Was Jesus the first creation of God ?

by enquirer 117 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Narkissos

  Trying to match texts with similar words from other authors and from diverse places is a waste of my time. You should be following along and keeping in touch with the context given in the particular text I just discussed. It is of no interest to me if you do not like it or disagree. You asked and I answered. Your inability to understand this is not my problem.

  O JosephMalik,

  I repent over dust and ashes for wasting your soooo precious time with my dumb questions. Some of the texts I quoted are indeed from other authors but I sincerely think they share a common vocabulary and cosmological outlook. Never mind.

  If you were discussing Colossians 1, how do you explain the shift of meaning you imply for aoratos between verses 15 and 16? To this one question you didn't answer.

  Btw, I so heartily agree with your last sentence that I could make it mine...
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  What about this Scripture in which "Firstborn" is used to mean "Most Important"?:

  Psalm 89:26-27: He shall cry unto me, Thou [art] my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation. Also I will make him [my] firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

  Also, notice this Verse:

  Romans 8:29: For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

  That Verse is saying that Jesus became the Firstborn (most important) Immortal Human, and that there would be many more brethren to come.

  Colossians 1:15: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

  I believe that this Verse means that Jesus is the Most Important One who is over every creature (because He, as God, created all things and existed before all things).

  However, this Verse could also mean that Jesus (as a Human), was the Most Important Creation ever, because God The Father did indeed create Jesus Christ's Human Body for Him.

  Colossians 1:18: And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

  Was Jesus the first person ever to be raised from the dead?

  No. So, then why is He called "The Firstborn from the dead"?

  Because He is the Most Important One who was ever raised from the dead. Also, He was the first one ever to be raised in an Immortal Body.
• 

  JosephMalik

  Undisfellowshipped,

  Without being picky about a few details this article of yours about the immortal (human) Christ is basically correct. Bet you never thought that I would agree with you on anything?

  Joseph
• 

  Kenneson

  Col. 1:15 doesn't say "first created." The word "firstborn" refers to position of pre-eminence rather than time of birth. Rights and privileges were usually bestowed upon the child who was born first, but those rights did not always go to him. Manasseh was the first one born, but Jacob (Israel) blessed Ephraim instead of Manasseh and gave him the position of firstborn (Gen. 48:13-22) In Jer. 31:9, God declares Ephraim to be His firstborn, even though Manasseh was born first. The same is true with Jacob and Esau. Although Esau was the first one born, Jacob (whose name was changed to Israel) received his brother's birthright and his father's blessing and became the firstborn. The nation of Israel was named after him, and the Lord calls Israel his firstborn (Ex. 4:22). Here again, firstborn refers to rank and privilege. It means first in importance, not first in time. The nation of Israel ws not the first born of woman and not even the first nation to exist. But God called it the firstborn among all the nations. In the same sense, Jesus is the most important among all creation.

  The "firstborn of the poor" (Isa. 14:30) means the poorest of the poor. The "firstborn of death" (Job 18:3) means Job's disease was the most terrible of diseases. The "firstborn" of the kings means the highest of the kings of the earth (Ps. 89:27); David (vs. 20) was the last one born in the family, but was called the firstborn. The "firstborn of the dead" means that Jesus is pre-eminent over death because he conquered it and is the source of resurrection. Likewise, "firstborn of creation" places Jesus over and superior to all creation and doesn't make him a part of creation.
• 

  Kenneson

  Malik said: The statement should be understood in context which most seem to ignore. The context is the world of mankind and its creation in the beginning. So Jesus the Logos became human is the first human creation by God. How any other creation came to be prior to this is not under discussion.

  Does Jesus exist as a human before he is born of Mary? Do you mean to say he was the first man Adam who had Eve as a wife?
• 

  zen nudist

  litte toe wrote:

  Would you agree that Paul (or an early redactor) was attempting to make a connection between Jesus / YHWH?
  (I mean that without taking on any kind of Trinitarian slant, incidentally, if you take the "Father" of whom Jesus spoke as being altogether another entity, for a moment

  I would say the writer is making a connection between YHWH the GOD and Jesus the IMAGE of GOD, his FIRST BORN in all things...

  yes FIRSTBORN has more than one meaning, but its original meaning should not be ignored because it does not fit with trinitarian dogma.
• 

  LittleToe

  Zen:
  Actually I was differentiating between YHWH and Elohim...

  yes FIRSTBORN has more than one meaning, but its original meaning should not be ignored because it does not fit with trinitarian dogma.

  What part of "I mean that without taking on any kind of Trinitarian slant, incidentally, if you take the 'Father' of whom Jesus spoke as being altogether another entity, for a moment" didn't you get?
• 

  zen nudist

  What part of "I mean that without taking on any kind of Trinitarian slant, incidentally, if you take the 'Father' of whom Jesus spoke as being altogether another entity, for a moment" didn't you get?

  no sure what you are getting at....

  elohim or Theos or God, normally refers to THE FATHER... and sometimes the entire elohim refers to the FATHER and the whole of the divine realm which he leads where the beni-elohim refers to those led.
• 

  LittleToe

  Zen:
  Well, I don't think I could have been much plainer in trying to avoid bringing this down to a Trinity debate. I'd rather avoid that, to be honest. I've had my fill of them, for the moment.

  Simply put I've been doing some studies in comparative mythology, wherein YHWH is one of the Bene-Elohim (sons of God).

  If the Israelites did adopt Caananite mythology, that would make for an interesting synthesis come the time of the Christian revolution. Hence if (as per the NT) Jesus is being identified with YHWH, the "Father" would bear the name Elohim, not YHWH (though YHWH/Jesus would be a "father" in his own right, as per Isa.9).

  To add some support for the theory (having recently been reading "Who Wrote the Bible") if the J documents of the Pentateuch refer to a compassionate God (more akin to the NT Jesus) and the E documents to a stricter Elohim, is there a pattern being formed here?

  I suggest this without any due consideration to an argument as to whether or not the Bible offers a complete picture of "God", of which I'm sure it does not....
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  LittleToe said:

  I suggest this without any due consideration to an argument as to whether or not the Bible offers a complete picture of "God", of which I'm sure it does not....

  Just thought I'd add my belief about the Bible here.

  It's my belief that the Bible does not give a complete picture of God -- nothing can give the human mind a complete picture of God.

  God only revealed what He wanted us to know about Him in His Word.

  We will get the complete picture of God when we see Him in all His glory in Heaven (or before His Great White Throne).