first-born of all creation

[Muffled]

I agree with this. The Bible is written in parable form (Psalm 78:2) and words must be compared with other places where they occur in the Bible to get at the parable meanings. The word creation is often abused by readers who do not realize the Bible is talking about those saved persons who God creates in his image (the believers) when he talks about his creation. He is not talking about planets and the universe in these instances. Jesus was declared a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec in Hebrews 7. He says that before Abraham was he was (John 8:58). He appears to have been throughout eternity. However, the same chapter 7 in Hebrews says that he offered himself up as a sacrifice just once, for those he came to save. It was from this death of sacrifice on the cross that he was the first born from. Those who would be born to new spiritual life come afterwards. Incidentally, this is the same birth that is spoken of as the first resurrection in Rev. 20:6. The true believers are said to have part in this first resurrection of Christ, because they are saved through it. Their mention in this Rev 20:6 verse is just more evidence that the Col 1:15 verse in question is talking about the true believers only when it mentions 'creation'.

I believe this does not refer to the whole Bible but simply to that specific Psalm.

I believe that can be helpful but words can also change meaning when written in a different context.

I beleive Paul refers to this as a first fruit not a first birth.

I believe a resurrection is not a birth even though it is a beginning.

 

[bird]

I believe this does not refer to the whole Bible but simply to that specific Psalm.

Psalm 78:1-2: "[[Maschil of Asaph.]] Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth.I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:"
This is referring to the law it says, to the words of God's mouth, both of which are the entire Bible. Read Psalm 119 and you will see that the word 'law' is used to describe the entire Bible. Similarly, the one who meditates on the law day and night in Psalm 1 is referring to the entire Bible, God's law book. Joshua 1:8: "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night". This law is said to be the words of God's mouth. Psalm 78:2 says that this is a parable. Mark chapter 4 gives insight into how to interpret all parables."And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?The sower soweth the word."

 

[Tumah]

How can someone be the firstborn of multiple things. That doesn't make any sense. If one is a firstborn human, one is not a firstborn donkey.
Also it says, "In the beginning, G-d created the Heavens and the Earth." It doesn't say, "In the beginning G-d created the firstborn of creation and then He created the Heavens and the Earth."

 

[Muffled]

Psalm 78:1-2: "[[Maschil of Asaph.]] Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth.I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:"
This is referring to the law it says, to the words of God's mouth, both of which are the entire Bible. Read Psalm 119 and you will see that the word 'law' is used to describe the entire Bible. Similarly, the one who meditates on the law day and night in Psalm 1 is referring to the entire Bible, God's law book. Joshua 1:8: "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night". This law is said to be the words of God's mouth. Psalm 78:2 says that this is a parable. Mark chapter 4 gives insight into how to interpret all parables."And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?The sower soweth the word."

I believe it does not say my law is a parable.

I believe the concept that all of God's words are law has no supporting evidence. For instance in Job when God asks Satan "from whence comest thou?" that he is not stating a law.

i beleive this is a generalization.

 

[Muffled]

How can someone be the firstborn of multiple things. That doesn't make any sense. If one is a firstborn human, one is not a firstborn donkey.
Also it says, "In the beginning, G-d created the Heavens and the Earth." It doesn't say, "In the beginning G-d created the firstborn of creation and then He created the Heavens and the Earth."

I believe creation can refer to multiple acts or single acts such as the conception of Jesus. It is true that we most often associate it with multiple acts but that does not mean that it is limited to that just because it is customary.

I believe that is due to the fact that the creation of Jesus is a separate act.

 

[Tumah]

I believe creation can refer to multiple acts or single acts such as the conception of Jesus. It is true that we most often associate it with multiple acts but that does not mean that it is limited to that just because it is customary.

I believe that is due to the fact that the creation of Jesus is a separate act.

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. Sorry.

 

[james2ko]

How can someone be the firstborn of multiple things. That doesn't make any sense. If one is a firstborn human, one is not a firstborn donkey.Also it says, "In the beginning, G-d created the Heavens and the Earth." It doesn't say, "In the beginning G-d created the firstborn of creation and then He created the Heavens and the Earth.

Col 1:15-18 He is the image of the invisible God (The Father), the firstborn over all creation.16 For by Him (Christ The Son) 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 through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the​

When read in context, these NT passages indicate Christ (EL) was the very first creative act by the Father, at some point in the distant past. Some time later, Christ was the "agent" used to create all things (heaven and earth).

 

[Tumah]

Col 1:15-18 He is the image of the invisible God (The Father), the firstborn over all creation.16 For by Him (Christ The Son) 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 through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the​

When read in context, these NT passages indicate Christ (EL) was the very first creative act by the Father, at some point in the distant past. Some time later, Christ was the "agent" used to create all things (heaven and earth).

A little backwards editing. I see. In the Talmud we would describe that as "the main point is missing from the story."

Anyway, my point was that when one is the firstborn of a thing, it generally means one is of that type. If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, then one is saying that creation and Jesus are the same type of thing. For instance, when G-d calls Israel His firstborn, He is indicating, that among the nations - of which Israel is also one - Israel is first. Just like when you have a bunch of kids, one of them is going to be the firstborn. However if you have a kid (human), a chicken, a dog and a kid (goat), the human kid will not be the firstborn of all the other animals, even if they were born after it because they are not the same type. Similarly, if you are calling Jesus the firstborn of creation, that means Jesus and creation are the same type of thing.

 

[james2ko]

A little backwards editing. I see. In the Talmud we would describe that as "the main point is missing from the story."Anyway, my point was that when one is the firstborn of a thing, it generally means one is of that type. If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, then one is saying that creation and Jesus are the same type of thing. For instance, when G-d calls Israel His firstborn, He is indicating, that among the nations - of which Israel is also one - Israel is first. Just like when you have a bunch of kids, one of them is going to be the firstborn. However if you have a kid (human), a chicken, a dog and a kid (goat), the human kid will not be the firstborn of all the other animals, even if they were born after it because they are not the same type. Similarly, if you are calling Jesus the firstborn of creation, that means Jesus and creation are the same type of thing.

If the reference "type" is inclusive of every living thing in creation, then it would make sense for "someone" to be the firstborn of the reference type. This is what the NT verses are saying.

 

[Tumah]

If the reference "type" is inclusive of every living thing in creation, then it would make sense for "someone" to be the firstborn of the reference type. This is what the NT verses are saying.

Including the impure animals?

 

[james2ko]

Including the impure animals?

In the context of them being part of a living thing in all of creation, yes.

 

[Tumah]

In the context of them being part of a living thing in all of creation, yes.

So since all of creation includes impure animals, Jesus, a like-kind also contains impure elements. Interesting.

 

[james2ko]

So since all of creation includes impure animals, Jesus, a like-kind also contains impure elements. Interesting.

All of creation to me indicates even the angelic realm. If all of creation to you only includes impure animals, that to me is equally interesting.

 

[Tumah]

All of creation to me indicates even the angelic realm. If all of creation to you only includes impure animals, that to me is equally interesting.

Not "only" but "also".

 

[james2ko]

Not "only" but "also".

So that means Christ was also the firstborn of the angelic realm. Who were created before your impure animals.

 

[Tumah]

So that means Christ was also the firstborn of the angelic realm. Who were created before your impure animals.

That's right. He seems to consist of part archangel part swarming-thing. Obviously not 50:50. WE would first have to determine the ratio of angelic beings to members of the animal kingdom past and present to determine the exact ratio.

 

[Kolibri]

A little backwards editing. I see. In the Talmud we would describe that as "the main point is missing from the story."

Anyway, my point was that when one is the firstborn of a thing, it generally means one is of that type. If Jesus is the firstborn of creation, then one is saying that creation and Jesus are the same type of thing. For instance, when G-d calls Israel His firstborn, He is indicating, that among the nations - of which Israel is also one - Israel is first. Just like when you have a bunch of kids, one of them is going to be the firstborn. However if you have a kid (human), a chicken, a dog and a kid (goat), the human kid will not be the firstborn of all the other animals, even if they were born after it because they are not the same type. Similarly, if you are calling Jesus the firstborn of creation, that means Jesus and creation are the same type of thing.

The set would be defined by the word "all" in "firstborn of all creation". It isn't' firstborn of all mankind nor firstborn of all chickens, nor firstborn of all mammals, but "all creation" - that is all created things, regardless of subtypes. Since angels were created, it would be firstborn among them too, as they are a sub-set of "all" creation.

 

[Tumah]

The set would be defined by the word "all" in "firsborn of all creation". It isn't' firstborn of all mankind nor first born of all chickens, nor firstborn of all mammals, but "all creation" - that is all created things, regardless of subtypes.

Yes but you are looking at everything as one item call "Creation" and then calling Jesus a firstborn of that. But the reality is that creation is a conglomerate of many creatures and so he needs to be a firstborn of everything.

 

[Kolibri]

Yes but you are looking at everything as one item call "Creation" and then calling Jesus a firstborn of that. But the reality is that creation is a conglomerate of many creatures and so he needs to be a firstborn of everything.

I have no issue with that - as long as it is everything ever created and not the one being who was never created - the Almighty God himself.

 

[james2ko]

That's right. He seems to consist of part archangel part swarming-thing. Obviously not 50:50. WE would first have to determine the ratio of angelic beings to members of the animal kingdom past and present to determine the exact ratio.

So He graduated from impure animal to part archangel. We're making progress Angels were created before anything else. So He is the firstborn of all, anything, everything that was ever created. Just like the verse indicates. Unless you have an alternate exegete of the New Testament verse. Well, do you?