first-born of all creation

[Muffled]

Its just a guess and a way of trying to make sense of certain things said in John. Also Jesus here is from the beginning yet a created person, so it resolves one of the major confusing points John makes and which some other NT authors make.

Its hard to imagine the world in a seventh day condition, partly because we haven't seen it. Also all of the new technology has disrupted the slow and continuous time line of history, so we scarely recognize the world of one hundred years ago. The planet is scrambling to determine what to keep from the past and what to replace. Is this the new age spoken of by prophets? Its certainly a different age.

I don't believe this is the case but I will give you an opportunity to explain why you think so.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't believe this is the case but I will give you an opportunity to explain why you think so.

Muffled, do not take me too seriously, because my theory is fluff and air. The confusing points are those points in which the NT authors call him the alpha and omega, the author and finisher of their faith. This confusion actually stems from what people say: That you must believe in their particular set of dogmatic beliefs rather than living in a particular way. Most would sooner sit and laugh with evildoers who eloquently talk about doctrines. This gives rise to pressure upon those who don't have the gift to understand mysteries, that their service is inadequate. The mighty in faith are treated like they are feeble and unimportant while the conundrum of his pre-existence is permitted to cut churches in half. I say that Christians should not put so much emphasis upon beliefs and return to faithfulness and love as their main thing as soon as possible. Faithfulness, not belief, is what matters. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, not the other way around. Love is the most important item of Christian faith, not beliefs and not doctrines. The table should be in the center of the faithful not of the eloquent and the textually correct. In place of the solid foundation of faithful service and love I can offer little, particularly to people who criticize each other over conundrums and viewpoints about the number of hairs on Jesus chin. What I have put forward is merely an argument about air and fluff and should not be taken with too much gravity. As much as such things matter, it can potentially resolve the seeming contradiction of Jesus pre-existence and his birth.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled, do not take me too seriously, because my theory is fluff and air. The confusing points are those points in which the NT authors call him the alpha and omega, the author and finisher of their faith. This confusion actually stems from what people say: That you must believe in their particular set of dogmatic beliefs rather than living in a particular way. Most would sooner sit and laugh with evildoers who eloquently talk about doctrines. This gives rise to pressure upon those who don't have the gift to understand mysteries, that their service is inadequate. The mighty in faith are treated like they are feeble and unimportant while the conundrum of his pre-existence is permitted to cut churches in half. I say that Christians should not put so much emphasis upon beliefs and return to faithfulness and love as their main thing as soon as possible. Faithfulness, not belief, is what matters. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, not the other way around. Love is the most important item of Christian faith, not beliefs and not doctrines. The table should be in the center of the faithful not of the eloquent and the textually correct. In place of the solid foundation of faithful service and love I can offer little, particularly to people who criticize each other over conundrums and viewpoints about the number of hairs on Jesus chin. What I have put forward is merely an argument about air and fluff and should not be taken with too much gravity. As much as such things matter, it can potentially resolve the seeming contradiction of Jesus pre-existence and his birth.

I believe you should try exchanging fluff for knowledge because I believe it makes a difference: Ho 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thanks,but one of the major themes in the NT is that knowledge is fluffy, so I am appealing to that theme. I'm not at all suggesting a life of ignorance or that ignorance is good.

1 Corinthians 8:1 "...we know that we all possess knowledge but knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know."
1 Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
Job 38:2 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge?"

 

[Sleeppy]

Israel is called God's firstborn.. You can take that literally, or not so much.

 

[james2ko]

Israel is called God's firstborn.. You can take that literally, or not so much.

Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn [prototokos].​

I think either way it is used (literal or figurative), it still denotes a first or beginning of existence. The LXX term used for first-born in Ex 4:22 is "prototokos". The same term used in Col 1:15 identifying Christ as God's firstborn creature. Strong's tells us it was derived from two words-" protos" [G4413] which means " foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all)". Interestingly enough, this is the root of our English word "prototype".

The second term, "tikto", [G5088]is defined as: to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literal or figurative: - bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail.

Hence prototokos describes the "creation" of a first of its kind position the subject (Israel) never held before. Firstborn connotes the nation of Israel was "brought into existence" as God’s first "theocracy". Just as Christ was bought into existence as God's first creation. So even when prōtotokos is used in a figurative sense, it does not lose its primary connotation of a beginning of existence.

 

[Muffled]

Exo 4:22 Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn [prototokos].
​

I think either way it is used (literal or figurative), it still denotes a first or beginning of existence. The LXX term used for first-born in Ex 4:22 is "prototokos". The same term used in Col 1:15 identifying Christ as God's firstborn creature. Strong's tells us it was derived from two words-" protos" [G4413] which means " foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all)". Interestingly enough, this is the root of our English word "prototype".

The second term, "tikto", [G5088]is defined as: to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literal or figurative: - bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail.

Hence prototokos describes the "creation" of a first of its kind position the subject (Israel) never held before. Firstborn connotes the nation of Israel was "brought into existence" as God’s first "theocracy". Just as Christ was bought into existence as God's first creation. So even when prōtotokos is used in a figurative sense, it does not lose its primary connotation of a beginning of existence.

I believe prototype means first of a kind. This does seem to suggest that it is the first time that God takes a people under His wing.

 

[John Martin]

The first born of creation refers to the first manifestation of God. If we understand God as the Sun consciousness, the first born of creation is like the Moon consciousness. This first born is not created by God but it is the radiance of God, like the Sun radiates its fullness. It is also called the image and likeness of God. As the radiance moves further it solidifies and become the source of material universe that began with the big bang. In this sense the first born of creation is the source of the universe. Jesus Christ as a physical human being is not the first born of creation. But the reflection of the divine ray in him is the first born of creation. It was there before the big bang began and before Abraham and before Adam and Eve also. Jesus evolved in his relationship with God and entered into the consciousness of the first born. Since this first born is not created by God but manifestation of God it has the possibility to melt into God and realize oneness with God, like piece of ice that comes from water and melts back into water. When St.John says, In the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. The Word is the first manifestation of creation. it is like the seed of creation from which the whole of creation comes. The Word was with God means it is separate from God but dependent on God, like the Sun and the Moon. The word was God. Since it is manifested by God( not created out of nothing) it has the possibility to return to God and realize oneness with God, like a piece of ice that comes from the water and melts into water. Hence Jesus Christ as a physical being is not the first born of creation, but the radiance of the divine in him is the first born. Not only first born but it is also one with God. This is what St.Paul means when he says renewed in the knowledge of being created in the image and likeness of God. This image and likeness of God was there before Adam and Eve and before Abraham. Everyone has the possibility to enter into this consciousness and realize to be the first born of creation and subsequently oneness with God.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I was able to follow what you were saying, John M., but the word 'Consciousness' did not help. 'Manifestation' I understood, and I understood your dialogue about radiance, ice and water. Everything except 'sun consciousness' and 'moon consciousness' unless you mean sentience. Maybe you mean God is the greater sentience and then the first born is the derived lesser sentience?

 

[John Martin]

I was able to follow what you were saying, John M., but the word 'Consciousness' did not help. 'Manifestation' I understood, and I understood your dialogue about radiance, ice and water. Everything except 'sun consciousness' and 'moon consciousness' unless you mean sentience. Maybe you mean God is the greater sentience and then the first born is the derived lesser sentience?

It is difficult to describe. Another word can be awareness.

God's awareness is like the Sun. God is fullness and independent. God does not need anything from outside. Everything else is dependent on God.
The image and likeness of God is the first born. It is like the Moon. It does not have light in itself. It receives the light from the Sun and gives it to others. It is dependent on God. Hence its awareness is both receiving and giving whereas God's awareness is only giving awareness. God's awareness is like Higgs field which gives mass to the other particles. Other particles are like the Moon which depends on the Sun. I hope this helps.

 

[james2ko]

Context? What? First off, regardless of how you look at it, it is still adding words to the bible:

1. Nothing wrong with that as long as the addition is justified by the broader context and I've proven it is.

The scripture would have read just find without the rendering. The fact that you have to add a word in to the bible to fit your organization's given theology speaks for itself. If every denomination or Christian sect did this then which bible can we trust as divinely inspired truth? Just let the bible speak for itself. Is that such a bad idea?

2. For you, it would be, because if you allow the bible to interpret itself, you would have to admit Isa 43:10-11, Col 1:15, Rev 3:14 when interpreted objectively, all specifically state He was created.

No it isn't a fallacy, because I am not saying "because the rendering is inconsistent, therefore, it is inaccurate"..

3. It most certainly is. You're dismissing the doctrine based on the JW's inconsistent and alleged inaccurate use of the term "other" and not the evidence or position presented.

I am saying that the rendering is "inaccurate IN ADDITION TO being unjustified", which is one more problem on top of the one that we've been discussing. So much for your "Aha!! Got'cha" moment.

4. You can prove inconsistency. But are having great difficulty proving it is inaccurate and unjustified. So far the references you quoted or shall I say linked, have been debunked.

Regardless, if Paul wanted to the word [other] to be in the context, he would have put it there. As far as I'm concerned, the NWT is the only translation of the bible that does this, and they've done this throughout their translation so that their bible is modified almost perfectly to fit their theology

5. I just refuted your assertion about the non-existent terms "proto and ktizo" How Paul had access to an existent term [prototokia] he could have used but instead chose a term that means some thing or being that was newly created [prototokos], and how the use and meaning of that word is corroborated by other verses in the Old and New Testaments and the only thing you can come up with is a subjective rant about the NWT? Not a good look, CW.

It is based on that, plus the countless other Trinity-proof verses, plus my "Argument from perfect morality" that I can conclude that Jesus is undoubtly God.

6. False premises usually lead to false conclusions.

See above post.

7. Yeah. I see that you completely ignored it and instead answered with a rant against the JW's.

The Watch Tower are the ones altering their beliefs...countless doctrine changes over the past 100 years or so.

8. Then they are fulfilling 2 Pet 3:8, right?

Yet, Jesus is our Savior....Eph 5:23

9. You got that right and He admits He was created by the Father. Another aha moment?

So it goes right back to translation and who has the best ancient greek translators.

10. No it goes back to who can put aside their presuppositions and fallacious reasoning to interpret the bible as objectively as possible. Like I said, I am not nor was I ever a JW (I actually disagree with many of their doctrines). I was actually a Binitarian (two co-eternal beings) when I started my inquiry. I placed bias aside and put both arguments in front of me and weighed them against the originals. No theological agenda. Just seeking the truth.

We all would like to think that, wouldn't we?

11. Yes. But some can prove what the "originals" actually say better than others

My strength is a passion for defending the Christian world view against atheists, agnostics, critics, skeptics, unbelievers, and those that teach false biblical doctrine.

12. You may want to do a lot more research on this doctrine because so far, the evidence suggests the false biblical doctrine is being practiced by those who teach that Christ was not created. Just for the record. I'm not defending the JW's or their translation (Pegg and I have had many disagreements about much of their theology (check the last few pages of the recent "Return to Christ" thread). I'm defending the truth contained in the originals, in spite of who is currently practicing the doctrine. I've learned through the years a bias toward or away from a particular position can cloud ones better judgment.

link to where we left off..
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/164975-return-christ-44.html

 

[Pegg]

May i just ask you guys, if Jesus was not Gods first creation, who was?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I suggest that there are multiple creations. Genesis is one of them, and the beginning of Jesus ministry is another. There could also be others, because if there are two there could be three.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1. Nothing wrong with that as long as the addition is justified by the broader context and I've proven it is.

If you didn't presuppose that Jesus was God, you would not render it as such. The word is not in the original Greek and if it was, then we wouldn't be having this discussion..and again, since the WT has a history of this kind of stuff, I can only conclude that they added it to fit their doctrine.

2. For you, it would be, because if you allow the bible to interpret itself, you would have to admit Isa 43:10-11, Col 1:15, Rev 3:14 when interpreted objectively, all specifically state He was created.

I don't see anything hinting towards a created Jesus in Isa 43:10-11. You already know my position on Col 1:15...and Rev 3:14 could be interpreted that way, and it could be interpreted another way...the fact that the Greek word [arche] has more than one definition.

The objective is clear...find out which direction the evidence points...and the Rev 3:14 scripture is about the best that Anti-Trinity folks have to offer that would even hint to their view.

John supposedly wrote Revelations, and he also supposedly wrote the Gospel that bears his name. He didn't add [other] in John 1:3...and neither did Paul in Col 1:15-17, so based on this, plus the countless other Trinity proof texts, I am going to have to NOT interpret Rev 3:14 in the way that you do. There is just to much biblical support for the Trinity that simply cannot be ignore, and scripture has to interpret scripture.

3. It most certainly is. You're dismissing the doctrine based on the JW's inconsistent and alleged inaccurate use of the term "other" and not the evidence or position presented.

I have reasons why I dismiss those particular verses. In order for me to accept it, I would have to downright ignore all of the Trinity-proof texts...and unless you can shoot them down, I have no reasons to not believe that they support the Trinity doctrine.

4. You can prove inconsistency. But are having great difficulty proving it is inaccurate and unjustified. So far the references you quoted or shall I say linked, have been debunked.

LOL. I don't think you can rebuke the Trinity proof texts. In order to do that you would have to revise almost the entire bible. I wouldn't say it is impossible tho, because it seems as if the Watch Tower is doing just that...in small steps, not leaps and bounds.

5. I just refuted your assertion about the non-existent terms "proto and ktizo" How Paul had access to an existent term [prototokia] he could have used but instead chose a term that means some thing or being that was newly created [prototokos], and how the use and meaning of that word is corroborated by other verses in the Old and New Testaments and the only thing you can come up with is a subjective rant about the NWT? Not a good look, CW.

Ok, so he could have used the existent term...but he also "could" have used [other] too, but did he? No. My argument is; here you have a so called religious "organization" that translates the bible in ways to fit their theology, and this scripture is one of many places in the bible where this is done. So you have a pattern, a history of such unjustified rendering.

So at the end of the day, the word that would make my case isn't in the earliest manuscripts, and the word that would make your case (for arguments sake ) isn't in the earliest manuscripts. So who wins? I do, because you only have a couple of verses which you use to make your case..I have dozens. So the proponderence of evidence is on my side.

6. False premises usually lead to false conclusions.

I agree

7. Yeah. I see that you completely ignored it and instead answered with a rant against the JW's.

I eat JW's for breakfast :beach:

8. Then they are fulfilling 2 Pet 3:8, right?

If you say so.

9. You got that right and He admits He was created by the Father. Another aha moment?

Umm, you draw that conclusion based on what? Certainly not Eph 5:23.

10. No it goes back to who can put aside their presuppositions and fallacious reasoning to interpret the bible as objectively as possible.

You claim you have the truth, but you can't guarantee that you don't have any presuppositions and fallacious reasoning that you are using as a foundation for anything that you say.

Like I said, I am not nor was I ever a JW (I actually disagree with many of their doctrines). I was actually a Binitarian (two co-eternal beings) when I started my inquiry. I placed bias aside and put both arguments in front of me and weighed them against the originals. No theological agenda. Just seeking the truth.

Beautiful. Then I'd like you to offer responses to the various trinity-proof texts that I have.

12. You may want to do a lot more research on this doctrine because so far, the evidence suggests the false biblical doctrine is being practiced by those who teach that Christ was not created. Just for the record. I'm not defending the JW's or their translation (Pegg and I have had many disagreements about much of their theology (check the last few pages of the recent "Return to Christ" thread). I'm defending the truth contained in the originals, in spite of who is currently practicing the doctrine. I've learned through the years a bias toward or away from a particular position can cloud ones better judgment.

Its funny, you claim to be defending the truth contained in the originals...the only problem is, THERE ARE NO EXISTING ORIGINAL copies of the bible. We do have early manuscripts, yes...but not the originals. Unless you have them resting on your nightstand or something.

Second, again...to many other trinity-proof texts..just to many to just throw all way on the account of some unjustified renderings.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

May i just ask you guys, if Jesus was not Gods first creation, who was?

The bible is unclear as to who was first created.

 

[outhouse]

May i just ask you guys, if Jesus was not Gods first creation, who was?

NO one.

To date, nothing was every created out of thin air when it comes to humans.

 

[outhouse]

I suggest that there are multiple creations. Genesis is one of them,.

Based on what??

People that created their own pseudohistory, because they had no idea of their own origins?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Based on what??

People that created their own pseudohistory, because they had no idea of their own origins?

Genesis could be a pseudo history, sure. I don't presume that it is or isn't, although it may not ever have been intended to be read as history. I look at John's use of creation narrative in his gospel which borrows imagery from Genesis but talks about Jesus. Perhaps he got the idea from someone else first: Perhaps Genesis is the account of the creation of Moses ministry much like John's gospel is an account of the creation of Jesus ministry? The gospel of John talks about Jesus ministry, and as you read through his gospel he makes Jesus the light of a new creation story. From that there could be at least two creations in the Bible narratives, one for Moses and one for Jesus. What you called pseudohistory may not be intended strictly as a history so much as a conceptual tool. As demonstration of what I mean: Jesus is called the 'Light' by John and 'Elijah' by John but is a physical being who is not named Elijah in day to day living. He sleeps in dark places without glowing. At least in the case of John's creation narrative the story is an overlay upon the life of the man, Jesus. Well, perhaps Genesis works the same way for Moses or for Abraham or one of those other ministries in the long ago.

 

[outhouse]

Genesis could be a pseudo history, sure.

factual actually [Finklestein]

I look at John's use of creation narrative in his gospel which borrows imagery from Genesis but talks about Jesus.

No Jon wrote anything. The authors of John wrote it in atleast 3 stages over a long period of time.

Far removed from jesus life. It also deal more with spirituallity and mythology then the other gospels.

It used to viewed as not historical, but recent trends are showing some of the older parts may go back to traditins worth investigating.

Perhaps he got the idea from someone else first: Perhaps Genesis is the account of the creation of Moses ministry much like John's gospel is an account of the creation of Jesus ministry?

Moses is part of that whole pseudohistory.

Israelites factually evolved from displaced Canaanites.

They used the Canaanite aplphabte, pottery and deities, and some mythology.

. Well, perhaps Genesis works the same way for Moses or for Abraham or one of those other ministries in the long ago.

Abraham is another legend that has no historicity as written. Monotheism started after 622 BC and it was not widely accepted at first. It took hundreds of years to become otrhodox.



So when we look at how they botched history, how could they even know prehistory?

They did not even know history during periods of writing.

 

[Pegg]

The bible is unclear as to who was first created.

its only unclear when you read Proverbs 8 as pertaining only to 'wisdom'

Yet Jesus, a living intelligent being, is called 'the word'

How do you know that 'wisdom' is not being used as a metaphor in Prov chapter 8?

Do you really think that God needed to 'create' wisdom? And do you really think that wisdom has affection for mankind??? And when proverbs says that we should 'listen to wisdom', does that not imply that 'wisdom' is an individual who we can learn from? If you can accept that its possible, then the bible does inform us of who the very first of Gods creations is.