Jump to content

Jesus.defender

Firstborn or First created?

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Jesus.defender -
Space Merchant -
10
212

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Firstborn or First created?

Colossians 1:15 - ‘the firstborn (Greek: prototokos 4416) of every creature’.

JWs use this verse to teach that Jesus was created at a point in time as an angel.

They ignore the evidence and insist that the word ‘firstborn’ here means ‘first created’, ‘the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons’.

The Bible teaching:

1) ‘Firstborn’ (Greek: prototokos) does NOT mean ‘first-created’ (Greek: protoktisis). First-created (Protoktisis) is never used of Christ in New Testament.

Question:Where is it used of Jesus in New Testament?

Question: Why didn’t Paul use the term ‘first-created’ (protoktisis) in Colossians 1:15 if he meant that Christ was the first one created by Jehovah?

2) Ask: What does ‘firstborn’ (Greek: prototokos 4416) mean?

Answer: ‘Pre-eminent, Ruler, Sovereign, First in rank’.

It is used in other passages which refer to Christ:

i. Romans 8:29 ‘that he might be the firstborn among many brethren’. ‘Prototokos’ presents Christ as the pre-eminent member of the group (S. Zodhiates NT, p 1249).
ii. Colossians 1:15. ‘The firstborn of every creature’ Christ is the one pre-eminent and supreme ruler over all creation (S Zodhiates NT, p 1250). v.16 ‘By him were all things created’ means that Christ Himself is not part of Creation (John 1:3).
iii. Colossians 1:18 ‘He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church: who is the
beginning (arche), the firstborn (prototokos=Ruler) from the dead; that in all
things he might have the pre-eminence (proteuon)’.
‘Arche’ means ‘first cause’ (Revelation 3:14, Colossians 1:18) and is parallel to
‘prototokos’ in Colossians 1:15,18, both asserting Christ’s pre-eminence.
Note: ‘Proteuon’ (pre-eminence) present tense is used only in Colossians 1:18 and indicates not an acquired right to be ruler and pre-eminent, but an inherent right by virtue of His nature. Christ, being the Creator, deserves to have pre-eminence.
iv. Hebrews 1:6 ‘And again, when he bringeth the firstbegotten(prototokos=Ruler) into the world, he saith ‘And let all the angels of God worship Him’.
Alternately, translate this as ‘And when He again brings the firstborn into the
world’, refers to Christ’s second coming when Christ as King will be worshipped
by the angels. Christ is exalted even above all the angels.
v. Revelation 1:5 ‘And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the
firstbegotten (prototokos=Ruler) of the dead, and the prince (arche = chief) of the kings of the earth.’ Here ‘prototokos’ means that Christ is first of those to be
resurrected, and prince (arche) means ruler of earth’s kings at His second coming.
Note: JWs compare Christ as the firstborn of all creation with the firstborn son of Pharaoh. This is nonsensical, because it is true that Pharaoh parented his son, but it is not true that ‘all creation’ parented Jesus.
3) We must understand what the original speaker or writer intended by the words which he used. The ancient Hebrews used the term ‘firstborn son’ when referring to the preeminent son, regardless of whether or not he was the first son born to the parents. The son with the title ‘firstborn’ had the right of primogeniture which meant that:
i) He acquired a special blessing (Genesis 27);
ii) He became heir of a double share of the father’s wealth (Deuteronomy 21:17);
iii) He replaced his father as the family head. He had authority over his brothers;
iv) He represented the father in civil and religious matters;
v) He had some holiness because through him flowed the common blood of the tribe (Genesis 49:3; Deuteronomy 21:17).
Key: The term ‘firstborn’ does not refer to the first one born, but to the pre-eminent one in the family. Consider these examples where the son with the title ‘firstborn’ was not born first:
(1) David was the last born son of Jesse, yet Psalm 89:27 says of him: ‘Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth’. (v.20 onwards refers to David).
(2) Ephraim was the second born son of Joseph: ‘The name of the second called he Ephraim.’ (Genesis 41:50-52). Yet ‘Ephraim is my firstborn’ (Jeremiah 31:9). This was because of his pre-eminent position. Manasseh was born first to Joseph, but Ephraim became the firstborn because of his pre-eminence.
(3) Jacob (Israel) was the second son born to Isaac, after Esau, yet God says of Israel, ‘Israel is my son, even my firstborn.’ (Exodus 4:22). Esau says of himself, ‘I am Esau thy firstborn’. (Genesis 27:19). Esau means that he was born first and should have the birthright. God means that Israel, though born second, took the pre-eminent position. Hence, in this sense Christ is firstborn because of His pre-eminence, not because He was created first as JWs think.
(4) Solomon was born to David later, and the line of the kings came through Solomon,yet Amnon was born first (I Chronicles 3:2).
(5) Isaac was born 13 years after Ishmael, yet Isaac took the pre-eminent position in the family.(Genesis 17:19).
(6) Judah was the fourth son born to Jacob (Genesis 29:35), yet Judah received the dominion and line of Christ, even though Reuben being born first forfeited his right of primogeniture due to fornication (Genesis 49:3,4)
4) Firstborn can be rendered metaphorically, not meaning born first. Examples include:
i) Job 18:13 ‘the firstborn of death shall devour his strength’. As the firstborn son held the chief place, so Job refers to the chiefest (most deadly) disease that death possessed;
ii) Isaiah 14:30 ‘The firstborn of the poor shall feed’, means the poorest of the poor.

Conclusion: Firstborn does not mean born first or created first. Rather, it is a title of first rank, or pre-eminent position. Paul calls Christ the firstborn (prototokos = Ruler).

Ask: What does Psalm 89:27 mean by calling David firstborn, when he was the last born son?

Ask: Why didn’t Paul use ‘first created’ (protoktisis) of Christ in Colossians 1:15 if he intended to teach that Christ was the first one created by Jehovah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacob got rights of first born but he was not first born; same with David, Jehovah gave him right of first born in relation to kingship. Jesus is therefore the greater David. Jehovah is developing his purpose since the time of the first rebellion in the Garden of Eden, so all his sayings reflected that he was developing for the future saving of the human race.


(Psalm 89:27) And I will place him as firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But where one was the first one born, was it correctly used? As when Jesus was called firstborn by his mother? Was he not the very first child born to her? And was not Jesus the first child born to God, among all the other sons in heaven, of all creation he was the first, because before anything came into existence it came by the will of God, not the Son. There has to be a Father. A Father makes a Son, not the other way around. Like the egg before the chicken? We know the chicken came first, because God with his Son created life first, not the egg, the animal,right? So his " ONLY BEGOTTEN " the one formed by his hands only, came first. And as the scriptures state all other life came through Jesus. So simple, common sense. One enitity with no beginning with a Son who was his only begotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 1:44 AM, Melinda Mills said:

Jacob got rights of first born but he was not first born; same with David, Jehovah gave him right of first born in relation to kingship. Jesus is therefore the greater David. Jehovah is developing his purpose since the time of the first rebellion in the Garden of Eden, so all his sayings reflected that he was developing for the future saving of the human race.


(Psalm 89:27) And I will place him as firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.

 

Jacob was not first CREATED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 1:24 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

1:15 ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως. The ἐν ᾧ (“in whom”) of 1:14 switched the focus from God (ὅς, 1:13) to Christ and thus made it possible to attach the lengthy hymnic description of Christ (running to six verses) by means of a further simple ὅς (“who”). The language used is unlike other traditional formulaic summaries of the gospel introduced elsewhere by the same relative pronoun (such as Rom. 3:25; 4:25; 8:34), which focus on the cross and resurrection of Christ. But the same phrase (“who is the image of God”) is used in 2 Cor. 4:4.

 

Show me the source for this, please. which Bible, etc?

 

 First creation was Jesus in heaven and firstborn as a man on earth."

That is NOT what the Bible teaches. You are twisting things to suit your theology.

Let me guess, the WATCHTOWER taught you this.

If Jesus created ALL things, then He cant have been created. The word "other" which the watchtower deceitfully inserts into your translation is NOT found anywhere in the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 3:57 AM, John Houston said:

But where one was the first one born, was it correctly used? As when Jesus was called firstborn by his mother? Was he not the very first child born to her? And was not Jesus the first child born to God, among all the other sons in heaven, of all creation he was the first, because before anything came into existence it came by the will of God, not the Son. There has to be a Father. A Father makes a Son, not the other way around. Like the egg before the chicken? We know the chicken came first, because God with his Son created life first, not the egg, the animal,right? So his " ONLY BEGOTTEN " the one formed by his hands only, came first. And as the scriptures state all other life came through Jesus. So simple, common sense. One enitity with no beginning with a Son who was his only begotten.

Address the verses i gave. Not just give your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 1:44 AM, Melinda Mills said:

Jacob got rights of first born but he was not first born;

 

You obviously did NOT read my post.

what you SHOULD of said was "Jacob got rights of first born but he was not first created"

On 6/25/2019 at 1:44 AM, Melinda Mills said:

same with David, Jehovah gave him right of first born in relation to kingship. Jesus is therefore the greater David. Jehovah is developing his purpose since the time of the first rebellion in the Garden of Eden, so all his sayings reflected that he was developing for the future saving of the human race.

Jesus is greated than david because Jesus CREATED david!

On 6/25/2019 at 1:44 AM, Melinda Mills said:

 


(Psalm 89:27) And I will place him as firstborn, The highest of the kings of the earth.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2019 at 1:24 PM, BillyTheKid46 said:

First creation was Jesus in heaven and firstborn as a man on earth.

Wrong. The watchtower has LIED to you.

Jesus created ALL things.

the watchtower inserted the word "other" just before the word "things".

But, the original does NOT say that!

6ὅτι (because) ἐν (in) αὐτῷ (Him) ἐκτίσθη (were created) τὰ (-) πάντα (all things) ἐν (in) τοῖς (the) οὐρανοῖς (heavens) καὶ (and) ἐπὶ (upon) τῆς (the) γῆς (earth), τὰ (the) ὁρατὰ (visible) καὶ (and) τὰ (the) ἀόρατα (invisible), εἴτε (whether) θρόνοι (thrones) εἴτε (or) κυριότητες (dominions) εἴτε (or) ἀρχαὶ (rulers) εἴτε (or) ἐξουσίαι (authorities); τὰ (-) πάντα (all things) δι’ (through) αὐτοῦ (Him) καὶ (and) εἰς (unto) αὐτὸν (Him) ἔκτισται (have been created).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jesus.defender said:

what you SHOULD of said was "Jacob got rights of first born but he was not first created"

Quote

This is Yacob/Jacob, not Jesus. Jesus himself as been called the firstborn of creation as well as the firstborn out of death (out of the dead), and evidence to such is that Jesus himself is the first of the Firstfruits.

1 hour ago, Jesus.defender said:

But, the original does NOT say that!

How so?

1 hour ago, Jesus.defender said:

6ὅτι (because) ἐν (in) αὐτῷ (Him) ἐκτίσθη (were created) τὰ (-) πάντα (all things) ἐν (in) τοῖς (the) οὐρανοῖς (heavens) καὶ (and) ἐπὶ (upon) τῆς (the) γῆς (earth), τὰ (the) ὁρατὰ (visible) καὶ (and) τὰ (the) ἀόρατα (invisible), εἴτε (whether) θρόνοι (thrones) εἴτε (or) κυριότητες (dominions) εἴτε (or) ἀρχαὶ (rulers) εἴτε (or) ἐξουσίαι (authorities); τὰ (-) πάντα (all things) δι’ (through) αὐτοῦ (Him) καὶ (and) εἰς (unto) αὐτὸν (Him) ἔκτισται (have been created).

Incorrect in every sense. The Textus Receptus is not the original, and or the later manuscript sources, which is known to everyone to have been corrupted. We have the original early manuscripts concerning such that proves your claim as nothing more than a fallacy, and it only too a single minute to point this out.

2 Cor. 4:4 and Hebrews 1:3 are also marginal references that also holds more evidence.

That being said:

The Father takes delight in the Son. The Son marvels and rejoices over the works of the hands of the Father.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    61,695
    Total Topics
    114,696
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,513
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    pastel
    Newest Member
    pastel
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Quote @b4ucuhear " For example, we realized that the “superior authorities” mentioned in Romans 13:1 are, not Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, but the political rulers " BUT the original teaching by the Bible Students was that the 'superior authorities' was the political rulers. It was fully understood in the first place. So, why was false reasoning used to give false teaching ? Obviously no Holy Spirit involved there. So you cannot say that it was new light or better understanding when it was originally known anyway 
    • “We Must Obey God as Ruler Rather Than Men”  This is something that not sound to me as doctrine. This sound as standpoint. Also we have to take context. Apostle responded with this statement as position on Sanhedrin's command that they must not preaching....about what? Peter and John answered: “We cannot stop speaking about the things we have seen and heard.”  Well, this is original context. Some other examples speaking about similar things where JHVH and Jesus' servants refused to do something or have done something. Life has got to be more complexe through centuries, so we have now more explanations and interpretations how should look like today's reality of "obey god rather than man". Even things about education come to be viewed through this sort of glasses. Advice to not going to higher education coming from "spiritual place" as god's instruction through GB. Not obeying counsel/advice/recommendation in this matter is considered as not putting god on first place in life. But contrary, own selfish ambitions. As consequence this could be understand that you listen/obey yourself and not god.  About what JW's of today can making claim as apostles did? What things JW today "have seen and heard"  that make their standpoint so firm to obey god as ruler? They have seen and heard only their faith and beliefs. Because they have not seen and heard nothing similar what apostles or first christians experienced.   And this is good way how system making doctrines that sounds like "the truth". And after some time you will read new articles with similar explanation :))) ... year after year. ● At times there are changes in viewpoint on Biblical subjects discussed in the Watch Tower Society’s publications. We speak of what we believe as “the truth.” But does “truth” change? Yes, it changes. Because you believe in new, advanced knowledge. "The Truth" should not to be knowledge, but Principle. Because Principle is older than this what we calling "the Truth". Even in JW understanding when they speaking about something that is so firm and deep, unchangeable, they using word "Principle" not word "Truth". Principles in Old Testament, for example, that stood behind some laws of Moses, are visible in New Testament too.  In that context we can talk about Moses Law as "The Truth". Perhaps old Israel people used same or similar wording to describe what they think and feel about God' Words. But this kind of "Truth" and their "Truth" are gone. (Not completely, because we have Israel of today.) So, "The Truth" was changed, even more, with time it had been abandoned gradually by new formed Jew congregations. "Old truth" became useless as sort of knowledge about what, how, when and why to be practiced in daily life. Principles stayed. Love God, love neighbor are most known.
    • ronan keating singing a song from the film notting hill   Keith Whitley - When You Say Nothing at All  
    • This song does make you want to "hustle" in whatever you are doing. 😉  
    • From '66 WT: (Just to throw something else into the mix as to the original post) "Questions From Readers ● At times there are changes in viewpoint on Biblical subjects discussed in the Watch Tower Society’s publications. We speak of what we believe as “the truth.” But does “truth” change?—W. P., U.S.A. Really it is the Bible that speaks of beliefs that are in harmony with the Scriptures as “the truth.” At 2 Peter 2:2 the worship based on such beliefs is termed “the way of the truth.” Yet concerning that “way of the truth” we read at Proverbs 4:18: “The path of the righteous ones is like the bright light that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.” So we do not know all there is to know. In fact, even when the post-Armageddon system of things is ushered in we will not know everything. Throughout all eternity there will always be more to learn. This is indicated by what the apostle Paul wrote in Romans 11:33: “O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments are and past tracing out his ways are!” It is to be expected, then, that at times there may be changes in viewpoint. Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up. For example, a few years ago we had a fine series of articles in The Watchtower on the “superior authorities.” (Issues of November 1–December 1, 1962) Before those articles were published, we knew and taught that Jehovah is the Most High, and that Jesus Christ is the second to Him in power and authority. We knew that we should be law-abiding persons, but that, when there was a conflict between man’s law and that of God, we would obey God as ruler rather than men. Those basic truths are the same today as they were before; they have not changed. However, by careful scrutiny of the Scriptures we have come to appreciate that certain Bible texts ought to be applied in a different way. For example, we realized that the “superior authorities” mentioned in Romans 13:1 are, not Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, but the political rulers. That is also true of Titus 3:1 and; 1 Peter 2:13, 14. Yet the basic truth is unchanged. Our viewpoint toward God and toward the State is the same as before. Similarly with our study of the resurrection. We believed in the resurrection of the dead before our recent series of Watchtower articles (issues of January 15–March 15, 1965) on the subject and we believe in it now. We also believed that 144,000 would be raised to heavenly life with Christ. We believed that many more would be resurrected as humans; that some of them would be persons who had faithfully served God in the past, and that others would be those who had lived ‘unrighteously.’ We also believed that a great educational work would take place when they would be raised. Those truths have not changed. But now we see that, according to the Scriptures, more are to return than we expected. So, rather than setting aside the truth of the resurrection, it has been magnified, and our appreciation of Jehovah’s love and mercy in providing for the resurrection has been enhanced. This is in direct contrast to what occurred among certain men of whom the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, as recorded at 2 Timothy 2:18: “These very men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some.” Those men no longer had any hope in the resurrection; they believed that what was in the past was all there was to it. But they were setting aside the truth that Jesus had taught. Likewise in Christendom there have been changes in viewpoint; but they are rejecting the Bible as myth and setting aside its moral code as out-of-date. What a tremendous difference between what is taking place among them and what Jehovah is doing for his people in order to bring our thinking even more closely in line with his inspired Word of truth!" As stated above: "Our basic belief may be sound Scriptural truth, but there may be some details that we did not fully understand in the past. In time, with the aid of Jehovah’s spirit, we get those matters cleared up." I'm hoping we get more away from claiming some human ideas/dates (that go beyond the things written), as divine revelations/new light from God. I believe we are getting there, which is a far cry from what established Christendom  accepts: i.e.. thinking in war God blesses one side over the other of nations in Satan's system; that God has people tortured for all eternity in a fiery hell; there is no real need of a resurrection since all humans have an immortal soul that automatically goes to heaven of Hell when they die; Trinity...and on it goes. Nor do JW's claim infallibility as hundreds of millions believe of the Pope and similar views (although not official) to protestant leaders as well. Yes, I do believe we have a lot to work on, but I don't see any other religions offered on this site by the "nay-sayers" as a better alternative. And even if they don't believe other religions have the truth either, having their own viewpoints, they might as well be a religion unto themselves - an army of one - since even among themselves they don't see eye-to-eye on everything either. That doesn't mean I believe that means we need to believe we are correct on everything we currently believe. As stated in the article quoted above, we should accept there will be clarifications and changes in understanding - in some ways our understanding is fluid and that's a good thing, (despite how some people view it.) That is a huge difference from believing blatantly unscriptural doctrines from apostate Christianity - some of which we at one time accepted ourselves organizationally. I know some people would be highly agitated if some "sacred cow" date/idea turned out not to be so sacred. But remember, we didn't dedicate ourselves to a date and while we respect the imperfect, uninspired "channel" we accept guidance from today, we don't and shouldn't worship an organization any more than the Israelites were to worship Moses and Aaron. We worship the creator, not the creation.   
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.