Was Jesus the first creation. (page 3)

Deputy Dog

LT

Are you asking what form Jesus took before He became a man?

D Dog

LittleToe

DD:
That was addressed to Joseph, not yourself

Consider this...if Jesus is a member of "all creation" (i.e. as a created being) by interpreting "firstborn of all creation" as a partitive genitive, then the word for "all" would have to change meaning from one verse to the next. In v. 15, "all" would define a set including Jesus and in v. 16-17 "all" would define a set EXCLUDING Jesus. This is a significant problem. This is why the Society is forced to add "[other]" in parantheses in the following verses, tho this does not resolve the discrepency (and the scriptures cited by the Society as parallels to the insertion of "[other]" are not true parallels, for the meaning of "all" does not change from one verse to the next). This is why many interpret the case as a genitive of subordination, i.e. "firstborn over creation," as implying the kind of domination that is explicitly explained in v. 16-18.

Narkissos

DD,

Otoh I replied to you on the notion of "prototype" (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/102464/1769379/post.ashx#1769379).

But I realise I left out your main suggestion,

I think the subject is actually the "invisible God". Meaning the "invisible God" is the firstborn.

Which I think is highly improbable in view of the fact that "firstborn" belongs to the set of words and concepts (with "Son," "image," "reflection," "imprint," etc.) referring to the intermediary figure (whether sophia or logos) between the invisible God and creation.

Deputy Dog

Gumby

What did Leolaia just say?

D Dog

Deputy Dog

Gumby

Gumby....who if'n was a believer.... would still have trouble with the trinity however. Ya just caint win.

Looks like you're not the only one that has trouble with the trinity.

Which I think is highly improbable in view of the fact that "firstborn" belong to the set of words and concepts (with "Son," "image," "reflection," "imprint," etc.) belonging to the intermediary figure (whether sophia or logos) between the invisible God and creation.

Sorry Nark D Dog

gumby

Joseph Malik,

You still sound like a dub to me. You parenthecise your interpretation to qualify scriptures. Verse 16 tells anyone he created heavenly things and earthly things. Your heavens is still the dub heavens spoken of in Romans they like to use.

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, (rulers, kings) ( says who?) and that are in earth, (common man) visible (local) and invisible, (far away as in Rome) whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

DD,

....Leolaia and Nark are both too smart for my dumb arse.... so don't ask me what the poop their talkin bout. All I know is the Trinity bullcrap is what set me over the edge as a christian. I prayed till i was blue in the face to know who Jesus truly was and he never answered me. I left confused and still am. I figured the least the guy could do was answer my PLEADING question. Alan F did a better job. Look up my thread if you wish awhile back on that subject as it has alot to learn from.

Gumby

Hellrider

referring to the intermediary figure (whether sophia or logos) between the invisible God and creation.

If the Logos is also viewed as "sophia", wisdom, does this also go for "wisdom" in the OT? From what I`ve understood, the "wisdom" (which is spoken of as one of Gods creations?) in Proverbs isn`t supposed to have any references to the Messiah. But is this clear, also from the viewpoint of the writers of the NT? I don`t know if what I write here makes any sense, but what I`m wondering about is: Is there a sophia-conection between the OT and the NT, in the NT being a conection sophia/logos? Could it be that the writers of the NT, speaking of "wisdom" and "the Word" are also referring to Proverbs? Or are they referring to other places in the OT?

Don`t know if that made any sense...

LittleToe

HR:Didier presents a case working from the assumption that "wisdom" of the OT is the "Word" of the NT. That isn't necessarily the case, and there's no NT consensus on this, but is definitely one that the WTS leans on heavily, to attempt to make their point.

DD:

I think the subject is actually the "invisible God". Meaning the "invisible God" is the firstborn.

Naww. The Father is the "invisible God". As Didier suggests, the focus is on the "firstborn", whom we might refer to as the "visible God", though the verse isn't so direct as to state that.

Gumby:Is the Trinity issue really that big? I know some folks make an issue of it, but I've never seen it as a "salvation issue", and neither would the early church as far as I'm aware, for all their arguments. The usually foundation is the "Deity" of Christ, as found in scripture.

Leo is basically refuting Joseph by saying that he's using the word "all" inconsistently. When you take Ozzies attitude of keeping it simple, it means that Jesus was dominant "over" creation rather than part of it himself.

E.g.:

Col.1:15-17 UninspiredVersion: "[Gumby] Who is the [splitting] image of ~~the invisible God~~ [his daddy], ~~the firstborn of~~ [with legal rights over] every ~~creature~~ [sheep]: For by him were all ~~things~~ [sheep] ~~created~~ [genetically manipulated], ~~that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible,~~ [wherever they might roam], whether they be ~~thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers~~ [Alpha rams or otherwise]: all ~~things~~ [sheep] were ~~created~~ [genetically manipulated] by him, and for him: And he is [was around, (and still is, incidentally, which we all think is a jolly good thing)] before all ~~things~~ [sheep], and by him all ~~things~~ [sheep] ~~consist~~ [had their genetic matter provided]."

Was Jesus the first creation.

Share this