Jump to content

Jesus.defender

Firstborn or First created?

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Jesus.defender -
Space Merchant -
10
206

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

    61,680
    Total Topics
    114,509
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,507
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    AliciaBarbosa
    Newest Member
    AliciaBarbosa
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine. I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )
    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
    • I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here.  I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.
    • Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this: Jude 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness." (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels? It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?
  • 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.