is like a little puppy following cal around yipping "me too! me too!" but contributing nothing.

The word prototoko does not mean first created. deal with it. wiggle all you want, it doesn't mean first created. It is using "firstborn" in the sense of the owner of creation. The firstborn in ANE had special privileges and rights over the property of his Father, he ran the family business and made sure everything was in order. It didn't mean that he WAS the family business itself. If the family were sheepherders and the firstborn was in charge of the sheep it didn't mean he was a sheep. It meant he owned and managed the sheep.

This verse is equating Jesus with those rights over creation.

Dear Sparko,
Your problem with this verse is much deeper than a mere definition. Even if you define the word "firstborn" in verse 15 to mean someone who is pre-eminent and not first-created you are left with the problem of grammar and syntax. What you have is the pre-eminent one of creation with the sense that this one is still a part of creation. You evidently think that mis-construing the next verse lets you off the hook, but it does not. See below.


Again, you JW's can't even read in context because the very next verse explains why Jesus is the firstborn over all creation, because HE CREATED IT.

16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

He not only created everything (see John 1:3 too) he maintains everything in the universe (which means he is omnipotent and omnipresent)



Colossians 1:16 cannot be used to prove that the Son is the one who performs the action of the verb create. You quote "by him" as if that is proof, but you are merely asserting what you already believe to be the case.

The fact is that the phrase "by him" is in Greek literaly "in him" in the dative, which is either locative or instrumental. That means that the Father who is the one in this passage who is the one who has already beeen defined as the ultimate agent (Col 1:13) is the one who creates.

And so BDAG states for EN in this verse: Everything was created in association with him 1:16

Also the preposition "through him" (DIA) shows that the Son was used by the Father in creation with Christ as intermediary in the creation of the world J 1:3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16.

Notice that BDAG also dispatches your use of John 1:3 as well.

I posted much more earlier on this verse which shows that Paul's argument in this hymn is that the Son is the first member and pre-eminent one in a number of groups which he describes in parallel in this Chiastic Structure. Read my previous posts on this. I am happy to teach you about this structure again!

The Son is the first one to be resurrected to heavenly life and also the most pre-eminent one because he resurrects his brothers. But he is still part of this group, the firstborn part. This firstborn is parallel to the one in verse 15.

Verse 15 is all of creation and verse 18 is the new creation. Paul makes it clear that the Son is part of both of those groups and holds the same position, the firstborn pre-eminent one and the literal first one in time, but still part of each group.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Sparko]

cal, at this point I would run outside and check if you told me the sky was blue.

You merely take things out of context and use BDAG like it was a grammar book when it is merely a lexicon. You have been told this over and over by people such as Jaltus.

I think I will trust the professional translators of the bible instead of you, OK? They translated it as He is the creator. He created everything and holds everything together. The whole section is talking about CHRIST being the creator, not God the Father. The fact that verse 16 goes on to explain that to the reader shows that "firstborn" doesn't mean he is part of creation. He is not firstborn OF the creation, he is firstborn OVER creation. It also says he is the image of God in the same thought meaning he is firstborn over creation like GOD is.



The first born (prōtotokos). Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Logos passage in John 1:1-18 and to Heb_1:1-4 as well as Phi_2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (lxx and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely “Biblical” (Thayer), since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Luk_2:7 and Aleph for Mat_1:25; Rom_8:29.

The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like “all creation” (pāsēs ktiseōs, by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of prōtos that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Col_1:18; Rom_8:29; Heb_1:6; Heb_12:23; Rev_1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before “all creation” (angels and men). Like eikōn we find prōtotokos in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos teaching (Philo) as well as in the lxx. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikōn (Image) and to the universe as prōtotokos (First-born).

Verse 16 says ALL was created by him, therefore he had to be BEFORE all creation and not part of it, see John 1:1-3

[NonTrinitarian]

Exodus 4:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=2&chapter=4&verse=22&version=31&context=verse)
Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son,

Does that make Israel part of God or a God?


Welcome brother trinitarian.

No, I don't think you understood my challenge

Jehovah is saying that the nation of Israel holds the position of firstborn over the other nations. Last time I checked Israel was a nation. So it is firstborn of all the nations and yet it is a nation. It is in the group of which it is firstborn of.

BTW, God has many sons, none of who are 'part of God'. Actually, I guess by your logic Israel is Jesus:lol:

[Sparko]

No, I don't think you understood my challenge

Jehovah is saying that the nation of Israel holds the position of firstborn over the other nations. Last time I checked Israel was a nation. So it is firstborn of all the nations and yet it is a nation. It is in the group of which it is firstborn of.

BTW, God has many sons, none of who are 'part of God'. Actually, I guess by your logic Israel is Jesus:lol:

No he didn't say Israel, firstborn of the nations, did he? He says Israel, MY firstborn. The firstborn of God.

It doesn't matter what I think about what he means by firstborn here. It only matters what you CLAIMED firstborn always means. You said if I showed you even one place in the bible where firstborn did not mean part of the group then you would become a trinitarian.

I did so. Israel is called the firstborn of God. So either firstborn in this instance means Israel is a God or firstborn doesn't mean that it has to be part of the group itself.

So I guess you were not telling the truth about becoming a trinitarian then? That doesn't surprise me one bit.

:lmbo:

[Cal_Minian]

No, I don't think you understood my challenge

Jehovah is saying that the nation of Israel holds the position of firstborn over the other nations. Last time I checked Israel was a nation. So it is firstborn of all the nations and yet it is a nation. It is in the group of which it is firstborn of.

BTW, God has many sons, none of who are 'part of God'. Actually, I guess by your logic Israel is Jesus:lol:

NonTrin,
You are correct. In the Greek of Ex 4:22 it is PRWTOTOKOS MOU where MOU is the possessive pronoun. In Colossians 1:15 KTSEWS (creation) is not a pronoun. Apples and Oranges.

Ex 4:22 is possessive and not partative.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

Thankyou for posts #37 & #38.

To keep this post managable. I'll just respond to the conclusion of your post and a couple of your major points.

But first: My enquiry is an honest one. If I am wrong then I am happy to admit it. But so far your argument isn't convincing. Not so much as regards the grammar for the last clause of vs15, but for the context it is placed in via vs16&17.

you have argued against a position that I did not make and that the grammar does not dictate.My apology: From your highlight of the word "First" in post #34, I took your personal understanding as the first to be born of creation, the first of a group eg: Adam being formed from the earth.

Also, in scripture the firstborn is usually generative within the group of same type. So given your emphasis I understood you in a similar way. I did suspect that you held that the text related to the humanity of the Son but now I understand you otherwise.

There are those that hold that the pre-existent son was created but not as other things created. So in that context, they assert the Son was not the first of things that were created, but the beginning of creation. It is a subtle difference, but in anycase they do not understand Col 1:15 the way you are presenting. Their view that the Son is set apart from the particular creation A.Paul is discussing. My view is different, but my conclusion in regards to the text the same.

In the three origins, Logos, man, savior, the Father was instrumental. But
nowhere in scripture are any of these referred to as creations.The term firstborn of creation in Colossians 1:15 refers to none of those three things. It refers to creation in the absolute sense, in the sense that the Son is the beginning of creation.Agreed. Though my emphasis is the Logos as beginning, not as first creature.

In this regards I had to pause to think on Col 1:18 "os estin e arche, prototokos ek ton nekron": given "ek" he is definitely the first out of the many. But I can't see the inference of "first of" in vs15 (see below). As you noted the construct indicates the firstborn is part of a group, but the prototokos in its legal sense doesn't have to originate from that group. For instance: the Son is not part of the group who die because they have sinned (all persons), nor is he part of the group of those dead who will not receive a resurrection. It seems to me, from A.Paul's theme of our reconcilation to the Father through the Son, that there is a distinction to be made in understanding A.Paul's words.

It is interesting that you understand that as LOGOS the Son had an origin. Most Trinitarians would never do this.I simply agree with what the early church Fathers taught and the creeds state - the Son was begotten (if he wasn't we'd have two unoriginates and therefore two gods). Begotten of the Father and therefore true Son, God from God (see below). But his generation is not within the creation time, but in eternity, which has neither beginning nor end.

In the conclusion to your post you stated "The Son is never presented as existing before time and nowhere does Scripture state that time was created." In the opening of your post you stated "I will expect you to support your premises from Scripture. I am unaware of any Scripture which articulates the creation of time."

I doubt you hold the position that time is unoriginate, so I presume you take time as originating as a concept and not a thing - something that is "set" or "appointed" by God.

I had a think on this: Ecclesiatus 3, speaks of times and seasons, which seems to be linked to Genesis 1:14, where God establishes measures of time for us. However, at vs5, when the first day was, the division of night and day had already been established. And the heavens and earth already existed, so they were created before temporal time. However, the scriptures say God establishes times. So when Moses speaks of "In the beginning" he is speaking of the times of creation. In which case: because the heavens and the earth are spoken of as the first things created, they are the literal firstborn in creation, from which all earthly things were formed.

A.John believed the Logos was "pros ton theon" before anything came to be. So the Son, imu, is before the creative time. I guess, in relation to "God's plan", we could assume another "times", though I don't see how such a thought profits us. All other "times" referring to temporal things.

The artificial distinction that Trinitarians make to avoid calling the Son of God "created" by making a distinction between "begotten" and "created" is not Scriptural. When Scripture uses the word begotten or only-begotten in reference to the Son it is speaking of his origin. (c.f. John 1:18)Created is also an artificial distinction. In creation offspring are said to be born of the woman but begotten of the man, and yet there are those that are said to be born of God (1 John etc).

The big question is how does the intemporal generate anything? And in regard to the "the how" of the Son, the scriptures are silent. A more important point: scriptures only talk about temporal creation, and I trust you agree that the Logos was external to but involved in the temporal creation.

The firstborn as the head noun of a genitive phrase does not define source. In all of Scripture in this construction the firstborn is a part of a group.In all of scripture, the firstborn is not a creation, but offspring, true Son of their Father.

The Son as firstborn is not a member of a group of firstborns.The Son is definitely shown in scripture to be a member of a group of firstborns in regard to the dedication and sacrificial systems. vs14 seems to suggest this and seems to predicate at least the first clause of vs15. Though I don't think it predicates the 2nd clause.

He is the first one in a group as the firstborn. The Son as perfect sacrifce is not diminished with him as part of creation. In fact he is the last Adam. His being part of creation as sacrifice is the perfect ransom.Which begs the question: Why did the creature need to become as the creature? God could have caused a locust to become man. So there is something significant in the Son having the position of prototokos. A.John in his first epistle requires us to believe that the Father sent his Son, and it was through the Son of God, that all things came to be, and who became flesh (1 John 4:14-15).

No Scripture gramaticizes the Son as the ultimate agent in creation and he is nowhere called creator.I suggest he is the ultimate agent, but not the ultimate agency (1 Cor 8:6).

Imu: The hymn has a theme...Col 1:12 we give thanks, to the Father, vs13 we are saved by his Son. vs14 through whose blood. vs15 the very Son of the Father vs16-17, the very maker of all things. vs18 [who had died] has risen from the dead. vs 20 So that by him we are reconciled to his Father.If you maintain that the Son is being presented as maker here, I will disagree. If this is your intent you will need to prove this. The grammar dictates that it is the Father who creates in the Son. Therefore the Father is the creator.As the Father causes salvation by the Son. I doubt you contemplate that it is the Father who was crucified, died and went to sheol.

The Father is the architect but the Son was the workman - Jn 1:3 (di auton=through him), Heb 1:2 (di ou=through whom), 1 Cor 8:6 (di ou). see below.

If Paul had not used the Greek construction that he used you might have an argument. But he uses language that makes the Son the firstborn who is both pre-eminent and a part of creation.It is the language of A.Paul that leads me to disagree with your understanding.

Transliterating Col 1:16-17 it says "firstborn of all creation because in him it was created the all things...the all things through him and into him it has been created and he is before all things and the all things in him it has stood together (ie: made to exist)"

The Son is never presented as the one who performs the act of creation, neither grammatically or
contextualyYes and no. 1 Cor 8:6 is interesting saying of the Father "ex ou ta panta". Col 1:16 starts "en auto ektisthe" but concludes "ta panta di autoukai eis auton". ie: out of the Father are all things, but instrumental and
locative is the Son through and for whom all things are created. As Jesus says at John 14:10 "believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me...the Father that dwells in me, he does the works".

In this context, I agree the text is referring to the birth order and priority of position of the Father's Son.

Peace and all the best.

[Cal_Minian]

cal, at this point I would run outside and check if you told me the sky was blue.

You merely take things out of context and use BDAG like it was a grammar book when it is merely a lexicon. You have been told this over and over by people such as Jaltus.

I think I will trust the professional translators of the bible instead of you, OK? They translated it as He is the creator.

Sparko,
The rendering created "by him" does not prove he is not the intermediate agent used by the Father. In English the phrase "by him" can be used either as the Father created "by him" or that something was created "by him." However in Greek the only possible meaning is instrumental or locative which clearly places the Son as the intermediate agent. BDAG and Wallace both agree. And perhaps you have not read my last post to Jaltus where I give him proof from Wallace that BDAG is THE definitive resource on the use of the preposition. This clearly refutes his position (which you have parroted) that BDAG cannot be used in texts like the very one we are discussing. Clearly it is the most recent and best resourse for this. Jaltus has not responded but he knows about this post. We discussed it in a private message.


He created everything and holds everything together. The whole section is talking about CHRIST being the creator, not God the Father. The fact that verse 16 goes on to explain that to the reader shows that "firstborn" doesn't mean he is part of creation. He is not firstborn OF the creation, he is firstborn OVER creation. It also says he is the image of God in the same thought meaning he is firstborn over creation like GOD is.

Not quite. There are two contexts being compared together, that of the literal creation and the new creation which God creates "in him." BDAG shows they view it this way when they say all things were created "in association" with him. Of course he needs to precede those who are created in assocation with him. They are his body and he is the head. That is what Colossian 1:18 says.

Sparko, is the head part of the body?

<grin>

The first born (prōtotokos). Predicate adjective again and anarthrous. This passage is parallel to the Logos passage in John 1:1-18 and to Heb_1:1-4 as well as Phi_2:5-11 in which these three writers (John, author of Hebrews, Paul) give the high conception of the Person of Christ (both Son of God and Son of Man) found also in the Synoptic Gospels and even in Q (the Father, the Son). This word (lxx and N.T.) can no longer be considered purely “Biblical” (Thayer), since it is found In inscriptions (Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 91) and in the papyri (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.). See it already in Luk_2:7 and Aleph for Mat_1:25; Rom_8:29.

The use of this word does not show what Arius argued that Paul regarded Christ as a creature like “all creation” (pāsēs ktiseōs, by metonomy the act regarded as result). It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of prōtos that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Col_1:18; Rom_8:29; Heb_1:6; Heb_12:23; Rev_1:5. Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before “all creation” (angels and men). Like eikōn we find prōtotokos in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logos teaching (Philo) as well as in the lxx. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikōn (Image) and to the universe as prōtotokos (First-born).

Your quote from Roberston is interesting but he is arguing against a position that I do not hold. I did not argue that the phrase was metonomy. It may be, but that is not my argument. It is that in every instance where the word firstborn is the head noun of a genitive phrase it is part of a group defined in the context.... in this case creation as a whole and the new creation. I presume you agree Christ is part of the new creation?

Additionally, in Colossians 1:18 which Robertson cites, Christ is a member of the dead who were resurrected, the firstborn of that group but part of the group. Robertson also cites Romans 8:29 where Christ is the firstborn among brothers. Clearly he is one of the brothers but he first one.

That should be enought right there to show that you misused Robertson to argue against my position. JWs are not Arians, BTW.

Verse 16 says ALL was created by him, therefore he had to be BEFORE all creation and not part of it, see John 1:1-3

He is before the new creation and they are created in him as the head. However the grammar of verse 16 cannot be used to prove that what was created in him is the same exact thing from verse 15. Notice the word "all" in verse 15 is PASHS which is femine to match the feminine KTISEWS. (creation). In verse 16 it is switched to PANTA in the neuter. Therefore it has lost its concord with the previous verse.

This is because there is a transition between the literal creation and the new creation. If you continue in verse 16 you can see that what is created in him are defined further.


Colossians 1:16 for all things in heaven and on earth were created in him [EN AUTWi] --all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers

Since these things are being created in him we know that Satan and the demons are not included. These are the elements of the kingdom of the Son of his love... all good guys.

They make up the new creation and in verse 18 the word firstborn refers to the new creation. It is in chiastic parallel with verse 15 and so we know that he holds the same position as firstborn in both groups.... pre-eminent in both groups while being part of them.... the creation in an absolute sense as well as the new creation.

To argue otherwise destroys Pauls argument and denies the Chiastic Structure.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Sparko]

NonTrin,
You are correct. In the Greek of Ex 4:22 it is PRWTOTOKOS MOU where MOU is the possessive pronoun. In Colossians 1:15 KTSEWS (creation) is not a pronoun. Apples and Oranges.

Ex 4:22 is possessive and not partative.

Regards,
Cal Minian

LOL you just admitted that prototokus in Ex4:22 was referring to God as the group (possessive) which agreed with what I was saying, not nontrin.

If Israel was the firstborn OF GOD (the possessive indicates that 'my' refers to God as the owner)

You really do need to get a Greek grammar book.

And thou shalt say (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0559) (8804 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/extras.cgi?number=8804)) unto Pharaoh, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=06547) Thus saith (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0559) (8804 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/extras.cgi?number=8804)) the LORD, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03068) Israel (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=03478) is my son, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01121) even my firstborn: (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=01060) su (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4771) de (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1161) ereiv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1513) tw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) Faraw (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5328) tade (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3592) legei (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3004) kuriov (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2962) uiov (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5207) prwtotokov (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4416) mou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1473) Israhl (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2474)

[Cal_Minian]

LOL you just admitted that prototokus in Ex4:22 was referring to God as the group (possessive) which agreed with what I was saying, not nontrin.

If Israel was the firstborn OF GOD (the possessive indicates that 'my' refers to God as the owner)

You really do need to get a Greek grammar book.



Sparko,
No I just showed that Exodus 4:22 is a possessive genitive which is not the same as a partative genitive. This cannot be disputed because MOU (my) is a possessive pronoun. The possessive pronoun is not found in Col 1:15. Thus there is not any basis to compare Ex 5:22 with Col 1:15 grammatically.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Sparko]

Sparko,
No I just showed that Exodus 4:22 is a possessive genitive which is not the same as a partative genitive. This cannot be disputed because MOU (my) is a possessive pronoun. The possessive pronoun is not found in Col 1:15. Thus there is not any basis to compare Ex 5:22 with Col 1:15 grammatically.

Regards,
Cal Minian

I didnt need to compare it to Col 1:15 grammatically 1:1 did I?

Nontrin said that firstborn ALWAYS meant that the firstborn was part of the group it was referring to. Exodus shows that the "group" was God. Israel was the firstborn OF God. The actual phrase "MY FIRSTBORN" is functionally equivalent to "Firstborn of God" no matter how hard you try to twist scripture around and fling technojargon about. God was the speaker and so the possessive "my" (ego) refers to the firstborn as his.

Israel is called God's firstborn. If what nontrin said is true then that would mean Israel is a God. Which is doesn't. Therefore firstborn does not always mean that the firstborn is a part of the group referred to.

BTW if in Co 1:15 "creation" is not posessive of "firstborn" you just shot yourself in the foot a second time, because you kept arguing that Christ was part of the creation. You argue the opposite now to wiggle out of Ex 4:22.

So like I said, Col 1:15 doesn't mean Jesus was part OF creation (creation didn't possess firstborn as part of it), it means he was firstborn OVER creation. He was in charge of it. The rest of the verses say it clearly, he created all, and holds everything together.

You really need to learn context. That is probably your biggest failure. You take words and phrases in isolation and find someway to get them to say what you want them to say, instead of reading the passages in context and seeing what they actually are saying. I am not sure if it is a blind spot with you, or actual dishonesty.

[Cal_Minian]

Sparko,
No I just showed that Exodus 4:22 is a possessive genitive which is not the same as a partative genitive. This cannot be disputed because MOU (my) is a possessive pronoun. The possessive pronoun is not found in Col 1:15. Thus there is not any basis to compare Ex 5:22 with Col 1:15 grammatically.

Regards,
Cal Minian


I didnt need to compare it to Col 1:15 grammatically 1:1 did I?


Yes, that is the point. All of the places in the LXX/GNT where the word firstborn is the head noun of a genitiive phrase like Colossians 1:15 is the criteria. The possessive noun does not qualify because it removes the Exodus passage from the examples of legitimate parallels. To be more precise it would be a head noun of another noun phrase in the genitive. A pronoun does not qualify. The list of parallels I gave initially did not include the possessive pronoun intentionally.

Nontrin said that firstborn ALWAYS meant that the firstborn was part of the group it was referring to. Exodus shows that the "group" was God. Israel was the firstborn OF God. The actual phrase "MY FIRSTBORN" is functionally equivalent to "Firstborn of God" no matter how hard you try to twist scripture around and fling technojargon about. God was the speaker and so the possessive "my" (ego) refers to the firstborn as his.

You are merely ceasing upon the imprecise language of NonTrin who bases his statement upon my previous posts. I am happy to clarify.

Do you understand the difference between a possessive genitive and a partative genitive?

Regards,
Cal Minian

[NonTrinitarian]

No he didn't say Israel, firstborn of the nations, did he? He says Israel, MY firstborn. The firstborn of God.

It doesn't matter what I think about what he means by firstborn here. It only matters what you CLAIMED firstborn always means. You said if I showed you even one place in the bible where firstborn did not mean part of the group then you would become a trinitarian.

I did so. Israel is called the firstborn of God. So either firstborn in this instance means Israel is a God or firstborn doesn't mean that it has to be part of the group itself.

So I guess you were not telling the truth about becoming a trinitarian then? That doesn't surprise me one bit.

:lmbo:

Nothing like having Trinitarians get all puffed up thinking they have something and then shooting them down!

It took all of about 20 seconds to google the verse and find a Jewish commentary on the meaning of Ex 4:22 and in what sense Israel was called “firstborn.” Of course, as we all already knew, (except for Sparko), it meant that it had been given a supreme position over the other nations. Here’s a quote and the link

At the heart of this preference is God's freedom to choose. The rejection of a preordained hierarchical order like primogeniture approximates a more level playing field. Abraham and his clan have no claim on God's favor other than merit. They are neither the oldest nor the most powerful of clans. They are singled out because they have a moral sensibility which graces them with the promise to envision a more just and compassionate way to conduct human affairs. Though latecomers, Israel in to become God's firstborn on moral grounds (Exodus 4:22) to displace those who preceded them chronologically in order to establish a new beacon of virtue for humanity. What happens in Abraham's family mirrors the divine economy. Like the patriarchs, God is not confined by the happenstance of birth.




http://www.jtsa.edu/community/parashah/archives/5759/vayehi.shtml (http://www.jtsa.edu/community/parashah/archives/5759/vayehi.shtml)



Yes Sparko, as this commentary states, Israel had been placed as God’s firstborn in the group of NATIONS.



Now, I could really embarrass Sparko by quoting Trinitarian references on this verse but I won’t unless he likes being laughed at. You see, Trinitarians, in an attempt to show that the term “firstborn” doesn’t always have to mean the literal firstborn (something JW’s never said anyway) reference this very verse and argue that here “firstborn” means that Israel has the supreme position over the rest of the nations. EXACTLY! You see Sparko, even your own tribe argue that this is a comparison of Israel’s position over the gentile world. And since Israel is a nation, it is in the group of nations it is firstborn over. Duh!



So Sparko, do I need to quote some Trinitarian sources to show you that even your fellow believers argue that God is saying Israel is the firstborn of the nations? Let me know and I’ll try to type them out tonight. Shoot, maybe I can just visit a few Trinitarian sites and post the links? I don’t think it will be hard to prove you wrong here.



Again, there is not ONE instance in which Israel is said to be firstborn of something and is not part of the group it is firstborn over. Anyone else think they have an example to prove it wrong?:lol:

[NonTrinitarian]

I didnt need to compare it to Col 1:15 grammatically 1:1 did I?

Nontrin said that firstborn ALWAYS meant that the firstborn was part of the group it was referring to. Exodus shows that the "group" was God. Israel was the firstborn OF God. The actual phrase "MY FIRSTBORN" is functionally equivalent to "Firstborn of God" no matter how hard you try to twist scripture around and fling technojargon about. God was the speaker and so the possessive "my" (ego) refers to the firstborn as his.

Israel is called God's firstborn. If what nontrin said is true then that would mean Israel is a God. Which is doesn't. Therefore firstborn does not always mean that the firstborn is a part of the group referred to.

Sparko, go to CARM (I'm sure you've been there dozens of times) and look up Col 1:15. There they argue the point that Israel is called Gods' firstborn and that it means pre-eminance. So if Israel was given the rank of pre-eminance by God, of what is it pre-eminant or firstborn over? HUH? Tell us Sparko, of what group was Israel promoted to the pre-eminant position?:ahem:

[Sparko]

Yes, that is the point. All of the places in the LXX/GNT where the word firstborn is the head noun of a genitiive phrase like Colossians 1:15 is the criteria. The possessive noun does not qualify because it removes the Exodus passage from the examples of legitimate parallels. To be more precise it would be a head noun of another noun phrase in the genitive. A pronoun does not qualify. The list of parallels I gave initially did not include the possessive pronoun intentionally.

Cal discussing anything with you is like wrestling with at bowl of spaghetti.

Exodus 4:22 says that Israel is the firstborn of God. No amount of technojargon and scripture twisting changes that fact. You can wiggle all you want. The fact remains and every bible translation concurs, yet again with me, that here we have an example of God calling Israel his firstborn. The pronoun "my" refers directly to the object of the sentence, the speaker, who is GOD. It is functionally the SAME thing as saying "Israel is the firstborn of God" you can't deny that.

The other undeniable fact is that although Israel is God's firstborn and that means firstborn of God, that it is NOT calling Israel a God. It is not saying Israel is the firstborn among Nations.

Thus you are left with two alternatives:

1. Claim that Israel is a God
2. Admit that firstborn doesn't always mean that the firstborn is part of the group.


You can't have your cake and eat it too, Cal.






You are merely ceasing upon the imprecise language of NonTrin who bases his statement upon my previous posts. I am happy to clarify.


Clarify? LOL. You do your best to twist things in a knot, o' spaghetti meister! The clarity comes from reading what is THERE in context, not in nitpicking single words till you find some definition that fits your preconceptions.

Nontrin is a little "me too!" puppy that follows you around and nips at the heels of your opponents. One day I am sure he hopes to grow up into a big dog scripture twister like you.

[Cal_Minian]

Cal discussing anything with you is like wrestling with at bowl of spaghetti.

Exodus 4:22 says that Israel is the firstborn of God. No amount of technojargon and scripture twisting changes that fact. You can wiggle all you want. The fact remains and every bible translation concurs, yet again with me, that here we have an example of God calling Israel his firstborn. The pronoun "my" refers directly to the object of the sentence, the speaker, who is GOD. It is functionally the SAME thing as saying "Israel is the firstborn of God" you can't deny that.

The other undeniable fact is that although Israel is God's firstborn and that means firstborn of God, that it is NOT calling Israel a God. It is not saying Israel is the firstborn among Nations.

Thus you are left with two alternatives:

1. Claim that Israel is a God
2. Admit that firstborn doesn't always mean that the firstborn is part of the group.


You can't have your cake and eat it too, Cal.






Clarify? LOL. You do your best to twist things in a knot, o' spaghetti meister! The clarity comes from reading what is THERE in context, not in nitpicking single words till you find some definition that fits your preconceptions.

Nontrin is a little "me too!" puppy that follows you around and nips at the heels of your opponents. One day I am sure he hopes to grow up into a big dog scripture twister like you.

Dear Sparko,
I do not argue that firstborn is always contextually a part of a group. I have not done that research. My argument only compares constructions like Colossians 1:15 and 1:18 where the word firstborn is the head noun of a genitive noun phrase, not a possessive pronoun.

Now, NonTrin has made a very impressive arugument on Exodus 4:22 and it may be true that firstborn is always seen as a member of the group. But that is not my argument.


Regards,
Cal Minian

[NonTrinitarian]

The other undeniable fact is that although Israel is God's firstborn and that means firstborn of God, that it is NOT calling Israel a God. It is not saying Israel is the firstborn among Nations.

Thus you are left with two alternatives:

1. Claim that Israel is a God
2. Admit that firstborn doesn't always mean that the firstborn is part of the group.
Part of the reason Sparko disagrees with all his Trinitarian buddies on what is meant by calling Israel the firstborn is because Sparko doesn't really know what it means. You see, if the group is only one, how can it be given the status of pre-eminance?

Fact is I don't have to argue with Sparko, I'm pretty sure Rob Bowman and Robert Morey argue that the meaning is that of Israel being rasied as firstborn over the other nations. I'll let SParko argue with his fellow Trinitarians when I quote them later on.

[NonTrinitarian]

Now, NonTrin has made a very impressive arugument on Exodus 4:22 and it may be true that firstborn is always seen as a member of the group. But that is not my argument.


Cal,
I have done the research. There are no examples where someone is said to be the firstborn and not be part of the group he is firstborn over. Sparko has twisted my words.Trinitarians always reference this verse to show that firstborn here means that Israel has been elevated above the rest of the nations. They do this to show that it doesn't literally have to mean 'to be born'. I'll just quote Trinitarians to Sparko to show the error of his ways.

[Sparko]

Dear Sparko,
I do not argue that firstborn is always contextually a part of a group. I have not done that research. My argument only compares constructions like Colossians 1:15 and 1:18 where the word firstborn is the head noun of a genitive noun phrase, not a possessive pronoun.

Now, NonTrin has made a very impressive arugument on Exodus 4:22 and it may be true that firstborn is always seen as a member of the group. But that is not my argument.


Regards,
Cal Minian

OK thank you for that. That is all I was trying to say. That firstborn doesn't always mean that the firstborn is part of the group.

Which means that nontrin should keep his word and become a trinitarian, eh? :wink:

--

But back to the Col 1:15

There is no reason to assume that Jesus is part of creation in verse 15. Again, it says he is the image of God, firstborn of [over] creation. Basically is it giving two ways that Jesus is like God the Father: 1. He is the image of him 2. he is the creator. It even goes on to explain that everything was made by him and even that he was BEFORE all things. The word for "All things" in verse 17 is the same word as "creation" in verse 15. It is saying he existed BEFORE creation. You need to read in context instead of trying to take each verse separately. Each proceeding verse in that paragraph supports and clarifies verse 15.

http://www.watchman.org/jw/1stborn2.htm


Paul uses the same basic word for "all things" in vv.16-17 as he used in his expression "every creature" (all creation) in v.15. Syntactically then, Paul says Jesus existed before (v. 17), created (v.16) and sustains (v.17) that set of things of which he is the "first born" (v.15), i.e., the set of "all creation." This agrees with John, who says, "In the beginning was the Word (literal Greek "...was existing the Word." John's use of the imperfect tense shows continuous duration of existence in the past).... All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:1,3).

If Paul had meant "first created" when he wrote prototokos, at Col. 1:15, then his following statements make Christ Himself a part of those very things which Paul says Christ created and sustains, and before which He existed.

Watchtower leaders themselves evidently understand this fact and have felt the need to resolve the logical conflict. To justify their position, the Watchtower, in its New World Translation (NWT) of the Scriptures, does violence to the verses that follow. The word "other" is inserted four times, to alter their meaning:

[NonTrinitarian]

OK thank you for that. That is all I was trying to say. That firstborn doesn't always mean that the firstborn is part of the group.

Which means that nontrin should keep his word and become a trinitarian, eh? :wink:


Sparko keeps digging himself into a ditch. You see, the next logic question after saying Israel is God's firstborn is to ask,'The firstborn of WHAT?'

Did you see that Sparko. Israel was the firstborn of WHAT?

Jesus is God's firstborn son so it can't mean israel is the firstborn of God's sons, that would be Jesus. So if it doesn't mean that, we have to ask 'Israel is the firstborn of WHAT?'

Basically every Trinitarian and Non-Trinitarian will say Israel was the firstborn of the nations on the earth at that time. IE, Israel was God's chosen nation.

So Sparko, just keep asking the question, 'Israel is the firstborn of WHAT' and eventually you'll have to come to the same conclusion everyone else has.

There are NO EXAMPLES of the term firstborn where the one called firstborn is not included in the group that he is placed as firstborn over.

[Cal_Minian]

OK thank you for that. That is all I was trying to say. That firstborn doesn't always mean that the firstborn is part of the group.

Which means that nontrin should keep his word and become a trinitarian, eh? :wink:

Sparko, you have not proved that the firstborn is not always part of a group. Not with Ex 4:22. Non-Trin is correct on this one and as I said possibly on all the others. He said he has done the research. I suggest you try again and give him another alledged example. You failed with Ex 4:22. I will watch this one. He has the research on this, not I. But I have a feeling from what I have seen of his previous posts that he is not bluffing.


But back to the Col 1:15

There is no reason to assume that Jesus is part of creation in verse 15. Again, it says he is the image of God, firstborn of [over] creation. Basically is it giving two ways that Jesus is like God the Father: 1. He is the image of him 2. he is the creator. It even goes on to explain that everything was made by him and even that he was BEFORE all things. The word for "All things" in verse 17 is the same word as "creation" in verse 15. It is saying he existed BEFORE creation. You need to read in context instead of trying to take each verse separately. Each proceeding verse in that paragraph supports and clarifies verse 15.



Sparko,
The fact that the Son is the image of God does not help you here. All persons were created in the image of God. So all creation is like the Father. The phrase "image of God" is further explained to be "the firstborn of all creation." This militates against the Trinitarian position because "image" forces the "tokos" or "born" part of the word firstborn into prominence. Therefore the word firstborn cannot be interpreted as merely having the sense of pre-eminence!

The fact that all things were created "in him" and "through him" shows that he is not being called creator here. The Father is the creator, and he is the image-firstborn of the Father.


Since all creation and the Son are both in the image of God this therfore proves he is part of creation and not being considered outside of it.

For you to get this meaning you would need the hymn to say that all things where made in the image of the Son and that he was therefore firstborn of creation. That is quite an oxymoronic statement, and does not make sense, but that is what you would need. Both the term image and firstborn complement one another .... being in the image of God is something the Son and all creation SHARE with each other. Are they then equal? No, for Paul says that he is the firstborn of that group.

Paul continues to show how the Son is pre-eminent over that group while being part of it. He is pre-eminent because the Father creates a "new creation" in him (EN AUTWi) of which he is the head of that body... pre-eminent but part of it. He is also the firstborn from the dead... the pre-emenent one of the group of his brothers who were resurrected, part of the group but the head of it.

Thus Paul explains by example what he means tying the the two instances of firstborn together.

As for the word other, I argue that it is implied because it is the members of his body who are created in him. He did precede them as you maintain but he is still part of the body. This also parallels Col 1:15 because it starts with Christ already in existence as the image of God and does not describe his creation in the hymn.

The word other is also needed later in the hymn because in verse 20 those who are reconciled through him are also described as PANTA (all things). However we know that Satan and his demons and unrepentant wicked persons are not included.

Therefore in the hymn, all instances of PANTA are subsets of the entirety of creation and exclude the Son because also the Son did not need to be reconciled to the Father even by Trinitarian standards.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Sparko]

Sparko keeps digging himself into a ditch. You see, the next logic question after saying Israel is God's firstborn is to ask,'The firstborn of WHAT?'

Did you see that Sparko. Israel was the firstborn of WHAT?

Jesus is God's firstborn son so it can't mean israel is the firstborn of God's sons, that would be Jesus. So if it doesn't mean that, we have to ask 'Israel is the firstborn of WHAT?'

Basically every Trinitarian and Non-Trinitarian will say Israel was the firstborn of the nations on the earth at that time. IE, Israel was God's chosen nation.

So Sparko, just keep asking the question, 'Israel is the firstborn of WHAT' and eventually you'll have to come to the same conclusion everyone else has.

There are NO EXAMPLES of the term firstborn where the one called firstborn is not included in the group that he is placed as firstborn over.

Nontrin. keep twisting in the wind, brother. I knew you wouldn't keep your word.

In your effort to avoid admitting I am right you try to toss the question back to me. What I believe is being meant by firstborn is irrelevant since you would just say I was wrong anyway.

The point is that God call's Israel his firstborn and that means grammatically it is equivalent to "Israel is the firstborn of God"

I say it means that Israel is the inheritor of God's promises, the ones in charge of spreading his truth to the world, that Israel is dear and precious to God. It doesn't mean that Israel is part of God, which you would have to claim if your earlier statement were true.

There are NO EXAMPLES of the term firstborn where the one called firstborn is not included in the group that he is placed as firstborn over.

As I said, in that verse the grammar is clear. The "group" is God.

I do find it funny that you are trying to argue 'context' and 'reasoning' when it comes to ex 4:22 (even though by doing so you destroy your own argument further), but when we use that argument in regards to Colossians 1:15, all we hear from you and Cal minion are stupid assertians like "Firstborn always means he is part of the group" and nitpicking definitions of greek words taken out of context.

[Cal_Minian]

Nontrin. keep twisting in the wind, brother. I knew you wouldn't keep your word.

In your effort to avoid admitting I am right you try to toss the question back to me. What I believe is being meant by firstborn is irrelevant since you would just say I was wrong anyway.

The point is that God call's Israel his firstborn and that means grammatically it is equivalent to "Israel is the firstborn of God"

I say it means that Israel is the inheritor of God's promises, the ones in charge of spreading his truth to the world, that Israel is dear and precious to God. It doesn't mean that Israel is part of God, which you would have to claim if your earlier statement were true.



As I said, in that verse the grammar is clear. The "group" is God.

I do find it funny that you are trying to argue 'context' and 'reasoning' when it comes to ex 4:22 (even though by doing so you destroy your own argument further), but when we use that argument in regards to Colossians 1:15, all we hear from you and Cal minion are stupid assertians like "Firstborn always means he is part of the group" and nitpicking definitions of greek words taken out of context.

Dear Sparko,
You continue to confuse the grammatical and contextual arguments. With NonTrins contextual/lexical argument the group is defined by the context. This means that the group does not need to be in the same verse. It is a concept that is understood in context.

However in Colossians 1:15 and 18 the groups are defined in the grammar as being part of the genitive noun phrase.

Those are key differences. In addition the group of verses which I categorize with Colossians 1:18 does not contain Ex 4:22 because the grammar is not the same.

Now do you have another example which can be used to disprove either my grammatical argument or NonTrins contextual/lexical argument?

So far you have failed to produce even one.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[Sparko]

Sparko, you have not proved that the firstborn is not always part of a group. Not with Ex 4:22. Non-Trin is correct on this one and as I said possibly on all the others. He said he has done the research. I suggest you try again and give him another alledged example. You failed with Ex 4:22. I will watch this one. He has the research on this, not I. But I have a feeling from what I have seen of his previous posts that he is not bluffing.
I never said he was bluffing, just that he is wrong.





Sparko,
The fact that the Son is the image of God does not help you here. All persons were created in the image of God. So all creation is like the Father. The phrase "image of God" is further explained to be "the firstborn of all creation." This militates against the Trinitarian position because "image" forces the "tokos" or "born" part of the word firstborn into prominence. Therefore the word firstborn cannot be interpreted as merely having the sense of pre-eminence!

That argument made absolutely no sense at all. want to try again?



The fact that all things were created "in him" and "through him" shows that he is not being called creator here. The Father is the creator, and he is the image-firstborn of the Father.

It says all things were created BY him too. Or did you miss that? and again, it says ALL THINGS, not all other things, and verse 17 says he is BEFORE all things. If Paul wanted to call Jesus a creature he could have said it much more clearly. He could have merely said "First God created Jesus and then he created everything else through Jesus" - but he doesn't. So you are forced to try to twist a convoluted pile of spaghetti out of Paul's clear words in order to try to get him to say what you want. And everyone can see right through you. The fact that firstborn refers to position of preeminance and not being part of creation is stated right in verse 18 "so that in all things he might be preeminant" and verse 19 that says "in him the fullness of the Godhead is pleased to dwell"


Since all creation and the Son are both in the image of God this therfore proves he is part of creation and not being considered outside of it.

again your argument makes no sense. Do you just string phrases together? The creation is not the image of God.



Paul continues to show how the Son is pre-eminent over that group while being part of it. He is pre-eminent because the Father creates a "new creation" in him (EN AUTWi) of which he is the head of that body... pre-eminent but part of it. He is also the firstborn from the dead... the pre-emenent one of the group of his brothers who were resurrected, part of the group but the head of it.

Thus Paul explains by example what he means tying the the two instances of firstborn together.

So if firstborn means "first created" in verse 15, and he is called firstborn in verse 18, why does it not mean 'first created' there too? First created from the dead? Hmmm? It can't even mean that he was the first one to be raised from the dead -- he himself raised others from the dead. It means he is preeminent.


Verse 18 clearly says Jesus is preeminant over all things. Verse 17 clearly says that Jesus was BEFORE all things. Every verse after 15 clearly supports that firstborn means preeminant and that Jesus is not part of creation because he came before creation and he created everything.


I sense we are just talking in circles again like we end up doing in any thread you are in.

I have said what I wanted to say. Unless you have something new, I am not going to bother repeating myself to you yet again, as you will assuredly do to this post.

[apostoli]

Hi Guys,

Sparko You see, the next logic question after saying Israel is God's firstborn is to ask,'The firstborn of WHAT?' The first of a series of questions I asked myself was "Why?". What was the signification? The firstborn of what having already been specified.

As a retrospect we can assume that the Israelites were appointed the firstborn among the nations. But A.Paul says the inclusion of the nations (gentiles) in the covenent had been a secret kept from the ages (Eph 3:5-6), so Moses was totally unaware of this meaning.

Later, the law made provision for the nations to join in the covenant but to do so they had to give up their nationhood and become Jews following the Law.

However, in the context of Exodus, Moses did know that the firstborn of the Egyptians were dedicated to their false god, and thus through the literal firstborn the nation of Egypt was dedicated to that god.

So, in that context God declared a people unto himself, as his firstborn (via Abram they had already been made a special people). The provisions in the Law, for the dedication of all Israel's firstborn, highlight the parallel.

There are NO EXAMPLES of the term firstborn where the one called firstborn is not included in the group that he is placed as firstborn over.So the group isn't the nations as such, but those dedicated to God. As A.Paul says at Gal 3:14 "that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ"

A point to consider: The firstborn of a group, had power and authority over that group. The Israelites had neither in respect of the nations.

Another point to consider: Israel via God's covenant with Abraham, were already set apart as a nation through Isaac (interestingly Isaac wasn't Abrams firstborn).

Peace

[Cal_Minian]

I have said what I wanted to say. Unless you have something new, I am not going to bother repeating myself to you yet again, as you will assuredly do to this post.

Dear Sparko,
I did post new material, you just dismissed it and/or said you did not understand it. Then you went on to repeat yourself.


1. When you say that it also says creation is "by him" it sounds to me as if you did not understand my agument or that presented in BDAG.

The term "by him" in English is based upon the Greek EN AUTWi. You are exploiting an ambiguity in ENGLISH that is not in the Greek text. I do not know if you are doing this intentially or if you just don't understand this, so I will try to be patient. When a English bible renders this as "by him" it is short for "by means of him" which is instrumental. In Greek EN AUTWi is an instrumental dative. This is your proof-text and you must bear the burden of proof. In this you are at odds with BDAG and Wallace.

2. Regarding NonTrin's argument you said "I never said he was bluffing, just that he is wrong." -- You challenged him on Ex 4:22 and he won that round. Your claim that he is still wrong cannot be taken seriously.


3. I said Sparko,
The fact that the Son is the image of God does not help you here. All persons were created in the image of God. So all creation is like the Father. The phrase "image of God" is further explained to be "the firstborn of all creation." This militates against the Trinitarian position because "image" forces the "tokos" or "born" part of the word firstborn into prominence. Therefore the word firstborn cannot be interpreted as merely having the sense of pre-eminence!

You dismissed it with: That argument made absolutely no sense at all. want to try again?

I don't see anything wrong with what I wrote with the exception that is it a bit wordy. In addition to what I wrote consider this.

The Son is called two things which are equivalent terms:
He is "the image of God"
He is "the firstborn of Creation"

The term firstborn of Creation "piggybacks" onto the term "image of God" and further explains that term. To understand the word firstborn as merely pre-eminent means one must consider the tokos in prototokos to lose its meaning. Tokos = born. Trinitarians deny that the word has a reference to the generation of the Son here and say that the word means only pre-eminent.

That is why BDAG comments on the term tokos: God to found the new community of believers, is also used in some instances where the force of the element -tokos appears at first glance to be uncertain, but s. comment on status at end of 1

Therefore if the tokos part of prwtotokos is active in the context then the word cannot mean merely pre-eminent.

Since the word prwtotokos is used to further explain image in verse 15 what BDAG says about the word is helpful 2. that which has the same form as someth. else (not a crafted object as in 1 above), living image,

Since image in this context means that which resembles something else and that something else is the Father of Jesus, this means that the firstborn is firstborn in a sense that denotes a son born of a Father who is the image of the Father.

This militates against firstborn here meaning merely pre-eminent.

4. Refering to verse 18 you say: First created from the dead? -- The Son is the firstborn of the new creation and become such when he was resurrected as the first in that group.

These two words in Chiastic parallel must be interpreted together. This is the only word that works in both contexts to convey Paul's thought. The word is being used figuratively in verse 18, as BDAG says, a figurative extension of #1 which pertains to birth order. However as they also say, the tokos element is not missing in either instance. When Christ was resurrected it was related to a new birth for his brothers (cf 1Pet 1:3-4)

Regards,
Cal Minian

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

A gentle reminder, I'm awaiting your considered response to my post #53 and I'd be interested in your response to my post #71.

Neither opinion is necessarily antagonistic to your view, so in the interest of shared knowledge I'd appreciated your opinion.

Peace and blessings

[Cal_Minian]

Hi Cal,

Thank you for posts #37 & #38.

To keep this post managable. I'll just respond to the conclusion of your post and a couple of your major points.

But first: My enquiry is an honest one. If I am wrong then I am happy to admit it. But so far your argument isn't convincing. Not so much as regards the grammar for the last clause of vs15, but for the context it is placed in via vs16&17.

Dear Apostoli,
Thanks for the heads up. I did not see this post.


Quote: Originally posted by Cal_Minian

you have argued against a position that I did not make and that the grammar does not dictate.

My apology: From your highlight of the word "First" in post #34, I took your personal understanding as the first to be born of creation, the first of a group eg: Adam being formed from the earth.

If I recall where you pick up this thread, you argued that the Son was not begotten from out of Creation, and niether do I take it this way. The Son was begotten from the Father. The grammar of this genitive construction, where firstborn is the head noun of a genitive noun phrase (not pronouns like SOU which is possessive) places the firstborn as part of a group. I posted earlier a search of the LXX/GNT which has examples such as "firstborn of his sons" and "firstborn of a beast." The firstborn is not generated by the sons but the firstborn is a member of the group. In the case of the beast the firstborn is both a beast and one of the offspring of the beast.


Also, in scripture the firstborn is usually generative within the group of same type. So given your emphasis I understood you in a similar way. I did suspect that you held that the text related to the humanity of the Son but now I understand you otherwise.

That observation works once a species is established, however there is always the first of a species which is created by God initially. For example, Adam is a son of God but he was created. Abel had a human father, Adam. Also, your analogy assumes that the word firstborn is being used literally and not figuratively. BDAG gives to senses to the word firstborn, the first which is of one is literal in birth order and the second which is pre-eminent as a figurative extension of #1. However they also state that the first sense is not entirely absent from the figurative usage. This is true for both instances in Col 1:15 and 18, which are found as Chiastic parallels.

There are those that hold that the pre-existent son was created but not as other things created. So in that context, they assert the Son was not the first of things that were created, but the beginning of creation. It is a subtle difference, but in anycase they do not understand Col 1:15 the way you are presenting. Their view that the Son is set apart from the particular creation A.Paul is discussing. My view is different, but my conclusion in regards to the text the same.

The JW view is similar to the view you present first. The Son is the only one who was created directly and solely by the Father as his Son. All others were created through the Son. That makes his generation unique nd MONOGENHS.

Quote: Originally posted by apostoli -- refers to creation in the absolute sense, in the sense that the Son is the beginning of creation. greed. Though my emphasis is the Logos as beginning, not as first creature.

Revelation 3:14 describes the Son as the beginning of the "creation of God" and so we agree on terminology. BDAG says that this interpretation of the Son as first-created is probable here. The reason is that the phrase KTISEWS TOU QEOU is a subjective genitive. In this form the genitive phrase is converted to subject with the noun as object to arrive at the meaning "God created." When the head noun is a verbal noun in this structure it always indicates either a subjective or objective (rarely both) genitive. Objective is out of the question as that would be X created God.

Now one must apply the word ARCH to this subjective genitive. Once again we have a noun that is the head noun of a genitive phrase. The meaning can only be the beginning of what God created. That is why BDAG says the sense of first-created is probable.

So we agree the LOGOS is the beginning of creation but not likely in the same way. Perhaps you can elaborate.

In this regards I had to pause to think on Col 1:18 "os estin e arche, prototokos ek ton nekron": given "ek" he is definitely the first out of the many. But I can't see the inference of "first of" in vs15 (see below). As you noted the construct indicates the firstborn is part of a group, but the prototokos in its legal sense doesn't have to originate from that group. For instance: the Son is not part of the group who die because they have sinned (all persons), nor is he part of the group of those dead who will not receive a resurrection. It seems to me, from A.Paul's theme of our reconcilation to the Father through the Son, that there is a distinction to be made in understanding A.Paul's words.

I believe I already covered this above. The genitive phrase does not signal origination from a group. The word EK does that in verse 18, but without it the sense would be merely a part of the group of those who were resurrected, the first part.

Quote: Originally posted by Cal_Minian

It is interesting that you understand that as LOGOS the Son had an origin. Most Trinitarians would never do this.

I simply agree with what the early church Fathers taught and the creeds state - the Son was begotten (if he wasn't we'd have two unoriginates and therefore two gods). Begotten of the Father and therefore true Son, God from God (see below). But his generation is not within the creation time, but in eternity, which has neither beginning nor end.

I would agree that the Son was not created as part of the physical heavens and universe but do not agree with your philosophical argument relating to time. I also believe that Job 38 speaks about all the sons of God applauding the Ge 1:1 event, all of them having preceded it.

In the conclusion to your post you stated "The Son is never presented as existing before time and nowhere does Scripture state that time was created." In the opening of your post you stated "I will expect you to support your premises from Scripture. I am unaware of any Scripture which articulates the creation of time."

I doubt you hold the position that time is unoriginate, so I presume you take time as originating as a concept and not a thing - something that is "set" or "appointed" by God.

I could speculate and have done so, but I do not build doctrines based upon my speculation. That being said, the present is real, the past is a memory and the future is a probability. I therefore speculate that time is an abstraction but out of respect for Scripture will not base doctrines on an understanding either way.

I had a think on this: Ecclesiatus 3, speaks of times and seasons, which seems to be linked to Genesis 1:14, where God establishes measures of time for us. However, at vs5, when the first day was, the division of night and day had already been established. And the heavens and earth already existed, so they were created before temporal time. However, the scriptures say God establishes times. So when Moses speaks of "In the beginning" he is speaking of the times of creation. In which case: because the heavens and the earth are spoken of as the first things created, they are the literal firstborn in creation, from which all earthly things were formed.

I view Genesis 1:1 differently that you do. Everything that follows Genesis 1:1 is physical, including the heavens where birds fly and stars burn.

A.John believed the Logos was "pros ton theon" before anything came to be. So the Son, imu, is before the creative time. I guess, in relation to "God's plan", we could assume another "times", though I don't see how such a thought profits us. All other "times" referring to temporal things.

The Greek word EN from John 1:1 is "in" and not "before." That would be PRO. It is locative. Certain Fathers including Athanasius evidently believed that this meant the Son inside the Father before he was begotten. I view it as being explained by Revelation 3:14 and Proverbs 8 with the Son being the beginning himself. Interestingly Proverbs 8 was considered to apply to the Son of God by both sides at Nicea. Equally interesting is that the word "create" and "beget" were used as synonyms in Proverbs 8 with respect to the Son. Pr 8:22 KURIOS EKTISEN ME .... 8:25 GENNA ME.

Quote: Originally posted by Cal_Minian to Shazard #40

The artificial distinction that Trinitarians make to avoid calling the Son of God "created" by making a distinction between "begotten" and "created" is not Scriptural. When Scripture uses the word begotten or only-begotten in reference to the Son it is speaking of his origin. (c.f. John 1:18)
Created is also an artificial distinction. In creation offspring are said to be born of the woman but begotten of the man, and yet there are those that are said to be born of God (1 John etc).

The big question is how does the intemporal generate anything? And in regard to the "the how" of the Son, the scriptures are silent. A more important point: scriptures only talk about temporal creation, and I trust you agree that the Logos was external to but involved in the temporal creation.

As I already stated, I take the sons of God at Job 38 to refer to the angels witnessing Genesis 1:1 (the big bang if you will).


Quote: Originally posted by Cal_Minian

The firstborn as the head noun of a genitive noun phrase does not define source. In all of Scripture in this construction the firstborn is a part of a group. In all of scripture, the firstborn is not a creation, but offspring, true Son of their Father.


Quote: Originally posted by Cal_Minian

The Son as firstborn is not a member of a group of firstborns.
The Son is definitely shown in scripture to be a member of a group of firstborns in regard to the dedication and sacrificial systems. vs14 seems to suggest this and seems to predicate at least the first clause of vs15. Though I don't think it predicates the 2nd clause.

I was speaking of my grammatical argument in Colossians 1:15 where the firstborn is unique in the group of created beings and also in verse 18 where he is unique as a member of the new creation.


Quote: Originally posted by Cal_Minian

He is the first one in a group as the firstborn. The Son as perfect sacrifce is not diminished with him as part of creation. In fact he is the last Adam. His being part of creation as sacrifice is the perfect ransom.

Which begs the question: Why did the creature need to become as the creature? God could have caused a locust to become man. So there is something significant in the Son having the position of prototokos. A.John in his first epistle requires us to believe that the Father sent his Son, and it was through the Son of God, that all things came to be, and who became flesh (1 John 4:14-15).

Christ took Adams place. Adam could no longer be our Father or source of our life. Jesus took his place as our eternal Father (Is 9:6). The ranson (KOPHER/LUTRON) was to be an equivalency.

Quote: Originally posted by Cal_Minian

No Scripture gramaticizes the Son as the ultimate agent in creation and he is nowhere called creator.

I suggest he is the ultimate agent, but not the ultimate agency (1 Cor 8:6).

I use the term Ultimate agent to mean the originator which is the very sense of EK in 1Co 8:6 and the intermediate agent as expressed in 1Co 8:6 as DIA. BDAG makes the same distinctions. I have quoted them here before.

Quote: Originally posted by apostoli Imu: The hymn has a theme...Col 1:12 we give thanks, to the Father, vs13 we are saved by his Son. vs14 through whose blood. vs15 the very Son of the Father vs16-17, the very maker of all things. vs18 [who had died] has risen from the dead. vs 20 So that by him we are reconciled to his Father.

If you maintain that the Son is being presented as maker here, I will disagree. If this is your intent you will need to prove this. The grammar dictates that it is the Father who creates in the Son. Therefore the Father is the creator.

As the Father causes salvation by the Son. I doubt you contemplate that it is the Father who was crucified, died and went to sheol.

The Father is the architect but the Son was the workman - Jn 1:3 (di auton=through him), Heb 1:2 (di ou=through whom), 1 Cor 8:6 (di ou). see below.

The Son did not make anything independant of the Father, of his own power or design. The Father taught him everything. (John 5:20) Additionally the word create (BARA/KTIZW) is the equivalent to the EK in 1Co 8:6. That was done only by the Father. 1Co 8:6 makes that distinction. Additionally I would not limit the work of the Father to EK because there are indications that he also made things as well. However EK is never used of the Son to describe his activity.


Quote: Originally posted by Cal_Minian

If Paul had not used the Greek construction that he used you might have an argument. But he uses language that makes the Son the firstborn who is both pre-eminent and a part of creation.


It is the language of A.Paul that leads me to disagree with your understanding.

Transliterating Col 1:16-17 it says "firstborn of all creation because in him it was created the all things...the all things through him and into him it has been created and he is before all things and the all things in him it has stood together (ie: made to exist)"



Paul makes an argument that the Son is not only has temporal priority over creation but is also the pre-eminent one in creation. Paul first states a truism. As the image of God the Son is the firstborn of creation. The word image EIKWN means someone who is a copy of an original. Since the word PRWTOTOKOS (firstborn) is a further description of EIKWN, the tokos (born) part of firstborn is highlighted. Just as all of us were made in the image of God, so to was the Son, but he is additionally the firstborn of creation. Being EIKWN of God is therefore something the Son SHARES with creation. That militates against a view of firstborn as merely being pre-eminent in Col 1:15. It also militates against a view that he is not a part of the group. All are made in the image of God.

Paul then goes on to describe how the Son is also the pre-eminent one and not just the first one of creation. Otherwise the Son would merely only be the first in time. So Paul continues to show that he is the pre-eminent one in the new creation as well. The firstborn from the dead who are resurrected to life in heaven. As the head of the body, the EKKLESIA he is the pre-eminent one of the body, the head, but also part of the body. A head is part of a body. That's a no-brainer... or I should say that a body without a head is a no-brainer :lol:

Quote: Originally posted by Cal_Minian

The Son is never presented as the one who performs the act of creation, neither grammatically or contextualy

Yes and no. 1 Cor 8:6 is interesting saying of the Father "ex ou ta panta". Col 1:16 starts "en auto ektisthe" but concludes "ta panta di autoukai eis auton". ie: out of the Father are all things, but instrumental and locative is the Son through and for whom all things are created. As Jesus says at John 14:10 "believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me...the Father that dwells in me, he does the works".

In this context, I agree the text is referring to the birth order and priority of position of the Father's Son.

Peace and all the best.

We both argue that firstborn carries both senses. However it appears that you argue that the Son is not part of the created order based your belief that the grammar in verses 16-17 separate the Son from the creation in verse 15. However one cannot assume this. Paul starts with the word all as feminine (PASHS) to match the feminine KTISIS in verse 15 but then changes this to the neuter PANTA. We know that sometimes neuter nouns refer to masculine and feminine nouns, but what is the reason for Paul making the switch. I see a transition in the narrative from the literal creation to the new creation. From this point on the word PANTA refers to a subset of KTISMA, the subset who make up the elements of Christ's body and righteous ruling elements of the kingdom. (Col 1:13)

And then finally there is the strength of the Chiastic Structure which places the two instances of firstborn in parallel. If we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture we can see that Paul teaches that the Son is both the pre-eminent one as well as part of both groups defined by the genitive phrase of which firstborn is the head noun.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

Thankyou for your reasoned reply.

When someone gives me something substantial to think upon, I like to do just that. So it might be a few days before I make a direct reply.

Elsewhere, I recommended a read of Wallace's lecture "Covenant and Inheritance" which might give a perspective to my opinion.
http://www.nd.edu/~pwallace/inheritance.htm

You might find the bottom content of my post #78 on another subject of interest. According to Harnack, there is support for some of your opinions from the early apologists.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74014&page=5

[Cal_Minian]

Hi Cal,

Thankyou for your reasoned reply.

When someone gives me something substantial to think upon, I like to do just that. So it might be a few days before I make a direct reply.

Elsewhere, I recommended a read of Wallace's lecture "Covenant and Inheritance" which might give a perspective to my opinion.
http://www.nd.edu/~pwallace/inheritance.htm

You might find the bottom content of my post #78 on another subject of interest. According to Harnack, there is support for some of your opinions from the early apologists.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74014&page=5

Thanks apostoli, you are a breath of fresh air in this forum. Thanks for the link to Harnack.

I read some of your link for wallace. Is that called "covenant theology"?

[apostoli]

Hello Cal,

Thanks apostoli, you are a breath of fresh air in this forum. Thanks for the link to Harnack.I was educated in a Marist tradition, and therefore theology aside, my perspective is Col 2:6-7.

I read some of your link for wallace. Is that called "covenant theology"?I'm unsure of Wallace's affilatiliation, if he is Calvanist, possibly it ranks in the debate regarding dispensationism.
-----------------------------------

I've made a detailed reply to your post #74. Brevity is not one of my virtues, so feel free to just respond to the points you think are important. For reasons of practicality (so we don't get lost in meaningless detail) I will attempt to do so in future posts :-)


To avoid misunderstanding in our discussion of Col 1:15, I thought it useful for me to summarise my opinion:

I consider Col 1:15 a neutral text, where "firstborn" is used in the scriptural sense of God selecting and appointing his prototokos - his spiritual firstborn, the one with authority over those that have been dedicated to God's service. The complete espistle, and particularly vs 12 & 20 led me in this direction, and it seems to be emphasised via the 1st clause of verse 18.


That said, I'll pursue an investigation of your current propositions. I don't out of hand discount your opinion! So please consider the following in the spirit of inquiry and not dogmatics.



So we agree the LOGOS is the beginning of creation but not likely in the same way. Perhaps you can elaborate.Imu, scripture never uses the word created in respect of the Son, but instead uses terminology usually reserved for offspring. Of course you might play with semantics, tell me about poetic references to dew drops and mountains being begotten, or even appeal to Prv 8:22. But to take the later literally, one must take the stance that the autotheos has only potentiality, all kenetics being only found in the prototype as first creation. Thus all activity of God in the OT, would be that of the God created for us, and not the Father of the Son. I doubt you hold that view.

An alternative interpretation is that God reveals his wisdom in the things created, but scriptures only use that idea in regard to temporal creation. Thus, unless you take the extreme unitarian view, I doubt you hold the Son in a merely temporal context. (Prv 8:22-31; Rom 1:19-20; cp. Sirach).

Imu: The scriptures say God begot a Son, so the invisible God would be revealed. Through him all things (including redemption and the promise) are accomplished - thus he is the beginning of creation, in that he begins the revelation of God, by creating (albeit by the guidance and power given him by his Father). How he is begot is unrevealed.

I had to pause to think on Col 1:18 "os estin e arche, prototokos ek ton nekron": given "ek" he is definitely the first out of the many. But I can't see the inference of "first of" in vs15 (see below). As you noted the construct indicates the firstborn is part of a group, but the prototokos in its legal sense doesn't have to originate from that group. For instance: the Son is not part of the group who die because they have sinned (all persons), nor is he part of the group of those dead who will not receive a resurrection. It seems to me, from A.Paul's theme of our reconcilation to the Father through the Son, that there is a distinction to be made in understanding A.Paul's words.I believe I already covered this above. The genitive phrase does not signal origination from a group. The word EK does that in verse 18, but without it the sense would be merely a part of the group of those who were resurrected, the first part.Imu: Jesus is not part of a general group (neither creation nor the dead), nor a specific sub-group of these, but rather a particular group is attached to him - those chosen, through him, to be adopted sons of God. A.Paul gives a specific context to the role of the protokotos - which is provided in the beginning of vs18 and is elaborated on in later verses cp. 2:11-12; 1:26-27; 2:6-7; 3:1-4.


I simply agree with what the early church Fathers taught and the creeds state - the Son was begotten (if he wasn't we'd have two unoriginates and therefore two gods). Begotten of the Father and therefore true Son, God from God (see below). But his generation is not within the creation time, but in eternity, which has neither beginning nor end.I would agree that the Son was not created as part of the physical heavens and universe but do not agree with your philosophical argument relating to time. I also believe that Job 38 speaks about all the sons of God applauding the Ge 1:1 event, all of them having preceded it.I'm pragmatic on the eternity thing. Though I do find it helpful in differentiating the Son's activity in the creation process, his activity in the OT, his incarnation, the salvation history and the end-less-ness of his kingdom.

As for Job 38, one should be attentive to Col 2:18. The Scofield Reference Bible notes "The [gnostics of whom A.Paul was writing against] assigned to Christ a place subordinate to the true Godhead, and undervalue the uniqueness and completeness of His redemptive work. It insisted that between God and this earth a host of beings, angels etc, formed a bridge, of which host Christ was a member. This system included the worship of angels...[A.Paul's] devastating answer to this false teaching is in 1:19 and 2:9...The word "fullness" (Gr. pleroma) is the very word gnosticism used for the entire host of intermediate beings..."

I view Genesis 1:1 differently than you do. Everything that follows Genesis 1:1 is physical, including the heavens where birds fly and stars burn.Possibly we have a similar view. We don't have a lot of info on "the abode of God" nor on the creation of angels. Imu: Jewish opinion had it that angels were created at the same time as the heavens and the earth, and then they assisted with the formation of all other things. Rev 21:1-2 gives a perspective, where by parallel, the heavens is said to be the abode of the angels; and both their abode and ours are to be renewed - at least spiritually.


A.John believed the Logos was "pros ton theon" before anything came to be. So the Son, imu, is before the creative time. I guess, in relation to "God's plan", we could assume another "times", though I don't see how such a thought profits us. All other "times" referring to temporal things.The Greek word EN from John 1:1 is "in" and not "before." That would be PRO. It is locative. Certain Fathers including Athanasius evidently believed that this meant the Son inside the Father before he was begotten.I haven't encountered Athanasius et al suggesting such. Ime: Athanasius particularly argues against such ideas, often accusing the Arians of such thoughts. Have you any references?

I view it as being explained by Revelation 3:14 and Proverbs 8 with the Son being the beginning himself."pros ton theon" would have the Logos face to face with God before anything was created. The repetition in vs 1 & 2, seems to emphasise the point that the existence of the Logos precedes the advent of creation.

Interestingly Proverbs 8 was considered to apply to the Son of God by both sides at Nicea. Equally interesting is that the word "create" and "beget" were used as synonyms in Proverbs 8 with respect to the Son. Pr 8:22 KURIOS EKTISEN ME .... 8:25 GENNA ME.I hope I have dealt adequately with this above. If not: I'll cite Athanasius' reasoning.

He is the first one in a group as the firstborn. The Son as perfect sacrifce is not diminished with him as part of creation. In fact he is the last Adam. His being part of creation as sacrifice is the perfect ransom.Which begs the question: Why did the creature need to become as the creature? God could have caused a locust to become man. So there is something significant in the Son having the position of prototokos. A.John in his first epistle requires us to believe that the Father sent his Son, and it was through the Son of God, that all things came to be, and who became flesh (1 John 4:14-15).Christ took Adams place. Adam could no longer be our Father or source of our life. Jesus took his place as our eternal Father (Is 9:6). The ranson (KOPHER/LUTRON) was to be an equivalency.We agree on the principal of the propitiation. Although, regarding your reasoning, imu, the OT & NT attributes the source of our life to God not to Adam. And the Israelite and Jesus' geneology to Abraham - through whom God established his prototokos arrangement.


The Father is the architect but the Son was the workman - Jn 1:3 (di auton=through him), Heb 1:2 (di ou=through whom), 1 Cor 8:6 (di ou).The Son did not make anything independant of the Father, of his own power or design.I agree "The Son did not make anything independant of the Father". Particularly, in regard to the design. However, even the NWT calls Jesus "the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:21). Obviously, through his own power and wisdom, he reveals that of his Father (cp: Jn 14:9-12)

The Father taught him everything. (John 5:20)Agreed and as Jesus said "All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one fully knows the Son but the Father, neither does anyone know the Father but the Son and anyone whom the Son is willing to reveal him." (Mat 11:27) Also see the last clause of Col 1:16.

Additionally the word create (BARA/KTIZW) is the equivalent to the EK in 1Co 8:6. That was done only by the Father. 1Co 8:6 makes that distinction. Additionally I would not limit the work of the Father to EK because there are indications that he also made things as well. However EK is never used of the Son to describe his activity.Yes and no. 1 Cor 8:6 is interesting saying of the Father "ex ou ta panta". Col 1:16 starts "en auto ektisthe" but concludes "ta panta di autoukai eis auton". ie: out of the Father are all things, but instrumental and locative is the Son through and for whom all things are created. As Jesus says at John 14:10 "believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me...the Father that dwells in me, he does the works". Accordingly, I see no significance in your remark. The Son attributes all things he does to the glory of the Father.

Paul makes an argument that the Son is not only has temporal priority over creation but is also the pre-eminent one in creation.Would you expand. There is some nuance in your meaning that escapes me.

Paul first states a truism. As the image of God the Son is the firstborn of creation. The word image EIKWN means someone who is a copy of an original. Since the word PRWTOTOKOS (firstborn) is a further description of EIKWN, the tokos (born) part of firstborn is highlighted.Sounds like Philo's philosophic idea of the prototype Logos. It doesn't seem to fit the overall tone of the epistle (see below)

Just as all of us were made in the image of God, so to was the Son, but he is additionally the firstborn of creation. Being EIKWN of God is therefore something the Son SHARES with creation. That militates against a view of firstborn as merely being pre-eminent in Col 1:15. It also militates against a view that he is not a part of the group. All are made in the image of God.Within the concept of "image of God", I suspect we are close to agreement, but we might have different mechanisms. For instance: A.Paul says we should have the mind of Christ, and he directly attributes our progression to the image as via Christ.

Since Adam's fall, we had been in the image of Adam - copying his meism versus the unselfishness of God. Have a look at Col 1:19 & 2:9, the Son has a fuller image, something beyond what we had, but something we have the potential to achieve - see Col 2:10 (NWT); Eph 3:19.

Paul then goes on to describe how the Son is also the pre-eminent one and not just the first one of creation. Otherwise the Son would merely only be the first in time. So Paul continues to show that he is the pre-eminent one in the new creation as well. The firstborn from the dead who are resurrected to life in heaven. As the head of the body, the EKKLESIA he is the pre-eminent one of the body, the head, but also part of the body. A head is part of a body. That's a no-brainer... or I should say that a body without a head is a no-brainer.Have a read of Col 2:18-23. Also have a read of Col 3:10-12.

"cloth yourself with the new [personality], which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the one who created it...but Christ is all things and in all" (NWT)(cp. Col 1:15-16)

We both argue that firstborn carries both senses. However it appears that you argue that the Son is not part of the created orderActually, because of 1 Cor 8:6, I consider the Son integral to the creation order. But on the basis of 1 Cor 1:9 etc not one of the creatures.

[basing] your belief that the grammar in verses 16-17 separate the Son from the creation in verse 15. The following is by a JW apologist. I presume you are in agreement with him.

"[For the] phrase as used by Paul there is evidence given that "the firstborn of all creation" means that the prehuman Christ was the first of God's creatures not only in the sense of time but also as being the one that was uniquely created, by being the only creature that was directly created by God. All other creatures were created by the agency of this "firstborn." Jehovah's Witnesses believes that the "whole tone" of Colossians 1:15ff shows just that."
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/revelation3.14.htm

Though in opposition to my opinion, your compatriot thinks the Son as a creature, he does acknowledge that it was the Son by which all things (external to himself and the Father) were created.

However one cannot assume this. Paul starts with the word all as feminine (PASHS) to match the feminine KTISIS in verse 15 but then changes this to the neuter PANTA. We know that sometimes neuter nouns refer to masculine and feminine nouns, but what is the reason for Paul making the switch. I see a transition in the narrative from the literal creation to the new creation. From this point on the word PANTA refers to a subset of KTISMA, the subset who make up the elements of Christ's body and righteous ruling elements of the kingdom. (Col 1:13)Though A.Paul nowhere speaks of the "new creation" in this epistle, he does speak of the "new man" (Col 3:10), "renewed in the knowledge after the image of him that created him...Christ who is all in all" (cp. Col 1:15-16)

And then finally there is the strength of the Chiastic Structure which places the two instances of firstborn in parallel. If we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture we can see that Paul teaches that the Son is both the pre-eminent one as well as part of both groups defined by the genitive phrase of which firstborn is the head noun.The Chiastic Structure also supports my case.

You have lost me when you say "both groups defined by the genitive phrase [which indicates source, origin or possession] of which firstborn is the head noun." Earlier we discussed...

From your highlight of the word "First" in post #34, I took your personal understanding as the first to be born of creation, the first of a group eg: Adam being formed from the earth.If I recall where you pick up this thread, you argued that the Son was not begotten from out of Creation, and niether do I take it this way.So as a genitive phrase, it must be referring to possession and not source.

The Son was begotten from the Father. The grammar of this genitive construction, where firstborn is the head noun of a genitive noun phrase (not pronouns like SOU which is possessive) places the firstborn as part of a group. I posted earlier a search of the LXX/GNT which has examples such as "firstborn of his sons" and "firstborn of a beast." The firstborn is not generated by the sons but the firstborn is a member of the group. In the case of the beast the firstborn is both a beast and one of the offspring of the beast.Which idicates that there is a particularity about the protokotos. As I suggested earlier, the group is not creation, but those that maintain the image of God, which apart from God's Son and until Christ's sacrifice there were zero. But now according to A.Paul there are those who can obtain the fullness (again: Col 2:10 (NWT); Eph 3:19), which correlates to the protokotos in Col 1:18 (see. 1:27-28).

Of interest: Col 1:22-23 "...you holy and unblemished...provided of course, that you continue in the faith..." (NWT)

Peace, and blessings on those of your good works that paise God.

[Cal_Minian]

Hello Cal,



I've made a detailed reply to your post #74. Brevity is not one of my virtues, so feel

free to just respond to the points you think are important. For reasons of practicality

(so we don't get lost in meaningless detail) I will attempt to do so in future posts :-)



I realize this is difficult.


To avoid misunderstanding in our discussion of Col 1:15, I thought it useful for me to

summarise my opinion:

I consider Col 1:15 a neutral text, where "firstborn" is used in the scriptural sense of

God selecting and appointing his prototokos - his spiritual firstborn, the one with

authority over those that have been dedicated to God's service. The complete espistle,

and particularly vs 12 & 20 led me in this direction, and it seems to be emphasised via

the 1st clause of verse 18.


That said, I'll pursue an investigation of your current propositions. I don't out of

hand discount your opinion! So please consider the following in the spirit of inquiry

and not dogmatics.


My study of the word firstborn in the same grammatical syntax (ie head noun of a

genitive noun phrase) indicates that the word has both the sense to which you appeal and

in addition always being part of a group related to the genitive noun phrase of which it

is the head. I have already listed these examples. For example firstborn of my sons

and firstborn of beasts. The word has a very strong partative force. This

grammatical relationship override any theoretical "contextual" considerations to which

you might appeal.

You list verses in the context of Col 1 such as 12,18 and 20 and I agree. However the

firstborn almost always has both the senses of pre-eminence and temporal priority while

being the member of a group. Rather than being mutually exclusive properties the

pre-eminence is the figurative extension of the other as BDAG indicates.

Paul lists a number of groups where the Son is selected and appointed the firstborn in

this passage and shows that he is also part of the group as well. The firstborn of the

dead, the head of the congretation, etc. Also the Chiasm links the word firstborn in

verses 15 and 18. My argument relating to this does not rely upon my characterization

of the phrase "new creation" but is used to illustrate who I believe the he is the

firstborn of with respect to the dead who are raised to life.



Imu, scripture never uses the word created in respect of the Son, but instead uses

terminology usually reserved for offspring. Of course you might play with semantics,

tell me about poetic references to dew drops and mountains being begotten, or even

appeal to Prv 8:22. But to take the later literally, one must take the stance that the

autotheos has only potentiality, all kenetics being only found in the prototype as first

creation. Thus all activity of God in the OT, would be that of the God created for us,

and not the Father of the Son. I doubt you hold that view.

An alternative interpretation is that God reveals his wisdom in the things created, but

scriptures only use that idea in regard to temporal creation. Thus, unless you take the

extreme unitarian view, I doubt you hold the Son in a merely temporal context. (Prv

8:22-31; Rom 1:19-20; cp. Sirach).


I do not rely upon Proverbs 8 to prove the Son was created. I believe the strongest

text is Revelation 3:14 where even the Trinitarian BDAG says it is probable that this

means first-created. I beleive I gave a grammatical exegesis on this.


Revelation 3:14 describes the Son as the beginning of the "creation of God" and so we

agree on terminology. BDAG says that this interpretation of the Son as first-created

is probable here. The reason is that the phrase KTISEWS TOU QEOU is a subjective

genitive. In this form the genitive phrase is converted to subject with the noun as

object to arrive at the meaning "God created." When the head noun is a verbal noun

in this structure it always indicates either a subjective or objective (rarely both)

genitive. Objective is out of the question as that would be X created God.

Now one must apply the word ARCH to this subjective genitive. Once again we have a

noun that is the head noun of a genitive phrase. The meaning can only be the beginning

of what God created. That is why BDAG says the sense of first-created is probable.






Imu: The scriptures say God begot a Son, so the invisible God would be revealed. Through

him all things (including redemption and the promise) are accomplished - thus he is the

beginning of creation, in that he begins the revelation of God, by creating (albeit by

the guidance and power given him by his Father). How he is begot is unrevealed.

Imu: Jesus is not part of a general group (neither creation nor the dead), nor a

specific sub-group of these, but rather a particular group is attached to him - those

chosen, through him, to be adopted sons of God. A.Paul gives a specific context to the

role of the protokotos - which is provided in the beginning of vs18 and is elaborated on

in later verses cp. 2:11-12; 1:26-27; 2:6-7; 3:1-4.

A person can belong to more than one group! That is unless the groups are mutually

exclusive. In this case they are not. The grammar of Col 1:18 clearly places the

Son in the group of those who were dead and raised to life. I do not see how you can

deny this. You would have a point if it were not true that the Son died but Paul

clearly says he is in that group in other contexts such as Romans 8:29 For whom He

foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might

be the first-born among many brethren; (NAS)



I'm pragmatic on the eternity thing. Though I do find it helpful in differentiating the

Son's activity in the creation process, his activity in the OT, his incarnation, the

salvation history and the end-less-ness of his kingdom.

As for Job 38, one should be attentive to Col 2:18. The Scofield Reference Bible notes

"The [gnostics of whom A.Paul was writing against] assigned to Christ a place

subordinate to the true Godhead, and undervalue the uniqueness and completeness of His

redemptive work. It insisted that between God and this earth a host of beings, angels

etc, formed a bridge, of which host Christ was a member. This system included the

worship of angels...[A.Paul's] devastating answer to this false teaching is in 1:19 and

2:9...The word "fullness" (Gr. pleroma) is the very word gnosticism used for the entire

host of intermediate beings..."

Possibly we have a similar view. We don't have a lot of info on "the abode of God" nor

on the creation of angels. Imu: Jewish opinion had it that angels were created at the

same time as the heavens and the earth, and then they assisted with the formation of all

other things. Rev 21:1-2 gives a perspective, where by parallel, the heavens is said to

be the abode of the angels; and both their abode and ours are to be renewed - at least

spiritually.

I do believe that Colossians was written in response to a group of Hellenized Jews who

beleived that creation was mediated through angelic sons of God and not one

particluar Son. Since Gnostics were Hellenized Christians these could not be the

Gnostics who appeared later. You could perhaps call them proto-gnostics.


I haven't encountered Athanasius et al suggesting such. Ime: Athanasius particularly

argues against such ideas, often accusing the Arians of such thoughts. Have you any

references?


Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse1, chapter 4, section 11 (page

312 of the Eerdmans Nicene and Post-Nicene volume 4), note I discusses certain passages

with:


"Athan. observes that this formula of the Arian is a mere evasion to escape using the

word 'time' vid. also Cyril, Thesaur. iv. 19,20. Else let them explain 'There was what

when the Son was not' or what was before the Son? since He Himself was before all times

and ages, which he created, de Decr 18, "note 5. Thus if 'when' be a word of time, He it

is who was 'when' He was not which is absurd. Did they mean, however, that is was the

Father who 'was' before the Son? This is true, if 'before' was taken, not to imply time,

but origination or beginning. And in this sense the first verse of S. Jon's Gospel may

be interpreted 'In the beginning,' or Origin, i.e. in the Father 'was the word.' Thus

Athan. himself understands that text, Orat iv. I vid. also Orat iii.9; Nyssen. contr.

Eumon. iii. p 106; Cyril Thesaur. 32. p 312"






"pros ton theon" would have the Logos face to face with God before anything was created.

The repetition in vs 1 & 2, seems to emphasise the point that the existence of the Logos

precedes the advent of creation.

I hope I have dealt adequately with this above. If not: I'll cite Athanasius' reasoning.



To assume that the Son was before the beginning and not "in the beginning" cannot be

derived from the text. Additionally with the context of the next few verses we find

the phrase ".hO GEGOGEN EN AUTWi ZWH HN" from John 1:3-4. This is literally "What came

to be in him was life." This is speaking about the start of the life of the LOGOS.

The punctuation with a full stop before hO GEGONEN. See my chart at

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1536705&postcount=115 which shows the

late dates for the change in punctuation. This is rendered by the NRSV as -- NRS John

1:3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into

being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of

all people.






We agree on the principal of the propitiation. Although, regarding your reasoning, imu,

the OT & NT attributes the source of our life to God not to Adam. And the Israelite and

Jesus' geneology to Abraham - through whom God established his prototokos arrangement.


I agree "The Son did not make anything independant of the Father". Particularly, in

regard to the design. However, even the NWT calls Jesus "the power of God and the wisdom

of God" (1 Cor 1:21). Obviously, through his own power and wisdom, he reveals that of

his Father (cp: Jn 14:9-12)

All of the power and wisdom Jesus has was given to him by the Father who was the source

of it. --NAS John 3:35 "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His

hand.

I have argued that this prevents the Son from being Creator Ex Nihilo. On the face of

it, anyone who is used by another to do something and given all things with which to do

them is not the Creator Ex Nihilo.



Agreed and as Jesus said "All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no one

fully knows the Son but the Father, neither does anyone know the Father but the Son and

anyone whom the Son is willing to reveal him." (Mat 11:27) Also see the last clause of

Col 1:16.

DIA in the last clause of Col 1:16, according to BDAG is "Christ as intermediary in the

creation of the world J 1:3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16."





Yes and no. 1 Cor 8:6 is interesting saying of the Father "ex ou ta panta". Col 1:16

starts "en auto ektisthe" but concludes "ta panta di autou kai eis auton". ie: out of

the Father are all things, but instrumental and locative is the Son through and for whom

all things are created. As Jesus says at John 14:10 "believe that I am in the Father and

the Father is in me...the Father that dwells in me, he does the works". Accordingly, I

see no significance in your remark. The Son attributes all things he does to the glory

of the Father.

Would you expand. There is some nuance in your meaning that escapes me.

Sure, the EK refers to Creation Ex Nihilo. That is the purvue of the Father alone. In

fact would you not say that the Son is also EK TOU PATROS?





Sounds like Philo's philosophic idea of the prototype Logos. It doesn't seem to fit the

overall tone of the epistle (see below)

Within the concept of "image of God", I suspect we are close to agreement, but we might

have different mechanisms. For instance: A.Paul says we should have the mind of Christ,

and he directly attributes our progression to the image as via Christ.


That cannot be the sense in Col 1:15 because the "firstborn of creation" is a further

description of the "image of God." Thus in the hymn the two phrases are describing each

other. Now ask yourself. In what sense is the firstborn an image and of whom?





Since Adam's fall, we had been in the image of Adam - copying his meism versus the

unselfishness of God. Have a look at Col 1:19 & 2:9, the Son has a fuller image,

something beyond what we had, but something we have the potential to achieve - see Col

2:10 (NWT); Eph 3:19.

Have a read of Col 2:18-23. Also have a read of Col 3:10-12.

"cloth yourself with the new [personality], which through accurate knowledge is being

made new according to the image of the one who created it...but Christ is all things and

in all" (NWT)(cp. Col 1:15-16)



I do not deny that the word image is used in various contexts by Paul. However before

Paul speaks of others being made in the image of Christ he first shows that Christ is

the image of the invisible God, his God and Father. The uses are not mutually

exclusive. You say the Christ has the fuller image and I agree. However it is the

Father who is the pattern from which the image is made initially because Christ is the

image of his invisible God and Father.





Actually, because of 1 Cor 8:6, I consider the Son integral to the creation order. But

on the basis of 1 Cor 1:9 etc not one of the creatures.

I had to study that verse to see how it applies to the context of our verse, but it

appears you are making a grammatical parallel, is that correct? If so what we have

here according to BDAG is 4. marker of pers. agency, through, by b. with focus on

the originator of an action ... b. of divine activity:—of God ... 1 Cor 1:9 di ou

eklhqhte (v.l. upo, s. kalew 4);

If I understand your argument you call attention to DIA being used of the activity of

the Father. That is quite appropriate when DIA is used with the focus on the

originator of the action. However in 1Co 8:6 we know this is not the case because all

things are EK the Father which according to BDAG is a "3. marker denoting origin, cause,

motive, reason, from, of" at 1Co 8:6. Therefore in 1Co 8:6 DIA means, as BDAG states

"Christ as intermediary in the creation of the world J 1:3, 10; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16."




The following is by a JW apologist. I presume you are in agreement with him.

"[For the] phrase as used by Paul there is evidence given that "the firstborn of all

creation" means that the prehuman Christ was the first of God's creatures not only in

the sense of time but also as being the one that was uniquely created, by being the only

creature that was directly created by God. All other creatures were created by the

agency of this "firstborn." Jehovah's Witnesses believes that the "whole tone" of

Colossians 1:15ff shows just that."
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/revelation3.14.htm

Though in opposition to my opinion, your compatriot thinks the Son as a creature, he

does acknowledge that it was the Son by which all things (external to himself and the

Father) were created.

This does not prevent the Son from having been created first, as the firstborn of all

creation, the first EIKWN TOU QEOU. Others have argued that if the Father created all

things in the Son, that this means all things that were created. But the text does not

state this. As I stated in my previous post:



We both argue that firstborn carries both senses. However it appears that you argue

that the Son is not part of the created order based your belief that the grammar in

verses 16-17 separate the Son from the creation in verse 15. However one cannot

assume this. Paul starts with the word all as feminine (PASHS) to match the feminine

KTISIS in verse 15 but then changes this to the neuter PANTA. We know that sometimes

neuter nouns refer to masculine and feminine nouns, but what is the reason for Paul

making the switch. I see a transition in the narrative from the literal creation to

the new creation. From this point on the word PANTA refers to a subset of KTISMA,

the subset who make up the elements of Christ's body and righteous ruling elements of

the kingdom. (Col 1:13)

And then finally there is the strength of the Chiastic Structure which places the two

instances of firstborn in parallel. If we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture we

can see that Paul teaches that the Son is both the pre-eminent one as well as part of

both groups defined by the genitive phrase of which firstborn is the head noun.



You have lost me when you say "both groups defined by the genitive phrase [which

indicates source, origin or possession] of which firstborn is the head noun." Earlier we

discussed...

So as a genitive phrase, it must be referring to possession and not source.


I do not understand how you arrive at this conclusion. I do not argue that the

"firstborn of creation" refers to either possession or source. It is a partitive

genitive which places the firstborn as part of a group, just like in all the parallel

examples where we find firstborn as the head noun of a genitive noun phrase.






Which idicates that there is a particularity about the protokotos. As I suggested

earlier, the group is not creation, but those that maintain the image of God, which

apart from God's Son and until Christ's sacrifice there were zero. But now according to

A.Paul there are those who can obtain the fullness (again: Col 2:10 (NWT); Eph 3:19),

which correlates to the protokotos in Col 1:18 (see. 1:27-28).

Of interest: Col 1:22-23 "...you holy and unblemished...provided of course, that you

continue in the faith..." (NWT)

Peace, and blessings on those of your good works that paise God.

I won't repeat the lengthy reponse to that same topic up above in full detail again,

however, since the Son is the pre-eminent one of those who were resurrected from the

dead in verse 18, and since it is parallel in a chiasm, would it not make more sense to

inform our view of firstborn in Col 1:15 without taking a detour through other verses in

other contexts.

Remember, I don't deny the sense of firstborn as being one appointed and who is

pre-eminent. However Paul argues throughout the hymn that the Son is also a part of the

groups in which he is pre-eminent... the head of the body, for example. I had posted

previously:



Paul then goes on to describe how the Son is also the pre-eminent one and not just the

first one of creation. Otherwise the Son would merely only be the first in time.

So Paul continues to show that he is the pre-eminent one in the new creation as well.

The firstborn from the dead who are resurrected to life in heaven. As the head of the

body, the EKKLESIA he is the pre-eminent one of the body, the head, but also part of the

body. A head is part of a body. That's a no-brainer... or I should say that a body

without a head is a no-brainer :lol:

And then finally there is the strength of the Chiastic Structure which places the two

instances of firstborn in parallel. If we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture we

can see that Paul teaches that the Son is both the pre-eminent one as well as part of

both groups defined by the genitive phrase of which firstborn is the head noun.



Regards,
Cal Minian

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

Thankyou for your response. While I digest it, I thought it might be beneficial to refer you to a declaration of faith of the orthodox church. Though you will have reservations in some respects, I think you will agree with many things that are said.
http://celticchristianity.org/library/horosm.html

[Cal_Minian]

Hi Cal,

Thankyou for your response. While I digest it, I thought it might be beneficial to refer you to a declaration of faith of the orthodox church. Though you will have reservations in some respects, I think you will agree with many things that are said.
http://celticchristianity.org/library/horosm.html

Thanks Apostoli,
Perhaps you will enjoy this: http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2005/4/22/article_01.htm which is entitled "WHO IS Jesus Christ?" You will likely agree with many things that are said since the bible is quoted freely.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

Again, thankyou for post #78. I will have a read of the link referenced in your post #80.

A comment: Fundementalists often don't realise how close your and the orthodox/catholic christian belief are. Many confuse their thoughts with sabellianism which the church has condemned since its invention. Between you and I, the difference is whether the Son is natural to the Father, which I suspect, that apart from theological terminology, you acknowledge, as Arius and all early Arians did, that the Son is especial in his relationship with the Father. I believe that the Son is natural offspring, and you by philosophic neccesity believe that the Son is created. In either case I think, we believe in the only true God and his Son Jesus Christ.

The Greek word EN from John 1:1 is "in" and not "before." That would be PRO. It is locative. Certain Fathers including Athanasius evidently believed that this meant the Son inside the Father before he was begotten.I haven't encountered Athanasius et al suggesting such. Ime: Athanasius particularly argues against such ideas, often accusing the Arians of such thoughts. Have you any references? Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse1, chapter 4, section 11 (page 312 of the Eerdmans Nicene and Post-Nicene volume 4), note I discusses certain passages...Thankyou for the ref. I don't have the notes in my archives but I do have the text. As with many things it is freely available online.
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2066.HTM

Chapter III (Para 11) doesn't support your original ascertian, Athanasius is simply arguing the Son is before any concept of time. You could construe your idea from chapter VIII, where Athanasius says "For Levi too was already in the loins of his great-grandfather, before his own actual generation, or that of his grandfather". However, we must be attentive to Athanasius' context "God is not as man; for men beget passibly...But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts...a work is external to the nature, but a son is the proper offspring of the essence...what is proper to [the Father's] essence must always be; and this is His Word and His Wisdom."

You might find the bottom of post #4 in the Arius thread of interest.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=74014&page=1&pp=16


...I consider Col 1:15 a neutral text, where "firstborn" is used in the scriptural sense of God selecting and appointing his prototokos - his spiritual firstborn, the one with authority over those that have been dedicated to God's service. The complete espistle, and particularly vs 12 & 20 led me in this direction, and it seems to be emphasised via the 1st clause of verse 18...My study of the word firstborn in the same grammatical syntax (ie head noun of a genitive noun phrase) indicates that the word has both the sense to which you appeal and in addition always being part of a group related to the genitive noun phrase of which it is the head. I have already listed these examples. For example firstborn of my sons and firstborn of beasts. The word has a very strong partative force. This grammatical relationship override any theoretical "contextual" considerations to which you might appeal.We agree that the protokotos is of a group. Where we seem to disagree is in defining the group.

In the 2nd clause of Col 1:15 you would have it as "creation", but I presume you actually mean "mankind" - given the "contextual" considerations of the 1st clause of Col 1:15 and your thoughts on Chiastic Structure. If so, I take your stance is the protokotos is a subset of creation and not creation itself. In post #74 you said...

Paul makes an argument that the Son is not only has temporal priority over creation but is also the pre-eminent one in creation. Paul first states a truism. As the image of God the Son is the firstborn of creation. The word image EIKWN means someone who is a copy of an original. Since the word PRWTOTOKOS (firstborn) is a further description of EIKWN, the tokos (born) part of firstborn is highlighted. Just as all of us were made in the image of God, so to was the Son, but he is additionally the firstborn of creation. Being EIKWN of God is therefore something the Son SHARES with creation. That militates against a view of firstborn as merely being pre-eminent in Col 1:15. It also militates against a view that he is not a part of the group. All are made in the image of God.Only one type of creation was granted that privilege. So, your own argument seperates the Son from the general creation. So, I trust we agree, the group that the protokotos is head, is not creation but those who are in the image of God.


Back to post #78.

You list verses in the context of Col 1 such as 12,18 and 20 and I agree. However the firstborn almost always has both the senses of pre-eminence and temporal priority while being the member of a group. Rather than being mutually exclusive properties the pre-eminence is the figurative extension of the other as BDAG indicates.We have already agreed on this.

Paul lists a number of groups where the Son is selected and appointed the firstborn in this passage and shows that he is also part of the group as well.I only detect one group. But I suppose you'd argue I'm speculating on "contextual" considerations instead of literalising. However, you seem to make the same association yourself, when you say "The firstborn of the dead, the head of the congregation, etc. Also the Chiasm links the word firstborn in
verses 15 and 18."


My argument relating to this does not rely upon my characterization of the phrase "new creation" but is used to illustrate who I believe the he is the firstborn of with respect to the dead who are raised to life.I find it puzzling that you allow particularity and theoretical "contextual" considerations when considering vs18, but refuse to accept the same for vs15. Would you reconcile for me, what appears to be contradiction in your argument. Possibly, I am misunderstanding your meaning.

A person can belong to more than one group! That is unless the groups are mutually exclusive. In this case they are not. The grammar of Col 1:18 clearly places the Son in the group of those who were dead and raised to life. I do not see how you can deny this. You would have a point if it were not true that the Son died but Paul clearly says he is in that group in other contexts such as Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; (NAS)I admit that the Son is the first begotten of the dead (Rev 1:5), but as I previously suggested he was not part of the group who died in sin, nor of that group who won't receive a resurrection. So his role of protokotos of the dead, has some other significance. Rev 1:18 might have a bearing, him having the "the keys of hades and of death", as would Romans 8:28-29 where we learn of a particular group of chosen ones, "those who are the ones called according to the [the Father's] purpose; because those whom he gave his first recognition he also foreordained to be patterned after the image of his Son that he might be (einai) the firstborn among many brothers." (NWT) Notice "einai", which indicatives he wasn't already the protokotos of those chosen. I'm sure you'll deflect to "adelthois", in which case I refer you to Heb 2:9-18, which indicates how the Son would become the protokotos to those related to Adam.

since the Son is the pre-eminent one of those who were resurrected from the dead in verse 18, and since it is parallel in a chiasm, would it not make more sense to inform our view of firstborn in Col 1:15 without taking a detour through other verses in other contexts.I take your point, but even you use things like "new creation" to present your understanding of vs18. I take the scriptures I referred to in a single context - which Rom 8:28-29 summarises.

Remember, I don't deny the sense of firstborn as being one appointed and who is pre-eminent. However Paul argues throughout the hymn that the Son is also a part of the groups in which he is pre-eminent... the head of the body, for example. I had posted previously:My argument is that the Son is the protokotos of the group "foreordained" as A.Paul says in Romans, an idea he progresses throughout Colossians.

Just to clarify: imu foreordained=foreknew. I don't accept the asian idea of fatalism.


All the best.

[Cal_Minian]

Thankyou for the ref. I don't have the notes in my archives but I do have the text. As with many things it is freely available online.
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2066.HTM



Dear apostoli,
The note is in a footnote from the very link you list. See
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/FOOTNOTE/FN53.HTM#P5347_2095608

61 Athan. observes that this formula of the Arians is a mere evasion to escape using the word `time.' vid. also Cyril. Thesaur. iv. pp. 19, 20. Else let them explain,-`There was,' what `when the Son was not?' or what was before the Son? since He Himself was before all times and ages, which He created, de Decr. 18, note 5. Thus, if `when' be a word of time, He it is who was `when' He was not, which is absurd. Did they mean, however, that it was the Father who `was' before the Son? This was true, if `before' was taken, not to imply time, but origination or beginning. And in this sense the first verse of S. John's Gospel may be interpreted `In the Beginning,' or Origin, i.e. in the Father `was the Word.' Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat. iv. §1. vid. also Orat. iii. §9; Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106; Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312.

Therefore this note says that Athanasius understood that the Word was in the Father who he says is the beginning. This indicates that Athanasius took the text to mean that John 1:1 speaks about the Origin of the Word.

It seems to me that you are capable if working with the Greek from your posts on the Arius thread. Is that true? If so, what about my grammatical analysis of Revelation 3:14 where Christ is spoken of as the beginning of Creation.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

And in this sense the first verse of S. John's Gospel may be interpreted `In the Beginning,' or Origin, i.e. in the Father `was the Word.' Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat. iv. §1. vid. also Orat. iii. §9; Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106; Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312.

Therefore this note says that Athanasius understood that the Word was in the Father who he says is the beginning. This indicates that Athanasius took the text to mean that John 1:1 speaks about the Origin of the Word.It seems you didn't read Athanasius himself. "Why do ye, as `the heathen, rage, and imagine vain phrases against the Lord62 and against His Christ?' for no holy Scripture has used such language of the Saviour, but rather `always' and `eternal' and `coexistent always with the Father.' For, `In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God63 .' And in the Apocalypse be thus speaks64 ; `Who is and who was and who is to come.' Now who can rob `who is' and `who was' of eternity?" As you can see, the note is a later interpretation of what Athanasius actually said. Athanasius himself held that the Son was eternally begotten there was no interval before he was. Mind you from other comments he makes you do get that impression, but he puts qualifers on them. His argument is about time not neccessarily about potentials and kenetics. But one must remember he is responding to other peoples' arguments. In the end I suggest his final defense is "How the Son is begotten is unrevealed."

It seems to me that you are capable if working with the Greek from your posts on the Arius thread. Is that true? If so, what about my grammatical analysis of Revelation 3:14 where Christ is spoken of as the beginning of Creation.I'll get back to you on Rev 3:14. I need to do some study before I respond.

Do you now agree that Col 1:15 is a neutral text? If not I'd appreciate your considered opinion on my thoughts presented in post #81.

[Cal_Minian]

Hi Cal,

It seems you didn't read Athanasius himself. ...
I'll get back to you on Rev 3:14. I need to do some study before I respond.

Do you now agree that Col 1:15 is a neutral text? If not I'd appreciate your considered opinion on my thoughts presented in post #81.

Dear Apostoli,
I wanted your understanding on the note I provided. Do you agree that the source you cite about Athanasius, in the footnote to the text I quoted, understands that "In the Beginning" was a reference to the Son being in the Father and thus the origin of the Son? I understand that you do not agree with the note. But isn't that what the note says?

As for Colossians 1:15, no I do not consider it a neutral text. In your response from post #81 you don't address the points I have made from the beginning that deal with the syntax of firstborn as the (1) head noun of a genitive noun phrase always meaning that the firstborn is part of a group in the context of that phrase. For example, the firstborn of the beast or the firstborn of the sons. There are no exceptions.

Secondly there is (2) the entry from BDAG which states that where firstborn is used as the figurative extension of literal birth order that this sense is still found in the figurative usage.

Then there is the (3) parallel usage in the Chiasm with verse 18. There is no doubt that as the firstborn from the dead that the Son is being included in the group of those who were resurrected to heavenly life. The EK in that verse makes any other interpretation impossible. Your description of the Son as being a part of a group of firstborns which is foreign to the context of the Colossians 1 passage is not convincing and certainly cannot take precedence over the syntax of that verse itself. Initially you argued that verse 15 and 18 did not signal "creation" and "the dead" as the source of the firstborn. After I pointed out that the partitive genitive did not define source you dropped that line of reasoning. However you have not replaced it with anything substantive.

I also introduced the comparison of the the phrase "firstborn of creation" as being a parallel to (4) "image of the invisible God." This militates against an intepretation of the Son as firstborn in a sense which eliminates the -tokos (born) part of the compound word firstborn. You initially argued that Christ was the image of Christians, but I pointed out that in the context of Colossians 1:15 and particularly with firstborn being parallel to image that this view is not supportable.

Then there was the discussion where you felt that Col 1:16 eliminated the Son from being part of creation because of the latter part of the verse. I pointed out that from verse 16 onward the word all (PASHS) was changed from feminine in verse 15 when it referred to all creation (also feminine) to the (5) neuter PANTA which in that verse until the end of the hymn is a subset of all creation in the absolute sense. Therefore from that point onward there is a transition to creation being used in a different sense, in a sense where the elements of the kingdom of the Son of his love (1:13) are being created in the Son by the Father.

And lets not forget the various groups where the Son is the most pre-eminent part of a group to which he belongs. As the (6) head of the body he is part of the body.

As the (7) ARCH (beginning) he is the firstborn from the dead. I add this point for the first time. BDAG says of ARCH here 2. one with whom a process begins, beginning fig., of pers. (Gen 49:3 Roubhn su. arch. teknwn mou Dt 21:17): of Christ Col 1:18. Both ARCH and PRWTOTOKOS can mean "first" in the same sense, the sense of the first one born. This demands an understanding of firstborn in verse 18 as having the sense of the first one of a group, the one with whom began the process of resurrection.

And then there is finally (8) Revelation 3:14 which was used as an example of how the Son is called ARCH in the bible. ARCH in Rev 3:14 and Col 1:18 should also be considered together as they both refer to the Son of God.

I recall these 8 points from memory and have not mined our previous thread to see if I missed any.

My hermenutical principles give much greater weight to the syntax of the Greek language and the structure of the immediate passage (i.g. chiasm) than what is argueably more subjective, ones view of context filtered by ones theology. That is why I cannot consider Col 1:15 neutral.

Paul argues that the Son is pre-eminent while being part of various groups, in the context of Colossians 1:15-20.

Regards,
Cal Minian

[stabalizer]

I am amazed at trinitarians who agree with arians about this passage.
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature." Colisians 1:15

They say Jesus is created but that He just was not created first. Trinitarians say first born means protokos and that he has preiminence over created beings because he is most important. Well I don't believe that Colosians 1:15 talks about Jesus being created at all. He is not only God's first born, He is His only born and is above all the angels for he is their creator and not created himself.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Hebrews 1:3

And He was God's only born before His incarnation for How could God give "His only begotten Son" to the world as Jesus claims in John 3:16 if God did not already have an only born Son. "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that GOD SENT HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON INTO THE WORLD, that we might live through him."1st John 4:9 He was God's only born Son before He was ever sent. I found these following commentators interesting.

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon: “Christ is called, firstborn of all creation, who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things”. Wigram’s Greek Lexicon tells us the following: “Or it may be; born before all creation”. Jamieson, Faussett and Brown Bible Commentary has this to add: “first-born of every creature-- (Heb_1:6), "the first-begotten": "begotten of His Father before all worlds" [Nicene Creed]… Translate, "Begotten (literally, 'born') before every creature," as the context shows, which gives the reason why He is so designated. "For," &c. (Col_1:16-17) [TRENCH]. Matthew Henry’s Commentary states the following: “He was born or begotten before all the creation, before any creature was made;”

I don't know if I agree with the term, "Only born".

Lk 3:38; Adam was a son as well but I'm not sure this refers to gender if you read Gen 5:2. (their name)

[Cal_Minian]

I don't know if I agree with the term, "Only born".

Lk 3:38; Adam was a son as well but I'm not sure this refers to gender if you read Gen 5:2. (their name)

You might want to read the definitive post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1558892&postcount=84) in this thread while a await the reply of Apostoli.

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

Thankyou for post #84.

I wanted your understanding on the note I provided. Do you agree that the source you cite about Athanasius, in the footnote to the text I quoted, understands that "In the Beginning" was a reference to the Son being in the Father and thus the origin of the Son? I understand that you do not agree with the note. But isn't that what the note says?Sure is. However, if you read Athanasius directly, it is nowhere insinuated by him.

Imo, that opinion is not worth pursuing. Unless of course you have a need to copy people who distort your own organisation's opinion, by reciting redundant opinion. If so you discredit your own scholarship.

The note says: "Did [the Arians] mean, however, that it was the Father who `was' before the Son? This was true, if `before' was taken, not to imply time, but origination" This bit follows Athanasius. The next bit doesn't...

" or beginning. And in this sense the first verse of S. John's Gospel may be interpreted `In the Beginning,' or Origin, i.e. in the Father `was the Word.' Thus Athan. himself understands that text, Orat. iv. §1. vid. also Orat. iii. §9; Nyssen. contr. Eunom. iii. p. 106; Cyril. Thesaur. 32. p. 312."
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/FOOTNOTE/FN53.HTM#P5347_2095608

Read Discourses I,iv,11 & III,9 directly and you'll find Athanasius himself refutes this opinion.
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2069.HTM
http://biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF204/NPNF2066.HTM

Beginning implies time, and Athanasius definitely saw the Son as preceding the beginning of creation. This is obvious from Athanasius quotation of John 1:1 in his apology on time, which I cited in the previous post. As for the Son being begotten, that event, in Athanasius' opinion occured before time, before the beginning of creation.

At the end of Discouse III,9 Athanasius says...
"when the Son is called First-born, this is done not for the sake of ranking Him with the creation, but to prove the framing and adoption of all things through the Son. For as the Father is First, so also is He both First, as Image of the First, and because the First is in Him, and also Offspring from the Father, in whom the whole creation is created and adopted into sonship."

As for Colossians 1:15, no I do not consider it a neutral text. In your response from post #81 you don't address the points I have made from the beginning that deal with the syntax of firstborn as the (1) head noun of a genitive noun phrase always meaning that the firstborn is part of a group in the context of that phrase. For example, the firstborn of the beast or the firstborn of the sons. There are no exceptions.My apology I thought I did. However, I am yet to reply to every remark in your post #78. This was intentional, hoping to focus on specific components in dispute. If necessary, I will attempt a fuller reply throughout this week. Time is a bit short at the moment.

It seems to me that you yourself distance the Son from the general creation, by puting the second clause of Col 1:15 in the context of those in the "image of God" which can only refer to man. And you do the same with Col 1:18, differentiating between the general dead and those worthy of resurrection. So it appears you qualify the grammar to specific references and not generalities. Have I understood you correctly?

what about my grammatical analysis of Revelation 3:14 where Christ is spoken of as the beginning of Creation.Sorry about the delay, as I said I needed to do some study.

I do not disagree with you on the grammar of Rev 3:14, but I do as to the meaning. A JW apology on the NWT does offer a perspective in citing C.F.Moule: "[it] could (merely in itself and without taking wider considerations into account) mean 'the first among created things'"
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworldtranslation/revelation3.14.htm

Understand, I agree with you on the grammar. The text refers to the new heavens and new earth (Rev 21:1), all things being made new (Rev 21:5) which Revelation unfolds, not the Son's pre-existence. Rev 1:18, 2:17; 3:20-22 etc makes this clear. Rev 5:13 also makes it clear that the Lamb is excluded from the general creation and puts the Lamb on an equal footing to the one sitting upon the throne.

A few things to think upon...

The usual JW assumption is that Trinitarians deny the Son had a beginning. This is a distortion. One who is begot, usually has a start to their existence. The Son was begotten of the Father, as true offspring, before (pre-existent) to his birth as a man, is core to Trinitarian belief. What we do refute is that the Son is just one among the creations of God. And our reasoning is simple: The Son is the only one that is directly of the Father, all creation is through the Son. Which may be one of the "wider considerations" Moule refers to. However, in the Son's kenosis (Phil 2:7-8; Heb 2:14-18) the Son does eventually take unto himself the morphe of creation.

The cited JW apology makes the remark "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the context and 'wider considerations' do show that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did have a beginning, was of creation, that he was a creature. One of these 'wider considerations' must be what we read about God and the Lamb in Revelation chapters 4 and 5. We will show later that these two chapters make a clear distinction between 'God', who is said to alone be the creator and the 'Lamb', who is the Son, which makes it an inescapable conclusion that the Son must be a creature albeit the greatest creature, the first of God's Son's whom he brought into existence. This is what John tells us directly here at Revelation 3:14."

Pointedly Rev chapters 4 & 5 are about the risen Christ = the Lamb. But that aside observe that no thing elementary created, could open the scroll. As for the distinction between the Lamb and God: this too is core to Trinitarian belief. As is the role of the Son/Lamb in leading all who overcome to His Father (eg: Rev 3:21; 7:17). This is what Rev 3:14 is telling us, and is the constant theme throughout Revelation - the context and 'wider considerations' that Trinitarians contemplate. There is a very good reason that the 144,000 has "[the Lamb's] name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads" and not merely that of the Lamb's Father alone. (NWT - Rev 14:1)

In regard to the kenosis, there is a distinction in monarchy between Father and Son, but consider how A.John concludes the Revelation: "And [the angel] showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb" (NWT - Rev 22:1) Notice that at the conclusion of things, there is only one throne and it is shared by the Father and Son.

I'm sure you will retort "So what happened to the holy Spirit?". Thus I direct you to Rev 2:17 and 3:22. It is the Spirit that binds us to the Son and thus the Father, and secures us with the ability to overcome and become preserved in the promise.

There might be long pauses in my replies, for which I apologise. I don't like shooting from the hip, and I do like to research other peoples opinions. But time is not always on my side. So I request you be patient with me.

All the best.

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

A response to your post #84.

Cal, I'm not interested in converting you to my opinion. My focus is what does the scripture say - all dogma put aside. You are presumeably not aware that I spent many years holding to your opinion. But ultimately, I've let scripture speak for itself: the weight of scriptural evidence points to the Son as external to the original creation. I constantly test this appraisal, and hence my participation in our discussion.

I take for granted that your Greek skills are exceedingly superior to my limited capabilities. So I am interested in any nuance you might drag out, that will increase my understanding. And I must thankyou. I've found in your exposition of the Greek, subtlties that make me secure in my opinion.

In your response from post #81 you don't address the points I have made from the beginning that deal with the syntax of firstborn as the (1) head noun of a genitive noun phrase always meaning that the firstborn is part of a group in the context of that phrase. For example, the firstborn of the beast or the firstborn of the sons. There are no exceptions.I have already conceded the grammar and that the protokotos is always of a group.

Your cite of beasts and sons show that there is a distinction between groups, types of groups. And this is what I explored in #81, citing your own words from post #74, it is obvious that you yourself distinguish "the firsborn of creation" as limited to that in the image of God.

Paul makes an argument that the Son is not only has temporal priority over creation but is also the pre-eminent one in creation. Paul first states a truism. As the image of God the Son is the firstborn of creation. The word image EIKWN means someone who is a copy of an original. Since the word PRWTOTOKOS (firstborn) is a further description of EIKWN, the tokos (born) part of firstborn is highlighted. Just as all of us were made in the image of God, so to was the Son, but he is additionally the firstborn of creation. Being EIKWN of God is therefore something the Son SHARES with creation. That militates against a view of firstborn as merely being pre-eminent in Col 1:15. It also militates against a view that he is not a part of the group. All are made in the image of God.

Only Adam & Eve were made in the image of God. All other created things were not. So the protokotos, by your own reasoning, does not refer to creation, but that which maintains the image of God. Which, automatically excludes all progony of Adam.

Secondly there is (2) the entry from BDAG which states that where firstborn is used as the figurative extension of literal birth order that this sense is still found in the figurative usage.I have no problem with this. You yourself admit "Since the word PRWTOTOKOS (firstborn) is a further description of EIKWN, the tokos (born) part of firstborn is highlighted". I am happy to agree that the Son is only direct offspring of God. All creation having origination via the Son.

Then there is the (3) parallel usage in the Chiasm with verse 18. There is no doubt that as the firstborn from the dead that the Son is being included in the group of those who were resurrected to heavenly life. The EK in that verse makes any other interpretation impossible. Your description of the Son as being a part of a group of firstborns which is foreign to the context of the Colossians 1 passage is not convincing and certainly cannot take precedence over the syntax of that verse itself. Initially you argued that verse 15 and 18 did not signal "creation" and "the dead" as the source of the firstborn. After I pointed out that the partitive genitive did not define source you dropped that line of reasoning. However you have not replaced it with anything substantive.Cal, your explanation of "genitives" do clarify your opinion. However, your general explanations can be misunderstood as you understanding it is literal creation and the dead that are the source of the firstborn. For instance: that which is firstborn of the beast, is generative from beasts, beast being the generative group.

In our conversations you appear to agree that Col 1:15 is not referring to general creation but more particularly those in the image of God.

Your examples, "the firstborn of the beast or the firstborn of the sons", underly the core conflict in our opinions - in both instances there is a presupposition that something originates the group - causes the firstborn. In the case of the Son, the origination is with the Father. If the Son is likened to a creature, such as the first Adam, then he cannot be the protokotos of creation, because in this context, it is he who is the originating principal of the group. Imu: this is not what A.Paul is saying as the originator of the group is God himself, and the group is those in the image of God.

Compare the beginning of Col 1:16 with 2:10 where A.Paul says "we are complete in him, who is the head of all principalities and powers".

I also introduced the comparison of the the phrase "firstborn of creation" as being a parallel to (4) "image of the invisible God." This militates against an intepretation of the Son as firstborn in a sense which eliminates the -tokos (born) part of the compound word firstborn. You initially argued that Christ was the image of Christians, but I pointed out that in the context of Colossians 1:15 and particularly with firstborn being parallel to image that this view is not supportable.See above.

You misrepresent what I said, which I'll overlook seeing you are working from memory. In post #77 I suggested...

"Within the concept of "image of God", I suspect we are close to agreement, but we might have different mechanisms. For instance: A.Paul says we should have the mind of Christ, and he directly attributes our progression to the image as via Christ. Since Adam's fall, we had been in the image of Adam... Have a look at Col 1:19 & 2:9, the Son has a fuller image, something beyond what we had, but something we have the potential to achieve - see Col 2:10 (NWT); Eph 3:19." I forgot to include 2 Pe 1:4 as evidence of a consistent teaching in scripture.

Then there was the discussion where you felt that Col 1:16 eliminated the Son from being part of creation because of the latter part of the verse. I pointed out that from verse 16 onward the word all (PASHS) was changed from feminine in verse 15 when it referred to all creation (also feminine) to the (5) neuter PANTA which in that verse until the end of the hymn is a subset of all creation in the absolute sense. Therefore from that point onward there is a transition to creation being used in a different sense, in a sense where the elements of the kingdom of the Son of his love (1:13) are being created in the Son by the Father.Imu: vs 15 is in reference to the Son's special and particular kotos by the Father, for the Son to be protokotos. After that the context is the protokotos in action - "all things were created by him [the Son], and for him [the Son]"

And lets not forget the various groups where the Son is the most pre-eminent part of a group to which he belongs. As the (6) head of the body he is part of the body.One must consider what significance A.Paul applies to the head - see Col 2:19. Indeed there are those that become the "new man" and are elevated to being adopted sons of God through the only true Son - joined as members in the body of Christ.

You seem to think there is some major point to be made in your "Head" analogy. No one denies that the Son participates in the group that believe in him. The point you seem to bypass is that the Son is head of a very special group, not a generalised group. Not recreated but rejuvenated - see Col1:20; 2:12-13.


As the (7) ARCH (beginning) he is the firstborn from the dead. I add this point for the first time. BDAG says of ARCH here 2. one with whom a process begins, beginning fig., of pers. (Gen 49:3 Roubhn su. arch. teknwn mou Dt 21:17): of Christ Col 1:18.

Both ARCH and PRWTOTOKOS can mean "first" in the same sense, the sense of the first one born. This demands an understanding of firstborn in verse 18 as having the sense of the first one of a group, the one with whom began the process of resurrection.As vs15 indicates the one with whom began the process of creation. And vs 16 expands upon.

This supports the idea that the Chiasm links the word firstborn in verses 15 and 18.

In post #80 you suggested "Paul lists a number of groups where the Son is selected and appointed the firstborn in this passage and shows that he is also part of the group as well." To which I responded "I only detect one group".

Allow me to expand: Gen 1:26 has "let us make man in our image", a plurality. Col 1:15 implies the image of God, the Father, is exclusive to the Son, Col 1:16 has the Son creating things, presumeably as a reflection of the Father's image (cp. Rom 1:20), the only creatures made in the image of God lapse, future mankind henceforth has the image of Adam. Through the Son man now has the ability to return to being in the image of God. "because it is in [Christ] that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily. And so you are possessed of a fullness by means of him." (Col 2:9-10)

Imu: the group that the Son is protokotos of is those in the image of God. Not some generality. I believe Col 1:18 makes this abundantly clear.

And then there is finally (8) Revelation 3:14 which was used as an example of how the Son is called ARCH in the bible. ARCH in Rev 3:14 and Col 1:18 should also be considered together as they both refer to the Son of God.If it wasn't for Col 1:16-17, 1:15 could simply refer to the Son's humanity and thus correspond to Rev 3:14.

Col 2:9-10 makes it plain that the one who created the principality and powers at Col 1:16, and is head of them is the Son.

I recall these 8 points from memory and have not mined our previous thread to see if I missed any.It would have been more constructive if you had provided direct refutations to my propositions rather than repeating yourself.

My hermenutical principles give much greater weight to the syntax of the Greek language and the structure of the immediate passage (i.g. chiasm) than what is argueably more subjective, ones view of context filtered by ones theology. That is why I cannot consider Col 1:15 neutral.I'm theologically neutral when examing scriptures. They either say what they say or they don't. For instance: While 2 Peter 1:1 is presented by many as declaring Jesus God on the argument of grammar. I find the idea totally foreign to A.Peter's context in both his letters. So please don't accuse me of theological bias. I am wary of people who use Greek literacy as their only argument - irrespective of their theological persuasion (Col 2:8).

I prefer to seek out the context of the entire text, than isolate a particular verse, and concentrate argument on that verse to the exclusion of its context.

I doubt A.Paul just threw in arbitrary statements at Col 1:15-18, so I seek out his context and see how he progresses his thoughts. The subject of Col 1:12-13 is the Father, the subject of Col 1:14-18 is the Son, and then in vs 19-20 the subject is both - "through [the Son] all things are reconciled to the [the Father]"


Paul argues that the Son is pre-eminent while being part of various groups, in the context of Colossians 1:15-20.Or more precisely being head of a single group. Verse Col 1:20-23 makes this obvious in the context of the reconciliation. It is by him that the reconcilation occurs. If he was part of creation, he would be alienated from God and needing reconciliation and therefore no reconciliation could occur. However, A.Paul tells us: "[God] reconciled all things to himself - by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven." (Col 1:20)

[dreece]

Reply to WFAHBER and THEMUZICMAN

Just because Jesus is also the firstborn from the Dead does not cancel out that Jesus is also God's literal first born and only begotten male offspring younger than himself.

If Jesus is the LITERAL firstBORN, was he not BORN? Is it even possible to have a firstBORN who was not BORN? If he is literally YOUNGER than his Father, then obviously he could not have had an existance in the eternal past.

What does BEGOTTEN mean? Is it not an event in time? Someone who always existed could not at any time be BEGOTTEN; so if your conclusion is that Christ was not created, in what sense is he BEGOTTEN? And in what sense is he BORN? Keep in mind that you admit that this is beofre his birth by Mary as a human; so how was the prehuman Jesus BORN and BEGOTTEN?

What let's me know that Colosians 1:15 is not talking about his resurection but rather His literal sonship is how the same verse calls him the image of the invisible God. This word image is used nowhere in the Bible dealing with the resurection but it is used alot of ways comparing children to their parents. "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth." Genesis 5:3 Adam begat a son in his own likeness,and after his image. That is similar to how God begat His Son in eternity.

If God is a son, then he has a Father! Does God himself have a father? Who could ossibly father God? Himself?

So by your own admission, the expression "IMAGE of the invisible God" is used to copare children (younger) to their parents (older)? If Jesus is true God, how could he have a parent? You yourself give examples to prove your point [all of these examples indicating an AGE DIFFFERENCE], which again implies that Jesus' life had a beginning.

You said that God BEGAT his Son in eternity; now since it was God who BEGAT him, the begetting must be an event in time that happened, otherwise, Jesus would have always been begotten making it impossible to credit even God with the begetting! You can't say that God BEGAT Jesus if there was not a point in time when the begetting happened. So how was Jesus BEGOTTEN? Not spiritually, for he already had a spiritual relationship with his Father; but if it was a Literal begetting, then he was indeed a created being.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" Hebrews 1:5 The Bible is clear that God's first and only born in "the express image of his person" Hebrews 1:3 The greek word for express image is charakter {khar-ak-tare'} which means exact copy or precise reproduction. My conclusion is that Colosians 1:15 proves that Jesus is not created but that he is the true Son of God born berfore all of creation before time started in eternity.

COPIES and REPRODUCTIONS are things that only come into existence AFTER the original! A copy cannot be as old as an original, otherwise it would not be a copy. The very word REproduce implies CREATING over, something already there. So since you apply these terms to Jesus, it seems to me that you are uintentionally labeling him a created being! If two books coexisted at the same time, none before nor after the other, one would not be a copy/reproduction of the other; but since Christ is like a rePRODUCTION of God, he must have been PRODUCED, CREATED, after the original, Jehovah himself!

What is the meaning of BORN in the expression "BORN before all creation"? Again, does this not imply a BEGINNING to his sonship?

Based on your own words, I can say that you reached a wrog conclusion; the truth is, Jesus was created, for who ever concieved of a firstBORN that was never BORN to begin with? Such would only be playing with words, and confusing their meaning.

dreece

[Cal_Minian]

Good points.

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

Given you are again active on TWEB I was hoping you might answer the thoughts in my post #88 (my response to your post #84).

Since our conversation in June/July 2006 I have been reading a JW apology by Brian Holt, "Jesus God or the son of God". On page 116 he discusses Rev 1:17. In his discussion he connects Rev 2:8, Col 1:18, Jn 11:25 & Jn 6:40.

Examining Rev 1:18 & 2:18 what we find is Jesus in an exclusive class - the only one raised from the dead by the Father. Holt via Jn 11:25 etc points out that there is another class, a seperate class that become sons of God by adoption, who will be raised by Jesus.

If I understood your original argument correctly, you assert that in Colossians Jesus is depicted as being of the same class as all of creation. My argument has been that he belongs to a unique class that directly excludes all other things, but is at the same time inclusive of a specific class of things (eg: Abraham is distinct from the nation Israel but being the first and last to receive the promise, is the beginning of the creation of Israel).

Peace

[Cal_Minian]

Hi Cal,

Given you are again active on TWEB I was hoping you might answer the thoughts in my post #88 (my response to your post #84).

Since our conversation in June/July 2006 I have been reading a JW apology by Brian Holt, "Jesus God or the son of God". On page 116 he discusses Rev 1:17. In his discussion he connects Rev 2:8, Col 1:18, Jn 11:25 & Jn 6:40.

Examining Rev 1:18 & 2:18 what we find is Jesus in an exclusive class - the only one raised from the dead by the Father. Holt via Jn 11:25 etc points out that there is another class, a seperate class that become sons of God by adoption, who will be raised by Jesus.

If I understood your original argument correctly, you assert that in Colossians Jesus is depicted as being of the same class as all of creation. My argument has been that he belongs to a unique class that directly excludes all other things, but is at the same time inclusive of a specific class of things (eg: Abraham is distinct from the nation Israel but being the first and last to receive the promise, is the beginning of the creation of Israel).

Peace

I have quoted our publications to the effect that what was created in Jesus in Col 1 are the new creation. BDAG has a reference to this interpretation. However the new creation is a subset of all creation. The Son is represented in Col 1 as being the pre-eminent member of a number of groups which are all subsets of creation, such as the firstborn from the dead.

Hope this helps. I don't know Holt nor have I read his book.

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

I was searching in google for BDAG and came across a discussion you started in 2003 "Firstborn in Col 1:15 – Both pre-eminence and temporal priority in view" (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=141579#post141579). Do you still hold to that view?


I have quoted our publications to the effect that what was created in Jesus in Col 1 are the new creation..For me, Col 1:15-17 contradicts that view "in him [all creation] was created...all (things) through him and into him [have] been created and he is before all (things) and the all (things) in him [hold] together. " (KIT)


BDAG has a reference to this interpretation. However the new creation is a subset of all creation... Sub set (?) That doesn't compute. It suggests to me a secondary creation. do you mean a category - genus/species of creation.

Imu, the new creation is "a new heavens and a new earth" the former things being put away (destroyed).

The Son is represented in Col 1 as being the pre-eminent member of a number of groups which are all subsets of creation, such as the firstborn from the dead.... Would you expand.

I've been contemplating Rev 1:5 where we also have Jesus described as the "first-born from the dead". A question: is there any significance in the different renderings? Col 1:18 "prototokos ek ton (out of the) nekron" vs Rev 1:5 "prototokos ton (of the) nekron". Because of Rev 1:18 I am viewing "prototokos" at Rev 1:5 as the authoritive ranking rather than precedence. However, note the KJV which renders prototokos at Rev 1:5 as 'first begotten" which contrasts with theire rendering of Col 1:15 & 18 as "first-born".

Peace

[Cal_Minian]

Apostoli:
Hi Cal,

I was searching in google for BDAG and came across a discussion you started in 2003 "Firstborn in Col 1:15 – Both pre-eminence and temporal priority in view". Do you still hold to that view?

Cal:
I do continually refine my view and ways of explaining it, but the view itself has not changed.

Originally posted by Cal_Minian
I have quoted our publications to the effect that what was created in Jesus in Col 1are the new creation..

Apostoli:
For me, Col 1:15-17contradicts that view "in him [all creation] was created...all (things) through him and into him [have] been created and he is before all (things) and the all (things) in him [hold] together. " (KIT)

Cal:
Why?

Originally posted by Cal_Minian
BDAG has a reference to this interpretation. However the new creation is a subset of all creation...

Apostoli:
Sub set (?) That doesn't compute. It suggests to me a secondary creation. do you mean a category - genus/species of creation.

Cal:
I don't mean anything philosophical. I wanted to make sure you did not consider them mutually exclusive categories.

Apostoli:
Imu, the new creation is "a new heavens and a new earth" the former things being put away (destroyed).

Cal:
I might agree with that but perhaps not your definition of new heavens and earth.


Originally posted by Cal_Minian
The Son is represented in Col 1as being the pre-eminent member of a number of groups which are all subsets of creation, such as the firstborn from the dead....

Apostoli:
Would you expand.

Cal:
My argument is primarily designed to to show that the view that Christ is the firstborn OVER creation of which he is not a part would be foreign to Paul's argument.

Apostoli:
I've been contemplating Rev 1:5 where we also have Jesus described as the "first-born from the dead". A question: is there any significance in the different renderings? Col 1:18 "prototokos ek ton (out of the) nekron" vs Rev 1:5 "prototokos ton (of the) nekron". Because of Rev 1:18 I am viewing "prototokos" at Rev 1:5 as the authoritive ranking rather than precedence. However, note the KJV which renders prototokos at Rev 1:5 as 'first begotten" which contrasts with theire rendering of Col 1:15& 18 as "first-born".

Peace

Cal:
That is very interesting for the KJV at Rev 1:5. Thanks for sharing. As for your other points, you appear to be emphasizing one aspect of firstborn, that of pre-eminence. Of course it contains that sense. However there is also the sense of being part of the dead, the first part. In 1:18 he says "I became dead" and so he is also a part of that group. In fact the group of which he is a part is also specifically mentioned in 1:5.

[apostoli]

Hi Cal,

I've been contemplating Rev 1:5 where we also have Jesus described as the "first-born from the dead". A question: is there any significance in the different renderings? Col 1:18 "prototokos ek ton (out of the) nekron" vs Rev 1:5"prototokos ton (of the) nekron". Because of Rev 1:18 I am viewing "prototokos" at Rev 1:5 as the authoritive ranking rather than precedence. However, note the KJV which renders prototokos at Rev 1:5 as "first begotten" which contrasts with their rendering of Col 1:15& 18 as "first-born".That is very interesting for the KJV at Rev 1:5. Thanks for sharing.Also see Heb 1:6 where "prototokos" is also rendered "first begotten" in the KJV. The KJV (NIV, RSV etc), to me, could be referring to either the theophanies, first, second advent or all three. There seems less ambiguity in the literal Greek (KIT). Thus NWT, ASV & other modern versions make more sense to me - the text pointing to the risen Christ. I suspect on careful reading this is also the meaning of the KJV etc - see below.

The Duoay also renders Rev 1:5 as "the first begotten of the dead" = "primogenitus mortuorum" (vulgate). For Col 1:18 it renders "the beginning, the firstborn from the dead" = "principium primogenitus ex mortuis". It renders Col 1:15 as "the firstborn of every creature" = "primogenitus omnis creaturae'.

Imu, the RCC did (does (?)) take Rev 1:5 as refering to Jesus as the first of those who died in grace (God's favour) who was/will be raised from the dead. Hence their rendering (and I presume the KJV) "first begotten of the dead" - which is to be understood as "first brought forth from the righteous dead" (cp. Lk 2:7, Mt 1:25). Best I can tell, modern Catholic bibles use W&H and render "firstborn" but I assume their old understanding stands (?).

It has recently come to my attention that the textus receptus (which the KJV is said to be based on) has "prototokos ek ton nekron" at Rev 1:5 (same at Col 1:18). which makes me even more curious why they translated the same phrase differently "first begotten of the dead" vs "first born from the dead". I can only assume they followed the Vulgate/Duoay at times.

As for your other points, you appear to be emphasizing one aspect of firstborn, that of pre-eminence. Of course it contains that sense.At this stage I'm not considering Colossians. I'm revising my understanding...

An aside...

Rev 1:5 & Col 1:18 do seem related. Hence my question in bold above. Imo, because Jesus is called "the beginning" then "firstborn" we might have a degree of tautology if the text simply means Jesus is the first begotten from the dead - "prototokos ton nekron" would have been adequate (cp. Rev 1:5). However, A.Paul says "arche prototokos ek ton nekron" (the beginning, the firstborn out of the dead). In scripture we have witness that Jesus is not the first begotten from the dead. Thus we have to reference other scripture where we find that Jesus is the first and last person raised to eternal life by his Father - all others are raised to eternal life via the son. Add to "arche" and "prototokos" the last clause of Col 1:18, "that in all things he might have the pre-eminence", imo, we seem to have a teaching of an appointment to authority (eg: over the inheritance). There is more to my thoughts on Colossians but I'll stop here.

Main focus...

In regards to Rev 1:5 I do see "prototokos" in a particular legal sense rather than in the social/hereditary sense of "birth right of the first surviving male child" or as a reference to the "first child (male or female) birthed by a mother or begotten by a father". As you indicate the term can also be used in the context of appointment or adoption. Imu, such a thought at Rev 1:5 is not detrimental to WT&TS theology (?). So your comments would be appreciated.

A personal thought that is influencing me connects Rev 1:5,14-16,17-18,20; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,14. More particularly:

1. the internal teaching of Rev 1:5 - relevance of being "ruler of the kings of the earth" to being "firstborn of the dead"
2. Rev 1:5 seems to be reflected in the fact that he who now lives but was dead, the holy and true one, has the keys of David (Rev 3:7 cp. Isa 22:22, 9:7) and also has the keys of hades (Rev 1:18).

However there is also the sense of being part of the dead, the first part. In [Rev] 1:18 he says "I became dead" and so he is also a part of that group. In fact the group of which he is a part is also specifically mentioned in 1:5.Imo, at Rev 1:18 Jesus emphasises his exclusion from the group "dead" - "I am the first and the last, and the living one; and I became dead (ie: he doesn't say he joined the class/group 'the dead" but being subject to the condition of mortal man he died), but look! I am living forever, and I have the keys of death and Hades." (NWT). A.Paul says "we are dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world" but "he has made us alive together with him" Col 2:12-13,20; 3:1,3-4.

Jesus said "let the dead bury the dead". Imo, the only way one could understand "prototokos" as applying to all categories of the dead (those alive but dead in their sins, the faithful deceased confirmed to life, those deceased who are judged from the book to life or the second death) is to understand "prototokos" as a appointment to a position of authority (eg: the prototokos as judge in his realm (David was appointed prototokos by God in this and other senses)). However, imo, this idea does not give a complete scriptural view.

A.Paul suggests that there are those living who are dead in their sins and will remain dead after they die (ie: do not have the promise of the resurrection). However, those that follow Christ though dead to the world are alive and will remain alive even though they die (ie: have the promise of the resurrection). My view considers the prototokos in regards to his legal authority over an inheritance.

Another consideration: The bulk of the NT talks about our inheritance of eternal life. There is an old saying "the poorest of living men is a poor man's son, as he has no inheritance, and the dead are the poorest of all for they do not even have breathe or thought". Thus if Jesus is the firstborn of the group "the dead", then we have nothing - no inheritance.

The simple answer to my ponderings on Rev 1:5 is to accept an understanding such as "Jesus is the first brought forth from the righteous dead unto eternal life". That understanding would even fit Col 1:18. However, it causes lots of problems in understanding Col 1:15 - it would cause it to be understood as Jesus was "brought forth out of creation". An idea that may suit those who reject Jesus' pre-existence but one that does not fit either your nor my understanding of scripture :-)

Peace

[spitndirt]

For what it's worth.....

It might help to consider the first sentence in scripture. "...In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth...". If we will acknowledge that the heaven and the earth were created on the second day from the waters....and the fullness thereof was created in the days following....then we may see something that we have not yet seen. This would mean that what "was" prior to the second day = Elohim. There was God....His Word....and the first day consisting of a unified "two" - light / darkness made "one" day.

Consider what this might mean and whether it would shed some light on this subject.

Later.....:smile:

[spitndirt]

....also,

As to the scripture that says "...by Him all things were made; and without Him nothing was made that has been made...". This cannot possibly mean that the Son created all things. The words "without Him" prove that another was doing the creating by way of...or, through the one being spoken of.

I would further suggest that God created all things with the true Son in mind. The very One who would come into the world in the fullness of time...i.e., the man Jesus. The very essence of this One's person being present in the beginning in "Word" form. It is clear that God created all things by His "Word". The flip-side would be that apart from creation there is left no purpose for "Word". Logos was brought forth for creation and creation for Logos.

More thoughts....

[IncRus]

And He was God's only born before His incarnation for How could God give "His only begotten Son" to the world as Jesus claims in John 3:16 if God did not already have an only born Son. "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that GOD SENT HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON INTO THE WORLD, that we might live through him."1st John 4:9 He was God's only born Son before He was ever sent.

Following your line of thinking, John the Baptist would have to be already existing somewhere before God sent him as it is written: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John" (John 1:6). But the Bible attests that like Jesus, John was born of natural parents, making John a man as much as Jesus says he is in John 8:40.

Of course, Jesus was created, with or without Col. 1:15. He was created by God in the womb of Mary, wasn't he?

The reason why apostle Paul said that Christ is the "firstborn over all creation" is "because of him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created because of him and for him"(Col. 1:16).