Jesus the Firstborn - What the Bible REALLY Teaches!

by UnDisfellowshipped 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

S3RAPH1M

What if thread makers interpretation is just as valid as the Watchtower's own in the sight of the Divine Presence in the Universe?
abbagail

My "simpleton" way of understanding it is:

Col. 1.15: "firstborn of every creature"

Col. 1.18: "firstborn from the dead"

Result: "First to be raised from the dead out of all creatures who ever lived, all of whom he created."

Piece of cake. ;-)

---------------

So true, the WT wanted us to believe Jesus was a "mere angel" and not God. Hence, their repetitive brainwashing and bracketed inserts.

---------------

Surprise for WT: Jesus is Jehovah of the OT.

* God the Father is and always has remained invisible and unnamed in Scripture.

* God the Son is the "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1.15) and is progressively revealed to mankind via His many names/titles, and appearances, throughout Scripture.

* God the Holy Spirit is and always has remained invisible and unnamed in Scripture.

It is only God the Son who is named, and who has been The Communicator with mankind from the beginning, as The Word (spoken and written), on behalf of God the Father.

It is God the Son/Word/Communicator/Named as YHWH/I AM who...
- walked and talked w/Adam in the Garden.
- sat and walked and talked to Abraham with the 2 angels, before and after those 2 went ahead to Sodom...
- spoke to Moses "face to face" on Mt. Sinai.
- spoke with and stood before Joshua.
etc. etc.

Revealed as:
* I AM = YHWH/Jehovah
* I AM+SALVATION = Jesus -- (once he was revealed [or "proved to be"/WT] in this way, the OT-Jehovah-name was no longer appropriate, it would now have an extra-added "revelation" to it [salvation/redemption], and, imho, that's why you won't find Jehovah in the NT, contrary to WT's insistence on putting it there = Phil. 2.9-11).
* ??? - "a name written, that no man knew, but he himself"; +
"his name is called The Word of God"; +
"a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS" = this latter being at his FULL REVELATION before ALL the world IN HIS GLORY.

So for 6,000+ years, GOD the SON has been slowly and progressively "revealing" himself to mankind, with the culmination and climax to be at the "Revelation of Jesus Christ."
UnDisfellowshipped

Narkissos, thank you for your comments. I humbly acknowledge that you have much more knowledge of the Greek language than I do. I have not learned Koine Greek (yet) -- I get my Greek information from lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries, and scholars.
You said:
"If that "either/or" dilemma had been so important to them, they would have expressed and answered it explicitly, wouldn't they? Most NT texts are crystal-clear as to the issues they are actually dealing with. We have no hesitation in deciding whether Paul believed in Torah observance or not. Now when we can toss Bible verses of the same authors both sides of an argument it is highly likely that we are asking them the wrong question."
But weren't there some very important teachings or doctrines of the early church that were assumed by the NT writer(s) and not explicitly stated? For example, at Hebrews 6:1-2, the writer includes among the "elementary" or "fundamental" doctrines of the early church "washings, the laying on of hands." Now, where does the New Testament explicitly teach about "washings" or "laying on of hands"?
Take also the Trinity. The majority of the church fathers believed that this doctrine was essential, even though it was assumed and implied in the NT and not explicitly taught.
Also, about Paul's teaching regarding the observance of the Torah: In some places he outright condemns following the Torah (with a view to salvation) (Galatians and Romans), yet he also said that the Torah was good, it was holy, it was from God, and it is okay for Christians to follow the Torah as long as they do not believe that it brings them salvation. Paul even went along with James' suggestion to make it look like he still followed the Law so the Jews would not be upset. (Acts 21:20-26)
Now, about explicit teachings on whether Jesus was created or not, I don't think you can get much more explicit than Colossians 1:16-17:
Colossians 1:16-17 (ESV): For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Wasn't Paul explicitly teaching that Christ was the One who existed BEFORE "all things were created," and that Christ was the One through whom "all things were created."
Why was Paul teaching this here?
You said:
"Yet in Revelation it is equally clear that the kind of worship/obeisance (proskunèsis) which a disciple of Christ, as a fellow servant, should (or needs) not pay to an "angel," will be paid to the "angel of the church of Philadelphia" (3:9). Is this "angel" (or perhaps the Christians it stands for) uncreated? Or is the Lord himself promoting "idolatry"?"
Aren't there (at least) two different meanings of the word "proskunesis" depending on the context? Wasn't that same word used sometimes to mean bowing down to honor a human king, and at other times to bow down in a religious sense to an idol, and at other times to bow down in religious worship of the Jewish God Yahweh? If so, then wouldn't it be more probable that Revelation is teaching we must not give religious worship to angels (or any creature), the same type of worship given to God, but it is okay to bow down in honor to humans (or angels) of high position? The only other option I can see is that Revelation contradicted itself.
You said:
This is only one (and imo the least likely) meaning of the phrase "worship of angels" (thrèskeia tôn aggelôn), which may equally (or better) refer to the "angelic liturgy" or worship offered by the angels (to God).
I submit to your better knowledge of the Greek here because I have not yet done enough research into the Greek of that verse.
You said:
The author is only pointing that in Christ his readers have immediate contact with the divine and need not be impressed by the claims of sharing in some revealed heavenly worship.
If I am not mistaken, the Greek word rendered "Godship" or "Deity" in Colossians 2:9 means "the state of being God" (Thayer) or "the very essence of God" (Robertson). Now, this is a very explicit teaching, and no where else does the NT even imply that any created thing has this Deity, does it?
You said:
Nope, it says the Logos was in "the beginning". Also note that the specific vocabulary of creation (ktizô ktl.) is conspicuously absent from both texts -- which is hardly surprising considering their affinities with (proto-)Gnosticism.
The "New English Bible" reads this way: "When all things began, the Word already was."
The "Good News Translation" and the "God's Word" Translation of John 1:1 both read this way: "In the beginning the Word already existed."
The "New Living Translation" reads this way: "In the beginning the Word already existed."
Below are some commentaries on what John 1:1 was saying about the Logos existing before creation began:
Robertson's Word Pictures commentary on John 1:1:
Was (e¯n). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in Joh_1:14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Joh_8:58 “before Abraham came (genesthai) I am” (eimi, timeless existence).
------------------------------------------------------
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (John 1:1):
Joh 1:1 In the beginning - This expression is used also in Gen 1:1. John evidently has allusion here to that place, and he means to apply to “the Word” an expression which is there applied “to God.” In both places it clearly means before creation, before the world was made, when as yet there was nothing. The meaning is: that the “Word” had an existence before the world was created. This is not spoken of the man Jesus, but of that which “became” a man, or was incarnate, Joh_1:14. The Hebrews, by expressions like this, commonly denoted eternity. Thus. the eternity of God is described Psa_90:2; “Before the mountains were brought forth, etc.;” and eternity is commonly expressed by the phrase, before the foundation of the world.” Whatever is meant by the term “Word,” it is clear that it had an existence before “creation.” It is not, then, a “creature” or created being, and must be, therefore, uncreated and eternal. There is only one Being that is uncreated, and Jesus must be therefore divine.
------------------------------------------------------
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (John 1:1):
Joh 1:1 In the beginning - That is, before any thing was formed - ere God began the great work of creation. This is the meaning of the word in Gen_1:1, to which the evangelist evidently alludes. This phrase fully proves, in the mouth of an inspired writer, that Jesus Christ was no part of the creation, as he existed when no part of that existed; and that consequently he is no creature, as all created nature was formed by him: for without him was nothing made that is made, Joh_1:3. Now, as what was before creation must be eternal, and as what gave being to all things, could not have borrowed or derived its being from any thing, therefore Jesus, who was before all things and who made all things, must necessarily be the Eternal God.
------------------------------------------------------
What are your thoughts on those translations and commentaries?
Narkissos

Hello Undf'd,
Sorry for the delay, I have been away for a couple of weeks.
Your post imo confirms that it is generally more difficult to question (the validity of) a question (i.e., whether Jesus was "created" or not) than to merely shift from one answer to the opposite one.
On the "explicit/implicit" issue, I find your arguments rather heterogeneous and confusing. Do you hold the doctrine of the "uncreated Son" to be implicitly or explicitly taught in the NT?
- In Hebrews 6:1f we have a clear allusion to Jewish/Christian doctrines and practices, some of which are unclear to us but most probably were not to the early readers. Assuming that the "uncreated" status of the Son (as per 4th-century "orthodoxy") was part of the set of beliefs common to early Christians just because the NT doesn't explicitly teach it would be an argument from silence; the opposite argument is, of course, equally possible.
- Your reference to the Trinity doctrine is blatantly preposterous: since a common definition of the Trinity did not emerge before the early 4th century, reading it backwards into earlier texts (whether from the NT of the early Church Fathers) is quite arbitrary.
- Your typically Protestant summary of Paul's doctrine about Torah observance would call for discussion but that would lead us farther off-topic... I'll just say there is a big difference between the picture of Paul that can be gathered from his generally accepted epistles and that which appears in the book of Acts.
So we are left with the exegesis of the NT Christological hymns (e.g. Colossians 1:15ff), which is not really problematic until you ask them the anachronistic question, which side of the border between the "uncreated" and "created" does the "Son" belong to? This question actually became critical in the wake of the 2nd-century Gnostic/Ecclesiastic crisis, which brought about the rather new concept of creation as a radical separation between the uncreated (the divine) and the creature. Upstream of this "gap" pattern (where the notions of begetting and creating first become opposite and mutually exclusive, instead of interchangeable metaphors) the question hardly makes any sense, or at least it sounds like pointless hairsplitting.
It is worth noting, btw, that the notion of a "created" Son rejected by the Nicene creed resurges through the hypostatic union: for the incarnate Son is seen as both uncreated (in his divine nature) and created (in his human nature).
Aren't there (at least) two different meanings of the word "proskunesis" depending on the context? Wasn't that same word used sometimes to mean bowing down to honor a human king, and at other times to bow down in a religious sense to an idol, and at other times to bow down in religious worship of the Jewish God Yahweh? If so, then wouldn't it be more probable that Revelation is teaching we must not give religious worship to angels (or any creature), the same type of worship given to God, but it is okay to bow down in honor to humans (or angels) of high position? The only other option I can see is that Revelation contradicted itself.
Isn't this alleged polysemy of proskunèsis the exact argument that JWs and other Unitarians use against the idea of "worshiping Jesus"? It just depends where you choose to draw the line between "worship" and "obeisance" -- an arbitrary choice in any case.
Btw, my suggestion is that the difference doesn't rest on the status of the object but of the subject of proskunèsis. John must not proskunein to the angel because he is not inferior to him, but a fellow servant.
If I am not mistaken, the Greek word rendered "Godship" or "Deity" in Colossians 2:9 means "the state of being God" (Thayer) or "the very essence of God" (Robertson). Now, this is a very explicit teaching, and no where else does the NT even imply that any created thing has this Deity, does it?
Compare the use of the other keyword plèrôma ("fulness") in 1:19; Ephesians 1:23; 3:19; 4:13, the notion of "sharers in the divine nature (theias phusis)" in 2 Peter 1:4, and the multiple instances where the elect share the same oneness with the Father as the Son in the Gospel of John (especially chapters 14--17).
What are your thoughts on those translations and commentaries?
I think the addition of "already" in the functional equivalence versions you quoted is not methodologically unlike the addition of "others" in the NWT, only they follow opposite doctrinal bias in their common practice of overtranslation. Strictly speaking, the Johannine Prologue avoids the aporetic notion of "before the beginning," both for "God" and "the Word".
Narkissos

from what I've read of the early church fathers (before Nicene), they all agreed that The Father, Son, and Spirit were on an equal level...
Definitely not. Most church fathers until the latter part of the 3rd century (e.g. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras and Tertullian) who maintain a difference in persons combine it with some form of subordinatianism and monarchianism, implying superiority of the Father over the Son... equality only became a central feature of Trinitarian doctrine in the wake of Sabellius' modalist "heresy" which insisted on the unity of God at the expense of personal difference between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost -- those being construed as (mere) different manifestations of the same God... Sabellius in a sense forced later orthodoxy to think the difference of hupostaseis, or personae, in equalitarian terms, which was not the case before.
above every other thing
He he...
UnDisfellowshipped

Hi Narkissos,
I apologize for the delay in replying. The last month-and-a-half has been pretty crazy and hectic here for me.
The early Church Fathers, including Justin Martyr, did place The Father, The Logos, and The Spirit on a level separate from all others. I do agree that the Church Fathers believed that Jesus and The Spirit were in subjection to The Father's will. But, that is also what Trinitarians today teach. This doctrine is known as "Functional Subordinationism." If you read carefully through the early Church Fathers' writings, you will see that they all taught that Jesus should be worshiped along with The Father, and the vast majority of them also said we should worship The Holy Spirit. Most of the early Church Fathers also said that Jesus is The One True God (together with The Father and The Spirit), and that the Logos is the One who created all things (together with The Father), and has always existed along with The Father.
Now, my bottom line conclusion is that the New Testament teaches very explicitly that The Logos (the pre-human Jesus Christ) existed before one thing was ever created, before the worlds ("universe") were created, before any angel was ever created. Here is the evidence:
John 1:3 (HCSB): "All things were created through Him, and apart from Him not one thing was created that has been created."
John was very explicitly teaching that The Logos existed BEFORE ONE THING WAS EVER CREATED, and he declares that NOT EVEN ONE THING WAS EVER CREATED without being created through THE LOGOS.
There are only two possible conclusions from this:
(1) The Logos is not part of creation, or (2) The Logos was created through The Logos, which makes no sense.
Colossians 1:16-17 (HCSB): because by Him everything was created, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.
Paul was extremely explicit in saying that Christ existed BEFORE any heavenly (invisible) powers or human (visible) powers were created, and that ALL THINGS were created through Christ, by means of Christ, and FOR CHRIST.
Hebrews 1:2, 10 (HCSB): In these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son, ... through whom He made the universe. ... And: In the beginning, Lord, You established the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands;
God made the entire Universe through His Son, therefore, His Son must have existed BEFORE THE UNIVERSE! God the Father even said that Jesus is the LORD (YAHWEH) who made the heavens and the earth with His own hands in the beginning.
1st John 1:1-2 (HCSB): What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have observed, and have touched with our hands, concerning the Word of life -- that life was revealed, and we have seen it and we testify and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us
Here, John is very explicit that Jesus the Logos is THE ETERNAL LIFE who has existed with The Father "from the beginning."
How could the Logos be "ETERNAL LIFE" who was with The Father in the beginning, and yet be a creature?
middleman

btt...
BurnTheShips

Philo was da bomb diggity.
BTS

Jesus the Firstborn - What the Bible REALLY Teaches!

Colossians 1:16-17 (ESV): For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Share this