21 Apr 11
Originally posted by menace71The Greek term "prototokos" (Colossians 1:15) translated "Firstborn" may also
THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION- Interpretations
The expression “firstborn of all creation” in Colossians 1:15 has been interpreted in three different ways. First, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other groups have argued that it means that Jesus was the first creature created by God. Well, a text without a context is a pretext, and this definitely does not fit t ...[text shortened]... from http://www.equip.org/perspectives/colossians-1-15-the-firstborn-of-all-creation
Manny
be translated "first begetter" or "original bringer forth", a term of preeminence.
It is a term comparing Jesus the Christ and created things. Paul points out that
Jesus is "before all things" and establishes the fact that the Word of God
(John 1:1) existed before all creation (Hebrews 1) and is preeminent over all
creation. To any rational mind, since He is the Creator of all things, He is not
one of the things created. In Romans 8:29 the same word is applied to Jesus
denoting His preeminence and not that He is the first creature made. And in
colossians 1:18 the term is translated "firstborn" again, but clearly indicates He
is preeminent or rules over death. The meaning is clearly not creation.
21 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindssooo up until this point all those who are first-born are pre-eminent, is that what you
The Greek term "prototokos" (Colossians 1:15) translated "Firstborn" may also
be translated "first begetter" or "original bringer forth", a term of preeminence.
It is a term comparing Jesus the Christ and created things. Paul points out that
Jesus is "before all things" and establishes the fact that the Word of God
(John 1:1) existed before all creatio dicates He
is preeminent or rules over death. The meaning is clearly not creation.
are saying?
Col. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born
of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what
sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? Trinitarians say that
“first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ
would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in
relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true,
why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all
creation? But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son.
According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the
eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the
firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is
applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the
group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of
Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves
animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians
1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they
seek proof?
Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it
says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for
him”? The Greek word here rendered “all things” is panta, an inflected form of pas.
At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all . . . other”; JB reads “any other”; NE says
“anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony
with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same
meaning to panta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him
all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him
and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced
by God.
21 Apr 11
actually a point of clarification: the first born does not inherit everything in Hebrew tradition, the simply get a double share. They get twice what the younger siblings would get, but that only makes sense as they would be responsible for supporting their mother and any unmarried sisters or underage children.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by Dowardmork calling orson, come in orson, nanoo nanoo!
actually a point of clarification: the first born does not inherit everything in Hebrew tradition, the simply get a double share. They get twice what the younger siblings would get, but that only makes sense as they would be responsible for supporting their mother and any unmarried sisters or underage children.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by Dowardi am well aware of the Mosaic law and its implications with regard to the first that they
please read: http://www.ehow.com/facts_6772911_jewish-law-concerning-inheritance_.html
receive a double portion, what it has to do with the debate in the present context is
what evades me, perhaps you can enlighten.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieone of the debaters said that the first born recieves the entire inheritance which is untrue. All of God's children share in the inheritance, not just the "first born"
i am well aware of the Mosaic law and its implications with regard to the first that they
receive a double portion, what it has to do with the debate in the present context is
what evades me, perhaps you can enlighten.
22 Apr 11
John 14:28, "The Father is greater than I."
"You heard that I said to you, I go away, and I will come to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I'" (John 14:28).
Jesus said the Father was greater than He not because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man and as a man he was in a lower position. He was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." (Heb. 2:9). Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ."
Jesus has two natures. Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, he was in a lesser position than the Father. He had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9). He became a man to die for people.
A comparison can be found in the marriage relationship. Biblically, a husband is greater in position and authority than his wife. But, he is no different in nature and he is not better than she. They share the same nature, being human, and they work together by love.
So, Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was simply acknowledging that He was also a man and as a man, he was subject to the laws of God so that He might redeem those who were under the law; namely, sinners (Gal. 4:4-5).
http://carm.org/religious-movements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-1428-father-greater-i
taken from the above
Manny
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by menace71excuses excuses Manny, same as the pre-eminent argument, pure excuses! what
John 14:28, "The Father is greater than I."
"You heard that I said to you, I go away, and I will come to you. If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I'" (John 14:28).
Jesus said the Father was greater than He not because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man and as a man he was i ...[text shortened]... vements/jehovahs-witnesses/john-1428-father-greater-i
taken from the above
Manny
about Paul's words that he gave no consideration that he should be equal to God, a
little more difficult for the trinitatarians to get round that or was that also because he
was at the time a man? what about after his ressurection when he subjects himself
to God, there is no longer any excuses from the trinitarians left, because he is now not
a man, but a mighty spiritual being in heaven, what excuses are left for our trinitarian
friends?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 122153
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWho is your 'saviour' robbie?
excuses excuses Manny, same as the pre-eminent argument, pure excuses! what
about Paul's words that he gave no consideration that he should be equal to God, a
little more difficult for the trinitatarians to get round that or was that also because he
was at the time a man? what about after his ressurection when he subjects himself
to God, th ...[text shortened]... n, but a mighty spiritual being in heaven, what excuses are left for our trinitarian
friends?
22 Apr 11
3 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterThe scriptures state that both God and Christ are
Who is your 'saviour' robbie?
described in essence as being able to save. for example,
(Isaiah 43:3) . . .For I am Jehovah your God, the Holy One of Israel your Saviour. I
have given Egypt as a ransom for you, Ethiopia and Seba in place of you. . .
further it is clear that Christ himself had a saviour,
(Hebrews 5:7) . . .In the days of his flesh Christ offered up supplications and also
petitions to the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and
tears, and he was favourably heard for his godly fear.
it is therefore not uncommon to find the Father and the Son spoken of together in
connection with salvation
(Titus 2:11-13) . . .For the undeserved kindness of God which brings salvation to all
sorts of men has been manifested, instructing us to repudiate ungodliness and
worldly desires and to live with soundness of mind and righteousness and godly
devotion amid this present system of things, while we wait for the happy hope and
glorious manifestation of the great God and of the Saviour of us, Christ Jesus. . .
therefore in conclusion, it is right to speak of Christ as being the 'chief agent, of our
salvation' and thus our saviour, as salvation is provided by Jehovah through Jesus
Christ
(Acts 5:31) . . .God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to
give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. . .
It is beautiful in our eyes!
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 122153
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAccepting that you believe that Jesus is not God and is a separate being from God, how do you reconcile having two "saviours" with this:
The scriptures state that both God and Christ are
described in essence as being able to save.
The LORD/Jehovah speaks:
There is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Saviour; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other..
How can you have two saviours anyway?
22 Apr 11
Originally posted by divegeesteri think my text explains it rather admirably, if i do say so myself.
Accepting that you believe that Jesus is not God and is a separate being from God, how do you reconcile having two "saviours" with this:
The LORD/Jehovah speaks:
There is no God apart from me, [b]a righteous God and a Saviour; there is none but me. Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other..
How can you have two saviours anyway?[/b]