Jump to content

Jesus.defender

Firstborn or First created?

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Jesus.defender -
Space Merchant -
10
211

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

    61,691
    Total Topics
    114,643
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

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




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • All jokes have to have an element of truth ..... and THIS one certainly does!
    • It's a difficult doctrine, with an easy explanation. The Earth is about 3.5 billion years old. Each creative day is (3.5 billion divided by 7 = 500,000,000) about 500 million years.. Armageddon will occur at the "End of Days". Therefore ... "Stay Alive, 'till 500,001,975". See? The math works out perfectly, AND it agrees with fossils ! TA DA! Plus! --- the .ORG gets a LOT of "wiggle room". As Marvin Webster sez: "Ya'll think about it."    
    • Like you, I find it difficult to envision Christ's enthronement in 33 CE, for pretty much the same reasons as you. The urgency and keeping on the watch would almost seem cruel, if it was to last nearly 2000 years. Unless you think about those who have been waiting since the end of the 1800's and that have now died. Well for them, it was a lifetime of waiting anyway, so pretty much we could say that there would be no difference between someone waiting their whole lifetime in the middle ages and dying, than someone waiting their whole lifetime and dying now. I mean with respect to the individual. It seems like the scripture "Therefore, beloved ones, since you are awaiting these things, do your utmost to be found finally by him spotless and unblemished and in peace"  would have practical meaning for both individuals. I am assuming that most ordinary folk (at least in Christianized nations) were aware that if they lived a good and godly life they would land in heaven. That was the reward. But you do make a good point when you say that the holy writings were not accessible to ordinary folk, and most couldn't read so would they even know  what Peter wrote about in 2 Peter ch3? On top of that, "Christian" religion, Catholicism, did not advocate millennialism much, if at all. It wasn't until the protestant reformation in the 16 the century that millenialism was revived. Excerpt from the Catholic encyclopedia: (I don't expect you to read it all, just here for info) " Protestant fanatics (lol) of the earlier years, particularly the Anabaptists, believed in a new, golden age under the sceptre of Christ, after the overthrow of the papacy and secular empires. In 1534 the Anabaptists set up in Münster (Westphalia) the new Kingdom of Zion, which advocated sharing property and women in common, as a prelude to the new kingdom of Christ. Their excesses were opposed and their millenarianism disowned by both the Augsberg (art. 17) and the Helvetian Confession (ch. 11), so that it found no admission into the Lutheran and Reformed theologies. Nevertheless, the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries produced new apocalyptic fanatics (lol) and mystics who expected the millennium in one form or another: in Germany, the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren (Comenius); in France, Pierre Jurien (L'Accomplissement des Propheties, 1686); in England at the time of Cromwell, the Independents and Jane Leade. A new phase in the development of millenarian views among the Protestants commenced with Pietism. One of the chief champions of the millennium in Germany was I.A. Bengel and his disciple Crusius, who were afterwards joined by Rothe, Volch, Thiersch, Lange and others. Protestants from Wurtemberg emigrated to Palestine (Temple Communities) in order to be closer to Christ at His second advent. Certain fantastical sects of England and North America, such as the Irvingites, Mormons, Adventists, adopted both apocalyptic and millenarian views, expecting the return of Christ and the establishment of His kingdom at an early date. Some Catholic theologians of the nineteenth century championed a moderate, modified millenarianism, especially in connection with their explanations of the Apocalypse. So it would appear that anyone living from 33 C.E  up to the 16th century (apart from the disciples and early Christian congregation, and some early church fathers) would have no idea about even the existence of the coming of Christ as king of a 1000 year kingdom...  
    • No idea. The primary point was that people would tremble at such signs in the heavens. A space race with military implications was already hinted at in part of the yw book, which was already about Daniel and therefore had the king of the north in its sights.
    • Another sinister feather in the cap of the northern king. Did he want to tie in the Daniel prophesy?
    • Since you are asking, I'll take a cue from 1 Peter 3:15 and let you know what I'm thinking here. First of all we already believe that Jesus began to rule in 33. (I hope that was a mistake where you said 1933.) (Colossians 1:13-20) . . .He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist, 18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things; 19 because God was pleased to have all fullness to dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all other things by making peace through the blood he shed on the torture stake, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens. There is no indication here that the Kingdom of God's Son is any different than the Kingdom of God which had now become the Kingdom of his Christ. In fact, you might notice a couple of other parallels between Colossians and Revelation, including the hurling down of Satan (rescuing us from the authority of the darkness). Also, perhaps by coincidence, the immediate context of Colossians also discussed the salvation and the power and the Kingdom and the authority and the conquering through the blood of the Lamb. (Revelation 12:10, 11) . . .Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our God! 11 And they conquered him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death. The idea that Satan was cast down in 33 is also repeated several times in the Greek Scriptures.
    • One unanticipated personal consequence of going digital is that I read nothing until the week it is to be considered at meeting. I have not read the new Ezekiel book yet. Back in the day of subscriptions, I would read that entire Watchtower at the nearest opportunity. Doesn’t happen anymore. I never think to download the latest until I need it. In recent years I’ve come to think a lot about Paul’s counsel to follow the pattern of the healthful words. At first, the healthful words are retrieved and spit out verbatim—it is the nature of much of our research. But if you’ve been around long enough, you soon to learn to pick up on the pattern and you can originate them yourself.  It is as Mike Tussin used to say, a real person from No Fake News whose name I changed with the most sordid upbringing and the most telling common sense. He would explain how it was with the GB (in the 1970s). “They study and study and one of them notices a point and discusses it with the others. After subsequent discussion reaches agreement, it gets into print. Now, in your own personal study, you may have noticed that point, too,” I can hear him explaining now, “and if this was Christendom, you’d go out and start your own religion over it.”  For a brief time, he was a roommate of mine. He drove me nuts in taking literally the admonition to read God’s Word “in an undertone day and night.” In time, he learned that he had better not do it in my presence.
  • 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.