by hooberus 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I can't say that I see "equally eternal" in Col. 1:15 especially after I examine what is said in Php. 2:6 and John 14:28.
Regarding humans, we don't create our children because we didn't put the cycle of life in place. However, this is different when one thinks of the relationship of the Father to the Son.
Thanks PRB
You say that:
Regarding Col. 1:15, yes, I mean first created (or born first).
What does it mean in Col. 1:18 ..."first born from the dead,"...
Thanks again
D Dog
Colossians 1:18 ties in perfectly with Colossians 1:20 and does not nullify the words “firstborn of all creation” in Colossians 1:15. If taken in order, Christ is the firstborn of all creation. He is also the firstborn from the dead who is resurrected to enjoy eternal life. The others to follow him would be able to enjoy that resurrection and a relationship with God because of the sacrifice he (Christ) made on the cross (Col. 1:15-20).
Colossians 1:18 is better understood when carefully compared to 1 Corinthians 15:20-23.
hooberus,
Thanks for your comments. However, it really takes a tremendous logical leap to equate Jesus with Jehovah after quoting all the scriptures you made reference to. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 is clearly making a distinction between Jesus and Jehovah. If Jesus (Yeshua) and Jehovah (YHWH) are the same, why isn't verse 6 (of 1 Cor. 8) simply collapsed to say 'One God and Lord Jesus Christ'? The Father and the Son are addressed in completely separate references in verse 6.
You also made reference to Psalms 136:1-3 where Jehovah is referred to as both "God of gods" and "Lord of lords". By using this reference, you are obviously trying to tie it to Jesus being "Lord of lords" (see Rev. 17:14 and Rev. 19:16). When considering the reference to Jesus as “Lord of lords”, you have to remember how he got to that position. Jehovah God (his Heavenly Father) granted him the elevated position of “Lord of lords” (Mt. 28:18, Mt. 11:27, Eph. 1:20-22, Php. 2:9,10).
Even though Jesus is referred to as “Lord of lords” in Relations 17:14 and 19:16, there is no reference to Jesus being “God of gods”. You can look to Ephesians 1:21 which provides more light as to how Jesus is “Lord of lords”. In Matthew 28:18, Jesus acknowledged that authority had been granted to him. Therefore, Jesus would not be Lord of lords if the Father had not granted him that position.
Thanks again PRB
It seems like you have given this some thought.
Maybe you could give me some help with a few more questions.
One thing is why doesn't the Bible use the Greek word for "first created (protoktizo), proto meaning first and ktizo meaning created, instead of firstborn (prototokos) which seems to refer to a position of pre-eminence rather than the order of birth?
The other is in the old testament, there are examples of cases where the first-born was not born first. One is Manasseh who was the first one born. Then Jacob (Israel) blesses Ephraim instead of Manasseh and gives him the position of first-born (Gen. 48:13-22). God also declares Ephraim to be His first-born in Jeremiah 31:9, even though
Manasseh was born first.
Another example is with Jacob and Esau. Although Esau was the first one born, Jacob (whose name was change to Israel) received his brother's birthright and his father's blessing and became the first-born.
The nation of Israel was named after him, and the Lord calls Israel His first-born (Ex. 4:22). Here again, first-born seems to refer to rank and privilege, not first in time. The nation of Israel was not the first-born
of a woman and not even the first nation to exist. But God called it the first-born among all the nations.
Could Jesus be the first-born of all creation in the same way?
Other examples:The "first-born of the poor" (Isa. 14:30) means "the poorest of the poor." The "first-born of death" (Job 18:13) means Job's disease was the worst of diseases. The "first-born" of the kings seems mean the highest of the
kings of the earth (Ps. 89:27). David (v.20) was the last one born in his family, but was called the firstborn.
I know this is a lot to think about, but I would like to hear your thoughts
D Dog
The way in which Jesus is the firstborn is clarified in Colossians 1:17 where he is described as being "before all things". The Greek word used here pro (before), can be used to describe time, place or position. So Jesus comes before all others in creation, he comes before all others in the resurrection from the dead and he is before (or is "superior") to all of us when it comes to the Church (i.e., he is the Head of the Church).
Again, scriptural comparisons are useful. Revelation 3:14 describes Jesus as the “beginning of God’s creation” (The Bible in Living English). Jesus is the firstborn of all creation because he comes before all other created beings. He is before all others because his creation occurred at the very beginning of the creative process.
PRB
You said:
The way in which Jesus is the firstborn is clarified in Colossians 1:17
The Greek word used here pro (before), can be used to describe time, place or position. So Jesus comes before all others in creation, he comes before all others in the resurrection from the dead and he is before (or is "superior") to all of us when it comes to the Church (i.e., he is the Head of the Church).
So does the Father!
D Dog
Hi LittleToe,
Regarding your question about Matthew 28:19, I'm sure I won't be able to explain it to your satisfaction. However, I do have some comments about that verse. Eusebius (Bishop of Caesarea) quotes from Matthew 28:19 in his Ecclesiastical History. When Eusebius quotes from Matthew 28:19, he finishes it with the words "in my name". Some question whether "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" is found in the original text or not. I am not a scholar, so I can't say. However, the words in Matthew 28:19 do not state that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God. It simply states "Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Good News Bible).
The big difference is the Father was not created. There is no place in the scriptures where it states that 'the Father was the beginning of all creation' or 'the Father was the firstborn of all creation'. So the Father could not come before all others in creation, because he was not created or begotten
PRB:
So the analogy of Father and Son stops, when it comes to whether or not he was created, huh?
Further, a creature is a thing, along with the inanimate creation. The Son came before all things...
Regarding the title "Lord of Lords", you sidestep the issue. It's irrelevant, whether or not he is given it, as he retains a title that in the OT was only ascribed to God.
Regarding Matt.28:19, may I ask if you are trying to erase this scripture from the bible canon, because it's difficult to explain away? Do you have any proof for the textual criticisms that you are putting forward?
A far better explanation seems to be that "Jah saves" isn't just a name ascribed to the Son, but is another name of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
Whether the text deifies all three, or not, also kinda sidesteps the issue of them either having a collective name or three separate names (Jehovah / Jesus / Holy Spirit??? - Nawww).
Regarding your quotation of Col.1:16, it's only the NWT that says "...by means of him all [other] things were created...". The word [other] is an interpolation. Sure it helps your case, if it were truly available in the Greek text, but it is not.
Just a few things to chew over, this bright and breezy Monday morning
