I've been challenged by a JW apologist and need some answers please.

by I_love_Jeff 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  glenster

  The mainstream identity of Jesus has a much better case than the GB version for
  being what was intended (see Larry Hurtado's case regarding prayer and worship in
  1st century Jewish monotheism, the indication of early related history, etc.)
  Several pages of my GTJ Brooklyn article compares the GB mischaracterization of
  the mainstream view with the mainstream view. Here's what I have on that for the
  word "firstborn":
  http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn8.htm

  Firstborn
  http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm

  The brochure asks if Jesus was part of the Godhead in his pre-human existence
  and answers itself ("Don't interrupt, I'm having a rhetorical conversation"--
  "The Producers," 1968): "No, for the Bible plainly states that in his prehuman
  existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings
  created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their crea-
  tion." "Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was "the first-born of all creation."
  (Colossians 1:15, NJB)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_%281968_film%29

  Prototokos: Firstborn (Col.1:15) means the "most important first offspring" or
  just figuratively "most important." Joseph called Ephraim his firstborn, etc.
  (Gen.41:51,52), though Ephriam wasn't his first son (also see Jer.31:9; Col.1:
  15-18; Rom.8:29; Heb.12:23; Rev.1:5). Thanks to Vine's Expository Dictionary of
  New Testament Words.
  http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=%AFt0001056
  http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/CONGRK441.htm#S4416

  Another example of firstborn meaning most important, not the numerical first
  one of a sequence, is regarding King David, who wasn't Jesse’s first child or
  the first king of Israel but God called him his "firstborn" of the kings of the
  Earth at Psalms 89:27: "I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the
  kings of the earth." He would be the heir to the status of "most important" of
  a firstborn.

  The idea of a firstborn son being the first of importance led to a figurative
  use in which a firstborn was just the most important--that they had importance
  as if they came before the other one(s). (Also see John 1:3: Jesus is before
  all things.)

  At Job 18:13, the "firstborn of death" isn't the first disease created but the
  most important in its effects.

  The context of Col.1:15 says a lot without me editorializing:

  Firstborn: "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all
  creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible
  and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--
  all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and
  in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is
  the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-
  eminent. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through
  him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making
  peace by the blood of his cross." (Col.1:15-20, NASB)

  According to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Jesus being
  the "image" of the invisible God (see the section below on "holy spirit" regard-
  ing the definition of "spirit" as the invisible being of someone) indicates Je-
  sus is an exact representation of God's invisible spirit--the mainstream idea of
  Jesus, not merely someone with a resemblance to God in some regards as with a
  creation such as an alleged god, which could only perfectly abide by what he was
  told to do. This is connected to the coverage of John 1:1 below.

  "All things were created through him and for him" attributes to Jesus what God
  claims about creating all things for Himself at Is.48:11-14:

  "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act;
  For how can My name be profaned?
  And My glory I will not give to another.
  Deliverance Promised
  Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
  I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
  Surely My hand founded the earth,
  And My right hand spread out the heavens."

  Both views of Jesus have him born to Mary but don't see "firstborn" as refer-
  ring to that. Both views see Jesus as existing before that, and both take
  "firstborn" figuratively. The mainstream view emphasizes that a being born of
  another is the same quality being (God) and the JWs leaders' view emphasizes
  that it's a separate being (archangel Michael).

  The JWs leaders' brochure takes "born" figuratively to mean "created." If it
  were intended to express that clearly, "first created" would be "proto-tiktos."
  The rest of the Colossians passage has Jesus before all things which were
  created through him, too, which makes it a bad choice for an attempt at a JWs
  leaders' proof verse: "for in him all things were created, in heaven and on
  earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
  authorities--all things were created through him and for him." That's not how
  to identify Jesus as archangel Michael.

  The JWs leaders' NWT adds "other" (p.6b) with the forced point that context
  requires it (the JWs leaders' concerns of p.7, or described in the section be-
  low on Prov.8:22-31, applied to translation), and the JWs leaders' interpreta-
  tion of it, to create a JWs leaders' impression that all "other" things were
  created through a created Jesus.

  Considering the mainstream view that ensued, the JWs leaders' stance is weak
  in having God leave such an important distinction up to people imagining an ex-
  tra word, and the JWs leaders' required interpretation of it, when they didn't,
  there's no reason, JWs leaders' forced points cleared from the deliberation,
  they had to, and God could have had it written to make sure they did (pp.9,10).

  What was written to make the distinction clear is at John 1:3: "All things
  were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Making
  the JWs leaders' stance clear would be easy: having it written that all things
  "except for archangel Michael" were created through him, archangel Michael, and
  that without him "only one thing was created: him." Various lines in Isaiah
  would would have said that "just one god" instead of "no god" was with God in
  creation, too. They were written the mainstream way, though.

  If you imagine God to have meant the JWs leaders' view to be clear, He would
  have phrased it differently in more ways than by adding "other" because God
  could be said to have created everything "other" than Himself. A simple consis-
  tent reference to archangel Michael without aka Jesus, or "Jesus is archangel
  Michael" and leaving out all the God and God-like things, would do it but it
  wasn't written that way.
• 

  Ding

  Discussing Greek with a person whose knowledge of Greek is limited to what he has read in the Watchtower is probably fruitless, but if you cite the examples I provided earlier, you might shake up his WT arrogance, at least for a moment.

  By the way, if he looks it up and tells you that prototokou is a different word than prototokos, ask him if he knows that the former is simply the genitive case and the latter the nominative case of the same word.

  If he doesn't, ask him why he is discussing Greek at all.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Ask him why he is interested in discussing the meaning of the passage in the original Greek when the Society discourages ordinary publishers like him from learning Greek or discussing it with others.
• 

  NOLAW

  LOL!

  Nice points here. Thanks glenster.

  That point about David is is very good. David wasn't the first king of Israel.
• 

  BlindersOff1

  Do you want it Quick and easy. Then don't get into a debate about a 2000+ yr book that has been written and rewritten 1000s of times

  Go for the jugular . No JW has the right to debate anything with the history of 130 yrs of false prophecy .

  Everytime they have said the end is near at a

  Assembly
  Meeting
  Magazine
  Book
  Talks

  Its proved to be a false prophecy literally thousands
  of times down through 13 0 yrs.

  Among intelligent honested hearted christians they are cartoonish and a JOKE.

  They have NO right to make any statements about the bible. They have self identified as a cult by their shunning dotrine.
• 

  Pterist

  Well, FIRST AND LAST, ALPHA AND OMEGA is attributed both to the Father and Son. I belive twice in revelation and Isaiah, forget exactly where, and I'm tired lol.

  How can one describe Eternal Life, a quality we do not have ......By the words FIRST and LAST....ALPHA AND OMEGA ...All encompassing of time.

  When Christ was called the first born from the dead, the first in all things, we know he already existed prior to this in eternity. Proverbs 8, and hebrews 1: the creation will wear out but you will remain..... like melkisideke (spelling) an endless life.

  Hope this helps, way toooooo tired right now for any research

  Shalom
• 

  moggy lover

  Engaging in a dialogue with Watchtower Followers can be a vexing task especially if you are playing by rules detirmined by objective analysis, as distinct from the eisegetical conditioning adopted by them and which sees them reading INTO a given text a meaning they want to see.

  Your proposition entails two sub sets of investigation: 1. The meaning of "Prototokos" 2. The type of Genitive that Col 1:15 falls into

  1.There is no scholastic authority that will deny the fact that "Prototokos", although it may have a single meaning, also has a dual application. The word pertains to being first. It may however apply chronologically to time, or it may apply personally to rank. So one can be "Prototokos" as if one is the one born first, or it may also apply to one first in rank.

  THERE IS NO DENYING THIS.

  The question then is: What application did Paul have in Colossians 1:15?

  Interestingly, the Watchtower did at one time admit that "Prototokos" had a meaning of "pre-eminence". Writing in the Aid book, pg 584, the writer says: "David was called the "first born" at Ps 89:27 by Jehovah due to the elevation of David to the PRE-EMINENT position in God's chosen nation". The writer, presumably Ray Franz since according to his own testimony he wrote much of the book, was honest enough to testify to this application of the word.

  Later, however, when grace vanished from the Watchtower corridors of power, the Keepers of the Flame, the Custodians of Temporal Doctrinal Probity, saw fit to alter this and a revised version appeared in the Insight book, Vol 1 pg 836, the offending word "Pre-eminent" was mysteriously excised from the text. The sanitized version, conforming to current Watchtower doctrine now reads: "It seems that Jehovah was prophetically referring to the one foreshadowed by David, God's FIRSTBORN Son in heaven"

  I could cite: Louw-Nida, BADG, Kittel, Abbot-Smith, Vine, Liddell and Scott, Renn, AT Robinson, Mounce, and others who will testify to the multiple application of "Prototokos". Refusing to accept such overwhelming support from these scholars especially in view of the fact that the Watchtower itself quotes them, smacks of intelectual dishonesty.

  2. Is Col 1:15 a partitive genitive construction? That is a matter of debate and the jury is still out. To assume that it is, without allowing for other considerations, is to create a theology of convenience which is unworthy of sound biblical exegesis. It is possible to construe it to be partitive, but there are other possibilities. All we know for certain is that it is a genitive construction, the type of genitive [and there are several] is uncertain.

  An examination of those texts offered up to support a partitive genitive, taken from the LXX is far from conclusive, and their congruence with Col 1:15 in most aspects simply does not jell. When we consider those texts which tell us of Genitive partitive constructions following "Prototokos" in the LXX, we find that there are certain elements found in the LXX, and which in fact detirmine the partitive, which are missing in Col 1:15. In the LXX, the partitive construction following "Prototokos" always shows that:

  Prototokos is generic, not personal

  Plural, and not singular

  They are always modified by some sort of personal pronoun, or possessive noun. For instance, among the several texts offered up by Watchtower apologists to show a parallel to Col 1:15, are:

  Ex 13:15 - However : The "firstborn" here are generic, not referring to any one in particular, and is constructed as a plural and is modified by "of MY sons". Thus there is no congruence with Col 1:15.

  Ex 34:20 - The "firstborn" are again generic and plural, modified by "YOUR sons"

  Num 3:40 - The "firstborn' is again generic and plural modified by "OF THE Sons of Israel"

  The factors that indeed define the entrenchment of the partitive genitive are missing in Col 1:15, making the case for that text also being partitive weak. Wallace suggests a genitive of SUBORDINATION prompting the translation of "Firstborn OVER all creation" [NIV]

  For a detailed consideration of the factors involved in this text I can recommend "Putting Jesus In His Place" by Bowman and Komoszewski.
• 

  jookbeard

  ask him about thier membership of the UN, why child abusers still server in positions of authority, The Malawi/Mexico scandal, failed prophecies, does Duet 18,20-22 apply to them?
• 

  Chariklo

  JW's can tie even the most intelligent person up in knots because they love to do the very thing you describe. They will focus upon one fact....an obscure Greek term, a verse out of context, anything will do.

  That device focuses attention right down to the tiniest detail so that the non-JW loses perspective, which is exactly where I think you find yourself.

  It's a classic example of losing sight of the forest for one small tree. Or, trying to identify a tree from looking through a microscope at its smallest cell.

  Do not play his game.
• 

  slimboyfat

  For what it's worth I think JWs have a valid point about Jesus being called the firstborn of creation. It does imply that he as created. But so what? There are bigger issues to address in my view. Such as the divine claims for the Bible in the first place. And most importantly the lack of freedom to discuss this and other issues inside the JW community.