In Colossians 1:15, the phrase "the image of the invisible God" emphasizes Christ's unique role in making the invisible God known. This is not merely about reflecting God's image but about embodying God's nature. This concept aligns with other New Testament teachings, such as Hebrews 1:3, where Christ is described as "the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being."
The term "first-born of all creation" (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs) refers to Christ's preeminence and supremacy over all creation, not to being a part of it. This interpretation is consistent with the use of "firstborn" in Jewish tradition, where it often denotes rank or status rather than chronological order. In Psalm 89:27, David is called "firstborn," not because he was the eldest son of Jesse (he was actually the youngest), but to signify his preeminence as king. Similarly, in Jeremiah 31:9, Ephraim is called "firstborn" even though Manasseh was Joseph's firstborn. These instances demonstrate that "firstborn" denotes status and rank rather than birth order.
In Jewish literature, God is sometimes referred to as "the firstborn of the world" (bekhoro shel olam, בכורו של עולם). This does not mean God is part of creation but underscores His preeminence over it. The use of "firstborn" for Christ in Colossians 1:15 aligns with this Jewish concept, highlighting His supremacy over all creation.
Hebrews 1:6 uses "firstborn" for Jesus in a context that clearly affirms His divinity and superiority. Hebrews 1:3 calls Jesus the "radiance of God's glory" and the "exact representation of His being," and Hebrews 1:10 describes Him as the Creator, further reinforcing that "firstborn" is about rank, not creation.
Colossians 1:16-17 states that all things were created "in him, through him, and for him." This passage highlights Christ’s role as the agent of creation and its ultimate purpose. It underscores his divinity and preexistence, showing that he is not a created being but the one through whom all creation came into existence. The phrase "all things were created through him and for him" indicates that Christ is the goal and reason for creation, affirming his central and divine role in God's plan. The phrase "all things were created through Him and for Him" aligns with the Trinitarian doctrine where the Son's role in creation is integral to the Godhead. This does not diminish the Father's role but highlights the unity and distinct roles within the Trinity.
While 1 Corinthians 8:6 emphasizes God the Father as the source of creation and Christ as the one through whom creation exists, it does not contradict Colossians 1:15-17. Both passages affirm the distinct roles of the Father and the Son in creation, with the Father as the ultimate source and the Son as the agent through whom creation is realized. The argument that these ideas do not appear elsewhere in Paul’s writings is not accurate. Philippians 2:6-11 speaks of Christ’s preexistence, divinity, and exaltation, further supporting the high Christology seen in Colossians. Additionally, John 1:1-3 and Hebrews 1:2-3, 1:10 align with Colossians in presenting Christ as the divine agent of creation.
The JWs' interpretation of "first-born of all creation" as indicating that Christ is a created being is problematic for several reasons:
1. The Greek term "πρωτότοκος" (prōtotokos) can denote rank and preeminence, not merely birth order. The context of Colossians 1:15-20 emphasizes Christ's supremacy and preeminence over all creation.
2. The addition of "other" in their translation ("all *other* things") is not supported by the Greek text and alters the meaning to fit their theological perspective. The use of "all things" (Greek: πάντα, "panta") indicates everything in existence. In contexts where "other" is inserted in certain translations, such as Luke 13:2, 21:29, and Philippians 2:21, a comparison is clearly being made. However, in Colossians 1:16, no such comparison exists. The insertion of "other" in Colossians 1:16-17 by the NWT is therefore unwarranted and distorts the text’s meaning.
3. The consistent testimony of Scripture affirms Christ’s divinity and role as the Creator. This comprehensive involvement in creation underscores His divine nature. If Jesus were a created being, He could not be the agent through whom all creation came into existence. John 1:3 explicitly states that "all things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." This explicitly states that Christ is not part of creation but its Creator, which excludes the possibility of Christ being a created being.
4. Hebrews 1:2-3 also presents Christ as the one through whom God made the universe, further affirming his divine nature and preexistence.
The JWs’ argument that "firstborn" MUST mean Jesus is part of creation BECAUSE other "firstborn" individuals are part of their respective groups (e.g., firstborn of Pharaoh, firstborn of Israel) is a fallacy of equivocation.
In each cited example, the "firstborn" status denotes a special position within a family or group DUE TO direct birth from the parent. However, Jesus’ title of "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 signifies His supreme rank and authority over creation, not His being created.
If we were to apply the Watchtower's logic consistently, then saying Jesus is the "firstborn of creation" would imply that creation gave birth to Jesus, which is absurd. The term "firstborn" in this context must be understood as denoting preeminence.
The interpretation that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation" in the sense of being the first created being is not supported by the broader context of Scripture, the original Greek language, or the theological consistency of the New Testament. Instead, "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 emphasizes Christ’s supremacy and preeminence over all creation, affirming his divinity and role as the agent and purpose of creation.
Pretty sure Freed is trinitarian aswell… At least there are some honest trinitarians around Seems to fit with Clements “Firstcreated” term of which he applied to Logos/ Wisdom ( used interchangeably) Ninc - your applying an OT meaning to the NT - all occurrences of FIrstborn in the Nt ( excluding the disputed example) mean first one in a “line” or first in terms of priority
Nincsnevem. 1. True, but the genitive form, as well as the precedence of the termanology in Jewish wisdom and middle-platonic logos theology give us the wider context in which it would be understood, i.e. Christ is the preeminent and supreme creature over all of creation, yet still part of it. (see Philo on the logos).
2. That's an argument against a move in the translation, not against the Christology itself.
3. Yes, scripture affirms Christ's divinity, but that Christ is divine does not imply that Christ is homoousioun with the most-high God. Yes he is involved in creation, but that needs to be understood within the context in which it would have been understood by the original audience, i.e. within the framework of divine hiearchies with the most-high God at the top and a demiurgic logos/sophia/high angel figure below, subsequent divine beings down to humans etc etc.
John 1.3 references Genesis 1:2ff, Genesis 1:2ff is about the creation of the visible and material world, that does not exclude Christ from being part of creation proper.
4. Yeah
Firstborn is metaphorical, it's a familial metaphor, David being firstborn obviously is a metaphor (he was the youngest), but the metaphor works in indicating that he was the highest rank over a group he was apart of. Yes, Christ is the firstborn of God, it's metaphorical, obviously, but that doesn't mean the metaphor doesn't have clear implications about grouping.
I don't think that firstborn of all creation necessarily implies that he was sequentially first, although it probably does, but it does imply that he is (as the genitive form suggests) part of creation.
The בכורו של עולם is Adam in Jewish writings, not God, afaik.
Also, the argument about the "firstborn" is wrong. It's being "firstborn OF something", that systematically entails being part of this something. You cannot be "first born of X" without being part of X.
and that "Firstborn of the world" argument doesn't hold much weight either - It was written by one person. Firstborn of the world could also mean other things The person who wrote that relied on Jewish mystism... not a good person to be citing especially for a catholic.. (I cannot be accused of the same as I'm not a Jw, and that happens to be advantageous in this case. I cannot be held to the same standards as you or the Witnesses)
"The use of "firstborn" for Christ in Colossians 1:15 aligns with this Jewish concept, highlighting His supremacy over all creation." - I still raise the question to you, why not both meanings? yet you omit Clement because apparently firstcreated is applied to Wisdom... tho reading Clement, he uses them interchangably Like Justin, Origen and others - even atha didnt dispute the logos being Wisdom just the hebrew term qanah (Which is already "Game Over!" anyway)
Nincs:The consistent testimony of Scripture affirms Christ’s divinity and role as the Creator. This comprehensive involvement in creation underscores His divine nature. If Jesus were a created being, He could not be the agent through whom all creation came into existence. John 1:3 explicitly states that "all things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." This explicitly states that Christ is not part of creation but its Creator, which excludes the possibility of Christ being a created being.
Me: The fact that the creation is "en" "Dia" Christ is evidence that he is NOT the source of the information and energy in the creation. The fact that all things were created "en""dia" him is no more evidence that he is not created than the fact that all are to be resurrected "en""dia" him is evidence that he was not resurrected.
1Corinthians Ch.15:22NKJV"For as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ ALL shall be made alive."
The Bible routinely uses the word "all" with sensible exceptions.
You claim that בכורו של עולם (Bekoro Shel Olam) refers only to Adam in Jewish writings and not God. This is not true, Jewish writings do refer to God with titles like “Firstborn of the World” (Bekoro Shel Olam) and “Primordial One of the World” (Qadmono Shel Olam). These terms highlight God’s preeminence and eternal existence, rather than implying that He is part of creation. Therefore, applying such terminology to Christ in Colossians 1:15 aligns with the Jewish concept of divine supremacy.
Several Jewish writings refer to God as the "firstborn of the world" (בכורו של עולם, bekoro shel olam). For example:
In the Talmudic literature the phrase "firstborn of the world" (bekoro shel olam) signifies God's ultimate origin and preeminence in creation. This concept appears in various Jewish texts, emphasizing God’s status as the supreme creator and origin of all things.
Rabbi Bechai: Refers to God as "the firstborn of the world," highlighting His preeminent status.
Kli Yakar on Exodus 9:14: Describes God as the "firstborn of the world," emphasizing His role as the ultimate creator and origin.
These references show that the term "firstborn" can indeed be used to signify preeminence without implying creation, aligning with Paul's usage in Colossians 1:15.
You write:
"The person who wrote that relied on Jewish mystism... not a good person to be citing especially for a catholic.."
Our methodology does not follow this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
You claim that being the "firstborn of" something systematically entails being part of that group. However, this is a misunderstanding of the term’s usage in biblical and historical contexts. The Greek term "prototokos" (πρωτότοκος) can signify preeminence or priority in rank, not necessarily inclusion as a member of the created order. Examples from the Old Testament, such as David being called the “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27 despite not being the literal firstborn son of Jesse, illustrate that "firstborn" can denote a status of honor and authority rather than birth order.
The argument that "firstborn of" always entails being part of the group fails when examined logically. For instance, if we apply the same logic to familial terms, the “firstborn of Pharaoh” would only mean that the child is part of Pharaoh’s family because Pharaoh is the father. It does not follow that Pharaoh’s firstborn is a separate being created by Pharaoh.
If Jesus were part of creation as the “firstborn of all creation,” it would imply that creation gave birth to Jesus. This is logically inconsistent with the biblical teaching that Jesus is the Creator of all things (John 1:3).
Although Origen sometimes uses the term "created" when referring to the Son, he clarifies that this should be understood in a special, metaphorical sense. The Son is not a creature like the rest of creation but is eternally begotten by the Father. This eternal generation signifies that the Son's existence and nature are fundamentally different from those of created beings. See: https://justpaste.it/f2gf7
There is literally no evidence that early Church Fathers like Clement or Justin claimed that the Father created or made the Son. Their writings consistently emphasize the unique, divine nature of the Son as eternally begotten, not created.
The argument that being "firstborn of" systematically entails being part of a group is flawed. The term "firstborn" indicates a position of honor and authority, not necessarily inclusion in a created group. The phrase "firstborn of creation" signifies Jesus' authority over creation, not that He is part of it. The firstborn of Pharaoh is part of Pharaoh's family BECAUSE Pharaoh is the father, not because the term "firstborn" implies inclusion in a category.
Jehovah's Witnesses often misinterpret early Church Fathers to support their theological position. However, Clement of Alexandria clearly affirms the eternal and uncreated nature of the Son:
"There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." (Fragments, Part I, section III)
Exhortation to the Greeks: Clement describes Jesus as "Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the Expiator, the Savior, the Soother, the Divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son." (Exhortation to the Greeks, 10:110:1)
Clement never called the Son a creature. He explicitly refers to Jesus as "eternal and uncreated," affirming His divinity and equality with the Father.
Your claim that the genitive form and Jewish wisdom literature suggest Christ is the supreme creature within creation is a misunderstanding. While Jewish wisdom literature and middle-Platonic Logos theology provide valuable context, they do not support the JW interpretation.
Philo's concept of the Logos is different from the Johannine Logos. Philo viewed the Logos as an intermediary, an emanation, or an attribute of God rather than a distinct person. The Christian understanding of the Logos, as presented in John 1:1-3, is that the Word was both with God and was God, indicating a unique personal existence within the divine essence. This Logos became incarnate in Jesus Christ, a fundamental departure from Philo's non-incarnational and abstract concept.
The Christian doctrine of the Logos comes from divine revelation, not from Jewish or Greek philosophical traditions. John presents the Logos as a distinct person who was intimately united with the Father and who shared the divine essence. This is not simply an attribute or emanation but the person of the Son, fully divine and fully distinct from the Father.
Your argument that "Christ is divine but not homoousious with the Most High God" fundamentally misunderstands the strict monotheistic framework of the New Testament and the implications of Christ’s divinity within that framework. The New Testament is grounded in the strict Jewish monotheism of the Second Temple era, which unequivocally affirms that there is only one God. This foundational belief excludes the possibility of any lesser divine beings or demiurges existing alongside the one true God. The New Testament writers, including Paul, uphold this monotheistic belief while simultaneously affirming the divinity of Christ. The concept of a demiurge, a secondary deity involved in creation, is foreign to New Testament theology. Such a being would undermine the strict monotheism affirmed by the early Christians.
Given the New Testament’s strict monotheism, the only way to consistently affirm Christ’s divinity is to recognize Him as homoousios with the Father. This means that Christ shares the same divine essence as the Father, fully participating in the one divine being. Any attempt to place Christ as a lesser divine being or a demiurge not only conflicts with the monotheistic framework but also contradicts the clear scriptural affirmations of His full divinity. The New Testament theology does not allow for a demiurge-like divine being who is divine but not of the same essence as God the Father. Christ’s divinity, as affirmed by Scripture, necessitates that He is homoousios with the Father
Your claim that Genesis 1:2ff and John 1:3 only reference the creation of the visible and material world, thus not excluding Christ from being part of creation proper, also lacks a solid scriptural foundation. The term "all things" (Greek: πάντα, panta) is comprehensive and all-inclusive. It does not limit itself to the visible and material world but encompasses everything that exists. The context of John 1:1-3 firmly establishes that the Logos (Word) is the agent of all creation, implying that nothing came into existence apart from Him.
Genesis 1:1 starts with, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This phrase is a Hebrew merism, meaning it includes everything — all of creation. The terms "heavens and the earth" collectively refer to the entire universe, both visible and invisible realms. Genesis 1:2 and the subsequent verses detail the ordering and filling of creation but do not restrict the scope of creation.
Colossians 1:16 explicitly includes both visible and invisible realms, indicating Christ's role in the creation of all things, not just the material world.
In Hebrews 1:2 the term 'tous aiōnas' refers to the entire created order, including all space and time.
If the Son is involved in the creation of everything that exists, He logically cannot be part of the created order. The creator of all things cannot be a part of the all things that were created. This is a fundamental principle of causality; a cause must exist prior to and independently of its effect.
The argument that John 1:3 and Genesis 1:2ff only refer to the creation of the visible and material world does not hold up under scrutiny. Both passages, along with other New Testament affirmations, clearly teach that Christ is the agent of all creation, encompassing both the visible and invisible realms. This understanding aligns with the doctrine of Christ's full divinity and preexistence, reinforcing that He is not a part of creation.
The genitive construction in Greek does not necessarily imply inclusion in the group described. Instead, it often denotes a relationship or association, "firstborn of creation" can be understood as "having preeminence over creation" without implying that Christ is part of the created order. This is consistent with the metaphorical use of "firstborn" to signify rank and authority. Your claim that the genitive form implies Christ is part of creation misunderstands the use of the genitive case. The genitive often indicates possession, relationship, or origin, rather than inclusion.
The claim that "en" (in) and "dia" (through) suggest that Christ is not the source of creation misunderstands the context and language used in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16. These verses emphasize the comprehensive role of Christ in creation. The phrase "without him was not anything made that was made" excludes any possibility that Christ Himself is a created being, as it would be self-contradictory. The use of "in him" (ἐν αὐτῷ) and "through him" (δι’ αὐτοῦ) indicates that Christ is the locus and agent of creation, emphasizing His preeminence and divine nature.
The comparison with 1 Corinthians 15:22, which speaks about resurrection, is not valid in this context. This verse discusses the effects of Adam's sin and Christ's resurrection, not the nature of Christ in relation to creation. It uses "in" (ἐν) to describe union with Adam or Christ in terms of the consequences of their actions (death through Adam, life through Christ). The argument that "all are to be resurrected 'en' 'dia' him" does not parallel the creation context. Resurrection is an act of power by Christ, not an inherent attribute of His being. In contrast, creation "through" Christ indicates His fundamental role and existence before creation, aligning with His divine nature.
If Christ were a created being, the verses stating "all things were made through him" would have to exclude Christ Himself from "all things." The Greek text does not support this exclusion. The phrase "without him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3) encompasses all of creation, leaving no room for Christ to be included in "all things" as a created being. Being "before all things" (Colossians 1:17) means He existed prior to everything created, underscoring His eternal nature and role as Creator.
The language of "in" and "through" used in reference to Christ in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 does not suggest that He is part of creation. Instead, it emphasizes His divine role as the agent and sustainer of all creation. The comparison with resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:22 is not applicable to the discussion of Christ's nature in creation. Scripture consistently presents Christ as preexistent and divine, the Creator of all things, excluding any possibility of Him being a created being.
The Bible consistently attributes creation to God alone (Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 45:12; 48:13; Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8; Psalm 95:5-6; Nehemiah 9:6). This emphasizes that God created everything by Himself, without any cooperation from another entity. Hebrews 1:10 and other passages (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16) affirm that Christ was involved in creation, suggesting His divine nature since creation is a divine act. Thus, claiming that Jesus, as a created being, participated in creation contradicts this clear scriptural assertion.
Jeremiah 10:11 asserts that gods who did not create the heavens and the earth will perish. JW theology faces a dilemma because if Jesus is "a god" (a lesser divine being, a demiurge9 and did not participate in creation, he would be a false god. However, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:10, and Colossians 1:16 affirm Jesus' active participation in the creation.
The expression 'something of something' becomes partitive only IF: (1) from the expression itself or (2) it is specifically stated in some form that it is included in the genitive of the whole. In Greek, the genitive case can denote a variety of relationships, including partitive, possessive, and descriptive. The specific interpretation often depends on the broader context.
The genitive can denote supremacy or preeminence rather than inclusion. This is supported by examples such as "κεφαλή τῆς ἐκκλησίας" (head of the church) and "κεφαλή ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ" (head over all things for the church). These examples show that the genitive does not necessarily mean belonging to a group but can denote authority over it.
While "all" (πάντα) can sometimes mean "all other" in specific contexts, it does so only when the context clearly indicates exceptions. In the case of Colossians 1:16, there is no contextual basis for adding "other." The examples given (Luke 13:2, Luke 21:29, Philippians 2:21) involve contexts that clearly define the limits of "all." Colossians 1:16, however, is expansive and inclusive, not limiting.
Clement of Alexandria did not equate the Son with a created being. He explicitly refers to the Son as eternal and uncreated in various works. Origen sometimes used terms like "created" metaphorically or in a nuanced way to describe the Son, they did not mean that Christ was a created being in the same sense as for the creatures. Origen clarified that the Son is eternally begotten, not made, and thus fundamentally different from created beings.
Athanasius, a staunch defender of the Nicene Creed, argued vigorously against Arian interpretations that would make the Son a creature. He emphasized the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, maintaining the Son's full divinity and equality with the Father. Athanasius argued that "begotten" in reference to the Son does not imply creation but an eternal relationship within the Godhead.
The term "qanah" in Proverbs 8:22 has been interpreted as "created" by some, but this interpretation is not universally accepted. Many scholars and early Church Fathers understood it as "acquired" or "possessed," reflecting Wisdom's integral role in God's creative work rather than implying a beginning in time. Even if "qanah" were interpreted as "created," the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs is seen by many early Church Fathers as typological and not a direct reference to Christ's ontological status.
Nowhere in the Bible does any writer refer to the Father as a Firstborn. If any person does that blasphemous. If Jewish writers did they may want to repent.
No where in the Bible is Christ identified as the Creator but was a worker or builder alongside the Father, who alone is the source of all the things. The Firstborn in Colossians 1:15 rightly show Christ is the beginning or the first creation of God. Other creation came after him.
Regarding "בכורו של עולם", the singular Rabbi (as referenced by Lightfoot) Rabbi Bechai who you are clinging to, also wrote - Elohim is El Haym. These are gods. Remember your creators (Ecclesiastes 12:1).
I did not claim that God was called 'bekhoro shel olam' in the Old Testament, but that in the Talmud, so this is a completely accepted name in a Jewish context. The claim that calling the Father "firstborn" would be blasphemous misunderstands the use of the term "firstborn" in a metaphorical and typological sense. When Jewish writings use terms like "firstborn of the world" for God, it signifies preeminence and primacy, not literal birth order or creation. It emphasizes God's supreme authority and eternal nature.
I am familiar with Lesriv Spencer's writings, and I do not find them convincing in several respects, he only repeats the already known JW arguments at a higher level, he could not even found the appropriate Jewish sources.
The Epistle to the Hebrews does not describe this "master craftsman" or auxiliary creator role as found in Proverbs 8. I hope you read it and do not confuse your own interpretation with what the text actually states: "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth," (Heb. 1:10) and "through whom he made the universe." (Heb. 1:3) (See also: "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:3) On the other hand, the author quotes a psalm addressed to Jesus, which clearly speaks to God. Feel free to check it in the NWT.
The exceptions you argue for are implied by the context they are not explicitly stated that is my point. If all things are made dia him,then he is a logical exception to the all things there is NO need for the Bible to explicitly make a case for his exception . There is no exception in scripture to prototokos being included in the family of which he is prototokos not one. So we already have a data point including him in the creation. The fact that he is not part of the all things created dia him is neither here nor there,
1Corinthians Ch.15:27NKJV"For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted." There is no need to make a case for what should be axiomatic
Genesis Ch.3:20NIV"And Adam called his wife’s name Eve,[g] because she was the mother of all living."If we followed your pedantry here we would have to conclude that eve was not numbered among the living as she obviously is not her own mother.
The scriptures actually consistently show the creation as being done by a superior "dia" Christ on the other hand it NEVER(as in not a single time) Speaks of the creation or resurrection as occurring "dia" JEHOVAH, no JEHOVAH Creates unqualifiedly that is he is the ultimate source of all the energy and information in the creation and not as anyone's instrument.
Note that in not one of those verses does the creation occur "dia" or "en" JEHOVAH. He creates by himself he is the source of all the information an energy in the creation he is not supplemented by equals or superiors, this is a very different kind of statement,to John ch.1:2 or Hebrew ch.1:2 where the Logos is the instrument of a superior acting "dia/en" him.
The Thornhill article argues that the Greek conjunction "καὶ" (and) in John 1:1 indicates a sequence of events rather than a simultaneous existence. It suggests that "In the beginning was the Word" implies a starting point for the Word.Traditional Christian exegesis, supported by numerous scholars, interprets "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος" (In the beginning was the Word) as signifying the eternal existence of the Word. The use of "ἦν" (was) is in the imperfect tense, indicating an ongoing, continuous action in the past, implying that the Word always existed. The BDAG lexicon and other Greek lexicons affirm that "καὶ" can connect phrases without implying temporal succession. It is used here to emphasize the unity and co-eternality of the Word with God.
The document suggests that John 1:3 should be interpreted as God creating through the Word as an intermediary, not ascribing direct creation to the Word. John 1:3 explicitly states, "πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο" (all things were made through him), indicating that the Word was the active agent in creation. This aligns with other New Testament passages (Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2, 1:10) that describe Christ as the direct agent of creation. The use of "διὰ" (through) with the genitive in Greek indicates agency. Wallace and other scholars affirm that this construction does not imply a mere intermediary role but denotes the Word's active participation in creation. DIA does not simply denote a passive instrument; it does not exclude active participation, especially when Heb. 1:10 specifically declares it.
Rabbi Bechai's writings, like many rabbinic writings, are filled with metaphorical and allegorical language. Citing a single rabbinic source out of context does not provide a comprehensive view of Jewish theology. When he refers to Elohim as El Haym, which means "gods" or "living God," he is likely using a form of mystical or theological language that is typical in Jewish exegesis. Rabbinic literature often uses poetic and symbolic language, which needs to be understood within its own context.
The term "Elohim" in Hebrew, although plural in form, is most often used in a singular sense when referring to the one true God in the Hebrew Bible. This is a grammatical nuance in Hebrew that does not imply polytheism. The phrase "Remember your creators" in Ecclesiastes 12:1 can be interpreted differently based on the context and translation. Some translations render it as "Remember your Creator" in a singular form, which aligns with the monotheistic interpretation. The plural form in some Hebrew manuscripts might reflect a majestic plural or refer to the multiple aspects of God's creative power rather than indicating a plurality of gods.
The Greek preposition "δῐᾰ́" (dia) with the genitive case indeed means "through" or "by means of," indicating causality or agency. This use of "dia" emphasizes that the action is carried out through an agent or instrument that actively participates in the action. In contrast, "dia" with the accusative case means "thanks to", "by aid of", "because of" or "on account of," which often denotes a more passive role or reason.
It is not "Jehovah" who acts 'dia' through the Son, because the New Testament never speaks of "Jehovah," only of the Father, and the Father indeed acts 'dia' through the Son. However, this does not exclude the Son from being an active participant in creation or from being truly God. While the TTetragrammaton is typically used in the Old Testament to refer to the covenant name of God, the New Testament reveals the Trinitarian nature of God, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully and equally God. The Father working "through" the Son (dia + genitive) in no way implies that the Son is a mere instrument or secondary being. Instead, it affirms the Son's integral and divine role in creation.
The argument that the Son is merely an instrument in creation is refuted by multiple scriptural references that affirm His active role. In passages like 1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2, Christ is consistently described as the agent through whom all things were created. This does not imply subordination or inferiority but rather a distinct role within the Godhead. The use of "διά" (through) in relation to the Son does not imply mere instrumentality. As noted, "διά" is used in contexts that describe the Father’s actions as well, such as in 1 Corinthians 1:9, which states, "God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." Here, "διά" is used for the Father, demonstrating that the preposition signifies agency and involvement, not a lower status.
In Colossians 1:16, the use of "δῐᾰ́" (dia) with the genitive case indicates that all things were created through Christ, emphasizing His active and essential role in the creative process. This does not imply a secondary or passive role but rather highlights Christ's direct involvement in creation.
Hebrews 1:10 explicitly states that Christ laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of His hands, reinforcing the idea that Christ is actively involved in creation. This aligns with the understanding of "dia" with the genitive as indicating an active agent.
The New Testament consistently speaks of the Father working through the Son in the act of creation. This does not diminish the Son's divinity but rather underscores the unity and cooperative work within the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work together in perfect harmony, each fulfilling their roles within the Godhead. The New Testament operates within a strictly monotheistic framework, leaving no room for a demiurge or secondary god.
The assertion that implied exceptions are adequate in context overlooks the precise language used in Scripture. For example the phrase "not any thing made" (John 1:3) leaves no room for exceptions, explicitly excluding the possibility of Jesus being part of creation. This verse categorically states that everything created was made through Christ, thereby excluding Him from being a created being.
The passage in 1 Corinthians 15:27 speaks of God putting all things under Christ's feet and clarifies that God Himself is excepted. This explicit exception is necessary to maintain theological clarity. Nevertheless, Paul wants to say, since the Son has all power, it is not necessary to believe that the Father renounced everything, or simply submitted himself to the Son, as is often the case with earthly fathers, when they hand over power and possessions to their sons. The apostle may have considered it necessary to make this comment for the Christians who had converted from paganism, who might have thought of the pagan belief that Jupiter had deprived his father, Saturn, of his empire and authority.
The comparison with Genesis 3:20 ("Eve, the mother of all living") is flawed. Eve being the "mother of all living" naturally excludes herself as she cannot be her own mother. This is a contextual understanding that does not apply to the theological statement about Christ in John 1:3. The Bible's language about Christ's role in creation is precise and explicit, unlike the general and contextual statement about Eve.
I recently made the point on FB that one of the reasons Paul used “firstborn” rather than “first-created” and “first-resurrected” at Colossians 1, verses 15 and 18, respectively, is because he wanted to develop the Son’s parallel role in both instances, in original creation and in new creation via resurrection.
In verse 15 and in verse 18 of Col. 1, “firstborn” is partitive, and the Son’s preeminence emerges precisely because he is the first one brought into being in both old and new creation, and that all others came/come into being through him.
This may not be obvious to some when looking at verse 15 in isolation, but this logic is crystal clear in verse 18, which is conceptually parallel.
How do we know this? Because of the use of hína. Here’s what the word dictionary available at Biblehub says about hína:
“2443 hína (a subordinating conjunction) – for the purpose that (in order that), looking to the aim (intended result) of the verbal idea. 2443 /hína (“for the purpose that”) is “the semantically marked (dramatic) way of expressing purpose in Greek (as compared for example to the plain infinitive)” (G. Archer).”
In other words, in verse 18 its function is to show that X occurred so that Y could result.
X = Jesus was firstborn from the dead, i.e. he was resurrected first, before others who would follow.
Hína/so that the following would result
Y = his preeminent status
He was resurrected first (firstborn) so that he could have preeminence as a result. Then all others can be given life in new creation via resurrection through him. He is the preeminent member of new creation precisely because he was brought into being via resurrection first, then the rest through him.
Verse 15 functions the same with respect to original creation. He was brought into being first in the context of original creation so that he could have preeminence as a result. Then all others were brought into being through him.
He is therefore the preeminent member of both original and new creation.
1. There are so many exceptions to “all” that one writer went so far as to ask whether “all” EVER means “all without exception” in Scripture.
2. As far as I can tell, there are no exceptions to the partitive nature of “firstborn” in Scripture. The one named “firstborn” is always part of the group, whether explicitly stated or implied. Even when “firstborn” is used metaphorically, as it is with king David, it still retains its partitive sense.
So which way should we go in our exegesis? Should we interpret “firstborn” in light of the flexible sense of “all” or should we interpret “all” in light of the rigid partitive sense of “firstborn”?
In my judgment, it clearly it makes more sense to understand the sense of “all,” which is less rigid, in light of the partitive sense of “firstborn,” which is quite rigid. To do otherwise makes no sense, and I would suggest that this is done by Trinitarians because the post-biblical doctrine is controlling what they’re willing to conclude from the text.
notice I did not deny that firstborn can be metaphorical, my argument is about the use of the genitive. Look at a Greek grammar and look at the genitive examples of "supremacy" or "preeminence," almost all of them include the idea that the subject is part of the group she is preeminent over (in Wallace's list of examples the only potential exception is satan and the world, but not really).
Firstborn is a familial metaphor, and you're right we have to take into account first the historical context, and then the biblical.
The historical context is not going to be rabbinic Judaism, he's writing to a congregation in Colossae in the mid-first century. It's going to be the middle-platonism, stoicism, Jewish mysticism, etc etc going on in that context.
Paul uses OBVIOUS concepts from middle-platonism and Jewish sophia theology, and it's clear what he's saying. He's saying that Christ takes the role that the Demiurge/Logos/high-angel/deuteros theos/ etc etc takes in those thoughts.
The language Paul used is almost identical to language used by Philo.
Yes we get divine revelation, but the people who read Paul's letter did so from the viewpoint of the world they lived in, so we should know what world that was.
No one denies that Christ took an active role in creation, the point is there is an ontological difference between the source of all being and the mediating agent.
Gen 1:1, is (given the standard theological interpretation) a statement of creation ex-nihilo, Gen 1:2ff literally only talks about the creation of the physical universe ... the language in John (egeneto) is only used in Genesis LXX when God speaks and things "egeneto," the idea being that Christ is the Logos, the all things being mentioned are all the things that "egeneto" in Genesis 1, i.e. the things mentioned, i.e. the physical universe.
Read "all" as literally everything throughout the epistle and you'll end up with nonsense, "all" is always relative and contextual.
The interpreatation I'm giving is the interpretation given by the majority of Christian thinkers in the first few centuries, up through Origen's commentary on John.
BTW, nothing in the bible is "strict monotheism" and neither was second temple Judaism. There was a whole bunch of deities, but only one most-high God who is the source of all life and being.
"Firstborn" means "preeminent, distinguished heir", hence "firstborn of all" creation means "the preeminent heir of all creation", which means "Lord of all creation", that's all.
Just quoting your publications:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200010748 "Jesus Christ, as the “first-born of all creation,” always faithful to his Father Jehovah God, has the birthright through which he has been appointed “heir of all things.”—Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:2"
(I fully agree on this, apart of the equating the Father with "Jehovah")
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011483 "David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the “first-born,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89:27) In this position David prophetically represented the Messiah."
Your parallel with verse 18 is wrong, because there is an "ek" preposition, which is not in verse 15, so in the former there is classification, but not in the latter.
While Colossians 1:18 uses "firstborn FROM the dead" with the preposition "ἐκ" (ek), indicating classification among those resurrected, Colossians 1:15 does not use "ἐκ" but rather "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" (firstborn of all creation), which emphasizes supremacy over creation without implying that Christ is part of the created order.
Verse 15: The absence of "ἐκ" here underscores that Christ is not a part of creation but stands supreme over it. The genitive case in Greek often signifies possession or dominion, reinforcing the interpretation of Christ's lordship and preeminence over creation. Verse 18: The use of "ἐκ" in verse 18 classifies Christ among the resurrected, emphasizing His role as the first to rise in a glorified state, leading the new creation through resurrection.
The term "hína" indeed indicates purpose, but its use in verse 18 underscores the result of Christ’s resurrection, which is His preeminence. This does not imply that He is a part of creation but rather emphasizes His role as the first to rise in a glorified state, leading the new creation:
Verse 18: "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that (ἵνα) He might have preeminence in everything." This shows the result of His resurrection is His supreme status, not His inclusion in the group of created beings.
Verse 15: Similarly, Christ being the "firstborn of all creation" indicates His authority and supremacy over all creation, not His being the first created entity. The context of the surrounding verses (Colossians 1:16-17) emphasizes His role as the Creator of all things, further supporting this interpretation.
Colossians 1:23 mentions that the gospel was "preached in all creation." Since Christ does not belong to "all creation" in this context, it supports the idea that "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" does not imply Christ being a part of creation but rather having authority over it.
1. While "all" (Greek: "πᾶς") can sometimes be used in a hyperbolic or contextually limited sense, the context of Colossians 1:16-17 strongly supports an all-encompassing meaning. Linguistically, your reference only give an example that IF (!!!!) it is clear from the context anyway, the word "other" can sometimes be omitted after "everything" in Greek. For instance the insertion in Luke 13:2 is contextually warranted due to the comparison being made between two equal items—Galileans with Galileans. The sentence reads: "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?" Here, "other" clarifies the comparison within the same group, which is contextually appropriate. But it is not clear how the context of Col 1:16 shows that Jesus is also a creature. It should be smuggled in by none other than the Watchtower Society: with just such a biased translation, for which there is no basis in the text. I would especially draw your attention to Col 1:17, according to which "He was before all things, and in Him all things exist" - not "he became before all things" etc. Additionally, John 1:3 reinforces this interpretation: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." Here, the totality of creation through Jesus is emphasized, further discrediting the notion of a limited "all." If "without him nothing was made that has been made", then Heis not one of the things that "has been made" (=created).
2. "The one named “firstborn” is always part of the group" - except that you are falsifying the reason for this particular "always", since it does not establish a grammatical "rule" that "firstborn of X" always means , that he is "a member of it", since the REAL reason for the "membership" can be known in the other examples. When the argument is allowed to be taken to its logical conclusion, it leads to an absurdity. The phrase “firstborn of Pharaoh” does not mean the child is merely similar to Pharaoh but rather that the child holds a special position within Pharaoh's family *due to* being born to Pharaoh. By the same logic, if Jesus is the “firstborn of creation,” it would imply that creation is the parent of Jesus, suggesting that creation gave birth to Jesus. This concept is both theologically and logically incoherent.
In Exodus 4:22, Israel is called God’s “firstborn,” signifying their special status among nations. This does not mean Israel is the first nation ever created. In addition, Israel was Yahweh's firstborn so that was not counted among the nations (Numbers 23:9). Similarly, “firstborn” signifies Christ’s supremacy over creation without implying He is part of the created order.
By the way, I don’t understand why this needs to be forced when the Bible NOWHERE refers to Christ as created (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma), or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). Instead, the Bible already has terms to describe how the Son originates from the Father, which is begetting (gennao) and birth (tikto), but never create (ktizo) or make (poio). Why wouldn’t this be sufficient, hm? Why wouldn’t Arianism be considered a "post-biblical" doctrine? Can you cite a single extra-biblical early Christian source that states, "the Father created/made the Son"?
The genitive case can indicate various types of relationships, including partitive, but it is not strictly limited to implying inclusion within a group. For example, Psalm 89:27 calls David the "firstborn," emphasizing his preeminence among kings without suggesting he is the first king or part of a group of kings. The term "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 is used metaphorically to indicate Christ's supremacy and preeminence over creation, not his inclusion as part of creation. The context of Colossians 1:16-17, which states that all things were created through him and for him, supports this interpretation by emphasizing his role as the creator rather than a created being.
The New Testament writers, including Paul, often drew on Old Testament themes and language to convey theological truths. The title "firstborn" has deep roots in Jewish tradition, where it denotes rank and inheritance, not necessarily being the first created.
Paul, a Pharisee by background (Acts 23:6), often incorporated Jewish theological concepts in his letters. The notion of Christ as the "firstborn" aligns more closely with Jewish Messianic expectations and Old Testament references to the "firstborn" (e.g., Psalm 89:27), rather than Hellenistic philosophical concepts. While there may be superficial similarities between Paul's language and Hellenistic ideas, Paul’s conception of Christ as the "firstborn" and the agent of creation is rooted in Jewish monotheism and the unique revelation of Christ's divinity and role in creation.
Some see the theological speculations of Philo of Alexandria as the cradle of the Christian doctrine of the Logos. Philo, in a Stoic manner, posits independent forces in God that are more or less personified, sometimes two, sometimes three or five, and sometimes an infinite number; among them the νοῦς or λόγος, which he occasionally calls the Son of God and once the second God. However, Philo’s λόγος is neither God nor a person but a mediator between God and the world, an instrument of creation, similar to the ultimate eon of the Gnostics and the λόγος of Arian subordinationism. John's Λόγος shares practically only the name with Philo’s λόγος (Harnack). Before the advent of Christianity, Jews referred to the creative word, the outwardly manifesting, revealing God communicating with humanity or divine activity as the Word (memra in the Aramaic Bible translations, hundreds of times). Similar ideas also appear in several ancient pagan religions, as well as in Greek and Jewish-Greek (Hellenistic) philosophy; but there the term Logos has a completely different meaning than it does for John. For Plato, it means divine reason, as the repository of divine ideas (ideals), the abstract essence, and model of things, sometimes even the world soul. For the Jewish-Greek Philo (who could also have drawn from the Old Testament holy books), the Logos is a vague and confusing concept, an emanation or attribute of God, an instrument of creation (demiurge), a mediator between God and the world, but not a separate person, not incarnated, not a redeemer, not the Messiah.
Other New Testament writers do not use the term Logos in this sense; John himself uses it only in five places (John 1:1 three times, John 1:14, 1 John 1:1, 5:7, Revelation 19:13); but where he speaks of the incarnate Word, he calls him the Son, Christ, or Jesus.
While Philo uses the term Logos, his conception is significantly different from the Christian understanding. Philo’s Logos is an impersonal principle or mediator, not a distinct divine person who became incarnate. The Logos in John’s Gospel and Paul's letters is clearly a personal, divine being who became incarnate as Jesus Christ (John 1:14). Paul’s use of the term and the concept of Christ as the "firstborn" and creator reflects a unique Christian revelation, not merely an adaptation of existing philosophical ideas. The Christian Logos is both fully God and fully man, involved directly in creation and redemption.
I have stated a source for your assertion as to what rabbinic Judaism believed. The only source I have found that supports what you are saying. If there are more then please cite them. Rabbinic Judaism and it's documentation is full of opposing views and arguments on most subjects, so show me some consensus please?
The original audience, while influenced by their cultural context, would have also been instructed in the Christian faith, which includes the understanding of Christ’s divinity and preeminence over creation. The teachings they received from Paul and other apostles would have clarified these truths beyond mere cultural concepts.
The New Testament consistently affirms that Christ is not just a mediating agent but is Himself the Creator, cf. Heb. 1:10. We say that the Father creates all that He creates through His Only-begotten Son, not as though the Son were a mere instrument serving the Father's ends, but as His natural and subsistential force. That no inferiority is necessarily implied by ‘through,’ as if the Son were a mere instrument, is shewn by 1 Corinthians 1:9, where the same construction is used of the Father. Hence, as Godet remarks, it "does not lower the Word to the rank of a simple instrument," but merely implies a different relation to creation on the part of the Father and the Son. The use of "διά" (through) in relation to the Son does not imply mere instrumentality. The preposition "διά" signifies agency and involvement, not a lower status. This language goes beyond mere mediation and attributes creation and sustenance directly to Christ.
The language in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 does not limit Christ’s creative work to the physical universe. John states that all things came into being through Christ, and Colossians includes both visible and invisible realms. This indicates that Christ’s creative authority extends to the entire cosmos, not just the material world. Both Genesis 1:1 and John 1:3 support the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo, and the New Testament expands on this to include Christ as the divine Logos through whom all things were made.
The context in Colossians 1:16-17, where “all things” refers to the entirety of creation, leaves little room for relative interpretation. The passage emphasizes Christ’s preeminence over all creation, asserting that nothing exists that was not made through Him. While “all” can be context-dependent, in the context of creation passages, it consistently refers to the totality of created things. This is evident in passages like John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2, which use comprehensive language to describe Christ’s role in creation.
While Origen and some early thinkers had complex views on the nature of Christ, the consensus among the Church Fathers affirmed the divinity of Christ and His role as Creator. They recognized Christ as eternally begotten, not made, and co-equal with the Father. See: https://justpaste.it/f2gf7
The Bible consistently affirms strict monotheism, the assertion that the Bible and Second Temple Judaism were not "strict monotheism" and accommodated a variety of deities is not supported by a thorough examination of the scriptural and historical evidence. Passages like Deuteronomy 6:4 ("Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.") and Isaiah 44:6 ("I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.") emphasize the unique oneness of God. Some interpret references to “gods” in the Bible (like in Psalm 82) as evidence of henotheism. However, these references can be understood contextually as metaphorical or referring to judges and angels rather than literal deities.
While acknowledging the existence of other spiritual beings (angels, etc.), Second Temple Judaism maintained a clear distinction between the one true God (YHWH) and all other beings. Second Temple Judaism maintained a strict monotheistic framework, despite its interactions with various Hellenistic and pagan cultures. The writings from this period reflect a firm adherence to the belief in one God. The New Testament continues this monotheistic tradition, identifying Jesus as sharing in the divine essence of the one true God. See: https://t.ly/Ulnl6
1. In my judgment, you're wrong about hina. At Col. 1:18 hina functions as I indicated above. Your response is essentially, "Does not," yet I think it clearly does, so no need to get into an endless "is so, is not" exchange.
Paul grounds Jesus' preeminent status as firstborn in verse 18 in chronological firstness, i.e. Jesus was resurrected first into new creation and all others through him. That means two things: (a) for Paul, being first in rank here is the result of being first in time, and (b) he deliberately placed verse 18 in parallel to verse 15, which tells us that Jesus' preeminent status in verse 15 also emerges because of the Son's chronological firstness, namely, he's the first being God created. To suggest otherwise is to break the very parallel that Paul himself brilliantly highlighted.
As the late Maurice Casey rightly observed in “From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God”:
"Similar remarks may be made about Colossians 1:15-20. So much of it has static parallels from Jewish speculation about Wisdom that we must infer an author who felt that what had previously been believed of Wisdom was true of Jesus. It begins with Jesus’ pre-existence and role in creation: ‘who is an image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation, for through him was created everything in heaven and on earth.’ This description must mean that Jesus, rather than Wisdom, or as Wisdom, was the first created being (cf Prov 8:22f; Philo, Qu in Gen., IV, 97). This was written centuries before Arius, when no-one believed that Jesus was second person of the Trinity." (ibib), p. 115
2. In the Bible "firstborn" is always partitive, and this holds true even when used metaphorically.
You mentioned how David was made God's firstborn, yet even in that text, the term is clearly partitive.
καγώ [And I] πρωτότοκον [firstborn] θήσομαι [will make] αυτόν [him] υψηλόν [high] παρά [above] τοις [the] βασιλεύσι [kings] της [of the] γης [earth].
“I shall make him my firstborn; the highest of the kings of the earth.”
It seems pretty clear to me that υψηλόν παρά τοις βασιλεύσι της γης is being used definitionally to reveal what πρωτότοκον signifies in context. The ancient Hebrews liked to make a statement then repeat the thought in different words.
Notice that David is not literally God’s firstborn; rather, God placed him in this status, and here there is a comparison of David with the other kings of the earth. But, as king, David is also part of the class of kings. He’s not the first king chronologically in this case, but he’s superior to his fellow kings. He’s superior to but still part of the group “kings”.
You could express the logic in two ways:
1. David was the highest of the king of the earth 2. David was higher than all *other* kings of the earth
Notice the partitive sense is retained in both 1 and 2, but also notice that this partitive sense justifies the use of "other" to properly clarify the thought.
If you wish to attempt to counter these observations, then your very first step must at minimum do two things:
1. You must provide biblical examples in which πρωτότοκος is not partitive; and
2. You must make a compelling case that any such counter examples not only inform the use we find at Col. 1 verses 15 & 18, but somehow negate the fact that Paul himself grounded the Son's preeminence in those texts in chronological firstness.
In my experience, no one ever gets to #2, because no one has yet provided a biblical example in which πρωτότοκος does not retain its inherent partitive sense. That sense aways inheres, even when the term is used metaphorically, and this necessitates the conclusion that the Son was part of creation at Col. 1. We know that he was also first in time because otherwise all other things couldn't have come into being through him.
The word PRWTOTOKOS (`firstborn`) is a partitive word. It has an intrinsic partitive force (for laypersons, this means that the firstborn is a part of the following implied group). It is an adjective qualifying an implied substantive. `The firstborn of the sheep` is the `firstborn sheep of the sheep` `the firstborn of Jacob` is the firstborn son of Jacob`.
The "Firstborn of Jacob" was a part of the group of Jacob's sons. Reuben remained the firstborn, the eldest son, even though the right of primogenitureship passed to Joseph (cf. Gen 49:3 Reuben, you are my firstborn, my vigor and the beginning of my generative power"). Reuben was the firstborn although he lost the right of firstborn (cf. 1 Chron 5:1 "And the sons of Reu'ben the firstborn of Israel-for he was the firstborn; but for his profaning the lounge of his father his right as firstborn was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, so that he was not to be enrolled genealogically for the right of the firstborn.")
These are the occurrences of PRWTOTOKOS in the LXX (GREEK SEPTUAGINT). Presented here are the following usage for proof behind the point:
27 examples of partitive genitive (the firstborn is a part of the group): Gen 4:4; 25:13; Ex 11:5; 13:13,15;22:28;34:19,19;34:20,20; Num 3:40,41,41;3:45,46,50;8:16;18:15,15; Deut 12:6,17;14:23;15:19; Neh 10:37,37; Ezek 44:30.
42 examples of possessive genitive, such as `my son`,implying membership of the group of sons: Gen 49:3; Ex 4:22; 4:23; 6:14;11:5; Num 1:20; 18:17,17,17;26:5; Deut 21:15,16,17; 33:17;Judg 8:20;2 Sam 3:2; 2 Sam 13:21; 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Chr 1:29; 2:3,13; 2:25, 25,27,42,50; 3:1,15; 4:4; 5:1,3; 8:1,30,38,39; 9:5,31,36,44; 26:2; Psalm 134:8; Mica 6:7; Jer 38:9
There are no example of other genitives.
Lexical semantics, therefore, sans theology, give one meaning to PRWTOTOKOS, and this meaning is intrinsically partitive. Philologically speaking, all genitives with the word uphold the partitive meaning.
Nothing in the immediate context forbids that Jesus is a creature who mediated in creation, but he is not included in TA PANTA.
Another point of lexical semantics that needs to be made clear is the difference between MEANING and CONNOTATION. After a long winter, when we see trees budding, days getting longer and warmer, bird chirping, we may say: "Ahh.. Spring!" However, none of these things are the MEANING of spring, "the first three months following the primal equinox." These are CONNOTATIONS of "spring." They naturally follow.
Likewise, "firstborn" MEANS "one born first in time." In Hebrew Society, the firstborn received certain privileges, such as increased inheritance, preferential treatment and his Father's blessing, but these things are CONNOTATIONS from being firstborn. None of them are MEANING. The firstborn was entitled to increased inheritance, preferential treatment and his Father's blessing BECAUSE he was born first in time.
The prophet Malachi identified exactly who the One True God and Creator is.
Malachi 2:10 ASV: “Have we not all ONE FATHER? hath not ONE GOD CREATED US? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, profaning the covenant of our fathers?”
To the ancient Israelites the Father alone was the Only True God and the Creator.
Jesus has supreme status of Creation because he was made first. Jesus has supreme status of those resurrected because he was raised out of or from death first by his God who alone is the Most High.
The preached to all creation in Colossians 1:23 doesn't include angels or angels showing the relative meaning of all. By your logic I guess we can claim angels and animals have authority over creation.
Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says it is addressed to God?
Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.)
I know this text is often used to show since it talks about Jehovah in Psalms that Jesus must be Jehovah. However, we know that can't be since Jehovah is the God of the Messiah according to Micah 5:4. Could it be to understand Hebrews 1:10, we could just read a few more verses?
Hebrews 2:7 tells us, "You [God the Father] made him [Jesus] a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and appointed him over THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS."
Whose hands?
The God and Father of Jesus Christ who is Jehovah. Now, when we go back to Hebrews 1:10, it makes scriptural sense that it speaks about the heavens and earth as the work of his hands, and Jesus absolutely was appointed to participate (Master Worker) in making all things as he always is when having a share in fulfilling God's purpose. As Psalm 8:6 tells us: "You [Jehovah] gave him [Jesus] dominion over the works of your [Jehovah's] hands; You [Jehovah] have put everything under his [Jesus] feet:"
So when it comes to Jehovah in Ps. 102, the writer here attributes these qualities to Jesus Christ, because Jesus is the one whom God used in the work of creation and to whom he has now committed all authority "in heaven and on the earth." (Matt. 28:18; Col. 1:15-17) Jesus represents the God that no one has ever seen to us fully in all his qualities and actions. (John 1:18)
Psalm 22, attributed to David, relates, partly in figurative language, some of the sufferings of Christ. (Compare Psalm 22:1 with Mark 15:34; also compare the entire Psalm with the four gospel accounts of Jesus' trial and death.) Are Jesus and David the same person? No! A scripture in Matthew 2:15 applies to Jesus, but the earlier reference in Hosea 11:1 applies to Israel. Does that make them the same? No! There is a prophecy about Elijah in Malachi 4:5 that is applied to John the Baptist in Matthew 17:12,13; 11:14. Is John the Baptist really Elijah? No! They just did a similar work. I think you get the point.
Also, Jehovah gave Jesus the ability to sustain things that don't make him God, as Jehovah is the One who gave Jesus his authority and power.
Hebrews 2:7 & Psalm 8:6 tells us Jesus is appointed over the works of his God and Father's hands. This clearly shows who the Creator is, the Father alone. If Jesus was the Creator it be no reason for someone to appoint him over his own creation. But that's not the case.
God did extraordinary miracles THROUGH (Greek word διὰ/dia) Paul, 12 so that when the handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were brought to the sick, their diseases left them, and the evil spirits came out of them.
Was Paul the source of these extraordinary miracles? Or was someone greater working through him to accomplish these miracles?
It was Jehovah who performed these miracles THROUGH Paul. Paul was a worker with God but the Father was the source and power.
It's the same with Jesus and creation as it came through him.
Syriac Wisdom Prov 8:22-31 Syriac (Lansa, italics added): 22. “The Lord created me (brny) as the first of his creations (bryth), before all of his works. 23. I was established (i.e., he established me, 'tqnny) from everlasting, from the beginning, before he made the earth. 24. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25. Before the mountains were settled (ntqnw), before the hills were formed was I conceived. 26. While as yet he had not made the earth nor the valleys nor the best soil of the world. 27. When he established (mtqn) the heavens, I was there; when he set a circle upon the face of the deep. 28. When made firm the clouds above; when he strengthened the fountains of the deep. 29. When he gave to the sea its bounds, that the waters should not transgress his commandment; when he laid down the foundations of the earth: 30. I together with him was establishing them (mtqn'); and daily I was his delight, rejoicing always before him, 31. Rejoicing in his habitable earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.” - The Syriac translation here is from Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text: George M.Lansa's Translations From the Aramaic of the Peshitta. San Francisco: Harper & Row, nd.
“...As in Greek, Syriac Wisdom is unambiguously a creation of the Lord, not God's acquisition. In v. 22 Syriac the verb br', create, sharpens the sense of the Hebrew, as does the Greek. Indeed Syriac reiterates the point of Wisdom being the first creature by translating "his acts" in v. 22 as "his creation" (bryth), using a derivative of "create" in v. 22. … The Syriac term in v. 30 translated above as, "was establishing them", merits some comment. … As is evident from the italic insertions above, verbs of the same root (tqn) are used for the Creator fashioning the mountains in v. 25, for the Creator fashioning the heavens in v. 27a, and for Wisdom's role beside God in v. 30. In v. 31 the Syriac translator renders the Hebrew, not the Greek: "and daily I was HIS delight, rejoicing always before HIM, Rejoicing in HIS habitable earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." (8:30b-31, Syriac).” - SOURCE: “AUSTRALIAN EJOURNAL OF THEOLOGY INAUGURAL ISSUE – By Alan Moss, AUGUST 2003.”
Colossians 1:16-17 The same interpolation ("other") appears twice more in this passage, however, this word does not appear in the Greek text: ἕτερος (heteros) means "other (different from), or ἄλλος (allos) means "other (another one the same as). for you While it may be permissible to interpret the text this way in a commentary, it is highly misleading to mar the translation with a word that is not present, especially when building theology on it. (This is why Luther's insertion of "alone" in Romans 3:28 is not found in Protestant translations, regardless of their perceived correctness of the interpretation.)
The New World Translation similarly inserts the word "other" in Acts 10:36: "This one is Lord of all [others]," and surprisingly in Romans 8:32 as well (without parentheses): "why will he also not with him kindly give us all other things?"
In Colossians 1:15, "firstborn" does not literally mean "first in time" but denotes rank, signifying that Christ holds the rights of primogeniture over all creation without being part of it. By this reasoning, Jesus would belong to the church (the redeemed) based on Ephesians 5:23 ("ho Christos kephale tes ekklesias"), even though the same letter places Him above the church as head ("kephale huper panta te ekklesia").
The JW argument suggests a so-called "Biblical rule" that anyone or anything can only be the firstborn if they are part of what they are the firstborn of. This "rule" is not Biblical and can easily be refuted from Scripture. Among the Biblical examples is Psalm 89:27: "I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." Here, you can't equate other kings with other offspring of Yahweh because the same Psalm speaks of David being chosen from among the people of Israel, not from among other kings: "Then you spoke in a vision to your godly one, and said: 'I have granted help to one who is mighty; I have exalted one chosen from the people.'" This implies that "firstborn" here denotes rank among kings without implying membership among them. The same idea is found in Hebrews 12:23: "to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven," where "firstborn" is detached from the concept of birth and membership and takes on a connotation of dignity.
Furthermore, Israel was Yahweh's firstborn and not counted among the nations (Numbers 23:9), contrary to your claim: "God called Israel his firstborn son, and this firstborn status was considered the first among the pagan nations." It is not among them but above them. Similarly, the Son is is in the position of The Firstborn regarding all creation while not being a creature but God Himself.
The word "ktisis" can also mean "created world," thus diverging from your interpretation. Someone who is the firstborn of the entire created world is not necessarily a creature, especially given the abstract nature of the term.
The immediate context also argues against your stance. Colossians 1:16 says, "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." The word "for" connects Paul's thought from the previous verse to "the firstborn of all creation." Jesus is firstborn over all creation BECAUSE all things were created in Him, through Him, and for Him. The firstborn status here undoubtedly refers to a preeminence in rank, not among creatures but over them. How could He be a creature when all things were created through Him? Begetting (gennao) is not the same as creating (ktizo).
Firstborn is ALWAYS a member of the set ALWAYS .Your nonsequitirs constitute yet more argumentation minus any actual argument. When you find the quote that supports your substantive claim ,that is that his being the firstborn necessarily or even possibly( I'm feeling charitable) means that he is not a member of the implied set bring that quote and we'll talk.
I made NO parallel with verse 18 I Made the parallel with revelation ch.1:5 being fully aware of trinitarians' fudge with verse 18. Please stop repeating this falsehood.
So since this guy believes Jesus,the Father, and holy spirit are three persons but one God, he also believes the Father and holy spirit are the firstborn of all creation since they are one God.
More none sequiturs he is not the ultimate source of the creation the God acting dia him is, the prototokos is ALWAYS a member of the set whether he is the highest ranked member or the first member or both is yet further nonsequiturs. The fact that neither you nor you confederates can produce a SINGLE exception re:the prototokos inclusion in the implied set from scripture is evidence of the totality of the principal of the firstborn inclusion in the implied set.
The comparison of Genesis ch.3:20 is a precise parallel with your claim if the creation is being accomplished true prior creations obviously the first creation in this chain of created causes would be a logical exception not requiring mention. Just like eve's and her husband's exception should be made plain via the context.
Paul states that the clarification should be unnecessary,it should be obvious,that the one subjecting all things to him outranks him obviously Paul had not encountered any trinitarians. Similarly the one creating dia him outranks him obviously and is to be credited unqualifiedly as the source of the power and wisdom manifest in the creation not his instrument. So either one is the ultimate source of the creation not needing supplementation as stated in Isaiah 45:5 or you part of the creation that is sustainable by him alone there us no in between. No one creates "dia" JEHOVAH
"Vergil’s ideas on poetic structuring may seem unique. The political and historical background of the Aeneid shows that the underlying purpose for its origin lies in the ethnic, social and cultural motivation.The poem itself, written within around eleven years, was missing some revisions at the time of Vergil’s death (Dixon-Kennedy 1998: 14). As it was suggested by Reed (2007: 1), it became one of the most well known examples of Roman ktisis poetry, or a “foundation myth.” It may be worth noting, however, that Vergil’s idea of strengthening the political influence of Augustus and providing his compatriots with an ethnic point-of-reference was not a genuine concept. Ktisis myths were already known in ancient Greece, while Vergil’s ideas were strongly influenced by poetical works of Homer. According to Kenneth Quinn (1968: 42–43):"
You can rant and rave about your "always", but it's still a fallacy of equivocation, there is no such established "rule" (???), since all such examples can be perfectly justified by knowing that those "firstborns" were indeed born into that group by birth from one of the members of the group.
However, according to Hebrews 1:6, the Son is the firstborn of the Father, not of any creature.
Your examples are examples of the fact that the firstborn belongs to the category of the person from whom it was born.
You assert that "hina" in Colossians 1:18 indicates a purpose based on chronological firstness. However, the term "hina" often indicates purpose or result. The text states, "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that (ἵνα) He might have preeminence in everything." This suggests that the resurrection of Jesus to a glorified state establishes His supreme status. The phrase "so that" (hina) links His resurrection to His preeminence, emphasizing the result of His resurrection rather than suggesting His inclusion in the group of created beings.
By the way, Christ is not the first person who has ever been resurrected, the Bible records several instances where individuals were resurrected before Jesus. Here are some examples: Elisha resurrected the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:32-37). A man came back to life when his body touched Elisha's bones (2 Kings 13:20-21). Jesus raised the son of the widow in Nain (Luke 7:11-17). Jesus resurrected Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:35-43; Luke 8:49-56).Jesus brought Lazarus back to life after he had been dead for four days (John 11:1-44).
The claim that Paul grounds Jesus' preeminence in being the first created being misconstrues the broader theological context of Paul's writings. In Colossians 1:15, the term "firstborn" (prototokos) denotes rank and supremacy, not merely chronological order. If we consider "firstborn" in the context of rank, Jesus being "firstborn from the dead" in verse 18 similarly emphasizes His supremacy over death and His leading role in the new creation. The chronological firstness of His resurrection serves to highlight His preeminence, not His creation.
You argue that Paul intentionally parallels verses 15 and 18, suggesting both indicate chronological firstness. However, this parallelism serves to emphasize Christ's supremacy in both the old and new creation. In verse 15, Christ's role as the "firstborn of all creation" signifies His authority and preeminence over all things created by Him, not that He is a part of creation. Similarly, in verse 18, His being "firstborn from the dead" underscores His preeminence in the new creation through His resurrection. This parallel highlights the comprehensive scope of Christ's supremacy.
Maurice Casey's interpretation, suggesting that Colossians 1:15-20 positions Jesus as the first created being like Wisdom, fails to account for the distinct Christian understanding of Christ's divine nature. While early Jewish wisdom literature and middle-Platonic concepts may influence the language, Paul explicitly attributes creation to Christ, stating, "For by Him all things were created" (Col. 1:16). This language firmly places Christ as the Creator, not a creature, consistent with the broader New Testament witness (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:10).
The assertion that the historical context should not include rabbinic Judaism overlooks the fact that Paul, a former Pharisee, deeply rooted in Jewish thought, wrote to both Jewish and Gentile audiences. While acknowledging contemporary philosophical influences, it is critical to interpret Paul's writings within the broader biblical revelation and the theological affirmations of the early church. The doctrine of Christ's preeminence and divine nature is firmly grounded in scripture and affirmed by early Christian theology.
Your claim that πρωτότοκος ("firstborn") intrinsically carries a partitive meaning is not substantiated by linguistic evidence. According to Luis C. Reyes' detailed analysis (https://t.ly/PwyKL), there is no inherent partitive semantic value in the isolated term πρωτότοκος. This means that πρωτότοκος does not inherently imply that the firstborn is part of the group to which it refers. This is a crucial point because the partitive interpretation hinges on the assumption that πρωτότοκος intrinsically means "part of the group." However, linguistic evidence shows that such an intrinsic partitive meaning cannot be isolated within the term itself.
Reyes and other scholars have examined numerous instances of πρωτότοκος in the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament. They found that the term does not always imply partitive inclusion. For example, in Hebrews 1:6, πρωτότοκος refers to Christ being brought into the world, emphasizing His unique status without implying He is part of the creation.
Psalm 89:27 does call David God's "firstborn," but the term here signifies rank and preeminence rather than partitive membership. The phrase "I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth" uses πρωτότοκος metaphorically to denote David's superior status among kings, not his inclusion in a group of literal firstborns. This usage aligns with the broader biblical pattern where "firstborn" often denotes preeminence or special status, as seen in Exodus 4:22, where Israel is called God's firstborn, emphasizing its special status among nations, not a literal birth order.
In Colossians 1:15-18, the term πρωτότοκος is used to underscore Christ's supremacy over all creation. Paul’s use of πρωτότοκος here does not imply that Christ is part of the created order. Instead, it highlights His authority and preeminence. Colossians 1:16-17 clarifies this by stating that all things were created through Him and for Him, placing Christ above and before all creation. This fits with the broader theological context where Christ is acknowledged as the agent of creation (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2), not as a part of it.
The argument by some Jehovah’s Witnesses that the genitive construction (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως) must be partitive is flawed. As highlighted by Reyes, the partitive interpretation is not linguistically required. The genitive can also denote a relationship of preeminence or supremacy over the group mentioned, without implying partitive inclusion. This is evident in biblical examples where "firstborn" signifies rank or status conferred by God, rather than literal birth order or group membership.
Scholars like Nigel Turner acknowledge the possibility of a partitive sense but do not conclude that πρωτότοκος inherently places Christ within the created order. Instead, the term is used to emphasize Christ's preeminence. Furthermore, the broader theological context of Colossians, which emphasizes Christ's role in creation and His divine nature, supports the interpretation of πρωτότοκος as denoting supremacy rather than partitive inclusion.
I see, you wanted to take the job on the easy side and instead of a personalized answer, you started copying.
The assertion that πρωτότοκος ("firstborn") intrinsically carries a partitive force is not supported by linguistic evidence. As discussed by Luis C. Reyes (https://t.ly/PwyKL), there is no inherent partitive semantic value in the isolated term πρωτότοκος. The term itself does not necessitate inclusion in a group unless specified by the context. In Colossians 1:15, the context emphasizes Christ's supremacy over creation rather than His inclusion within it. The phrase "firstborn of all creation" (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως) signifies His preeminence and authority over all creation, aligning with biblical themes of Christ's divine role in creation (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2).
"`The firstborn of the sheep` is the `firstborn sheep of the sheep` `the firstborn of Jacob` is the firstborn son of Jacob`."
Yes, but the lamb was born of a lamb, Jacob's firstborn was born of Jacob, but the Son was not born of the "whole creation" or of a specific creature, but of the Father. All your examples are just examples of the first born being in the category it was born from. In ALL the examples provided (e.g., the firstborn of Jacob), the firstborn is part of the group because of biological lineage. Luis C. Reyes' analysis challenges the notion that πρωτότοκος inherently carries a partitive meaning. The term does not intrinsically possess a partitive semantic value, and its meaning must be derived from the context in which it is used.
The term πρωτότοκος ("firstborn") can refer to both chronological birth order and rank or preeminence. In biblical contexts, it often signifies a position of honor, authority, rank and preeminence rather than mere chronological birth order. This is also supported by the jw.org sources copied above, so you don't believe them either? For example, in Psalm 89:27, David is called God's "firstborn," meaning he holds the highest rank among kings, not that he is the first king chronologically. The distinction between rank and birth order is clear in biblical usage. While Reuben was the firstborn of Jacob, he lost his primogeniture to Joseph, yet he retained the title "firstborn." This shows that "firstborn" can refer to a position of honor and authority rather than strict partitive inclusion.
While many examples of πρωτότοκος in the Septuagint (LXX) involve partitive genitive constructions, this does not prove that the term intrinsically carries a partitive meaning. Each instance must be evaluated contextually. In Colossians 1:15, the context does not support a partitive interpretation. Instead, it emphasizes Christ's role as supreme over all creation, which aligns with His divine nature and preexistence (John 1:1-3).
Lexical semantics must consider both intrinsic meaning and contextual usage. The term πρωτότοκος does not inherently carry a partitive meaning; its interpretation depends on context. In Colossians 1:15, the broader theological context indicates Christ's preeminence over creation, not His inclusion within it. This interpretation is consistent with other New Testament passages affirming Christ's divine role in creation (Hebrews 1:2-3). The term TA PANTA ("all things") includes all of creation, and Christ's preexistence and creative role are affirmed by phrases like "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).
The primary meaning of πρωτότοκος as "firstborn" includes both chronological and rank-based interpretations, depending on context. While in some contexts it refers to birth order, in others, it signifies preeminence and authority.
"To the ancient Israelites the Father alone was the Only True God and the Creator."
However, the term "the Father" here, especially in the Old Testament, is not synonymous with God the Father (from whom the Son/Logos was born before all aeons), but with God, because while the Son only has a filial relationship with God the Father, the Father of creation is the whole Deity (theotes). Malachi 2:10 affirms monotheism and the belief in one Creator God. This is consistent with the New Testament's depiction of Christ as the divine agent of creation, acting in unity with the Father. The New Testament presents a complex understanding of the Godhead, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons within the one divine essence. This does not contradict the affirmation of one Creator God but enriches the understanding of God's nature and work in creation.
The concept of Jesus being "made first" is inconsistent with biblical teaching. Colossians 1:16-17 states that "all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." This language indicates that Jesus is preeminent over creation, not a part of it. He is eternal, existing before all things, and the agent through whom all things were made. Furthermore, John 1:3 explicitly states, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." This affirms that Jesus is the Creator, not a created being.
While Jesus is indeed the "firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), this refers to His preeminence in resurrection, not that He was the first to be resurrected chronologically. Others, like Lazarus, were raised before Jesus, but Christ's resurrection is unique because He was raised to eternal life and exalted to the right hand of God, thus guaranteeing the resurrection of all believers. The Scriptures do not exclusively attribute Jesus' resurrection to the Father. Various passages indicate that Jesus actively participated in His own resurrection: John 2:19-21: Jesus explicitly states, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The disciples later understood this to mean He was speaking of His body (John 2:22). This passage directly attributes the power of resurrection to Jesus Himself. John 10:17-18: Jesus declares, "I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." This indicates Jesus' active role and authority in His resurrection. John 11:25: Jesus proclaims, "I am the resurrection and the life." This statement emphasizes that resurrection is intrinsically tied to His divine identity and power. These passages demonstrate that Jesus was not merely a passive recipient of resurrection but had an active role and divine authority in His resurrection. This participation further underscores His divinity and unity with the Father in the work of salvation.
The phrase "all creation" in Colossians 1:23 refers to humanity, as the gospel is preached to people, not to angels or animals. This does not diminish the scope of "all" in Colossians 1:16, where "all things" clearly includes everything created, both visible and invisible, as the context specifies. The context of "all things" in Colossians 1:16-17 is comprehensive, including thrones, powers, rulers, and authorities—terms that encompass the entire created order, including angelic beings.
Hebrews 1:10-12 applies Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son to affirm His divinity and eternal nature. The author of Hebrews is making the point that the Son shares in the divine attributes and works attributed to Yahweh, specifically creation and immutability. The New Testament often applies Old Testament passages about Yahweh to Jesus to highlight His divine nature. This is consistent with the overall New Testament portrayal of Jesus as fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14). The Evangelist John says (John 12:41) that Isaiah saw (through divine revelation) Christ's glory (tēn dóxan autou)—the divine power and nature of the future Messiah and Redeemer, which was manifested to the Jews through Jesus' teachings and miracles. Here, John is referring to the majestic vision received by the prophet at his calling, described in Isaiah 6:1-10, and to the Adonai, the Lord, seen in that vision (Isaiah 6:1), whom the Targum specifically refers to using the term "the glory of Yahweh."
Micah 5:4 indeed acknowledges that the Messiah has a God, emphasizing His humanity. However, this does not negate His divinity. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that Jesus, in His incarnation, submitted to the Father, but this submission does not imply inferiority in essence. Hebrews 2:7 acknowledges Jesus' incarnation, where He was made lower than the angels for a time. However, Hebrews 1:3 and 1:8-12 affirm His eternal divine nature and role in creation. His temporary humiliation does not contradict His eternal divinity. The "works of your hands" in Hebrews 2:7 refers to Jesus' authority over creation, a role given to Him in His exaltation after the resurrection as a man, as seen in Philippians 2:9-11.
The attribution of Psalm 102 to Jesus in Hebrews 1 underscores the Son's full participation in the divine identity and work. The New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as the agent of creation and the sustainer of all things (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2-3). This application is not merely functional but ontological, indicating that Jesus shares in the divine essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
While Jesus received authority and power in His incarnation (Matthew 28:18), this does not imply He lacked divinity. It highlights His role within the Trinity and His voluntary submission during His earthly ministry. By the way, it is also a dogma that the Son received his existence and divinity (everything) from the Father, just not in time, and not through creation, but through eternal generation, begetting, and not in an ontologically inferior way.
Hebrews 2:7 and Psalm 8:6 do speak of Jesus being appointed over the works of God's hands, but this does not imply that Jesus is not the Creator. The appointment highlights Jesus’ authority and role in the divine plan, emphasizing His preeminence. The New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as both fully God and fully man, with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working in harmony. The concept of appointment can be seen as a formal acknowledgment of Jesus' role in the divine order rather than a denial of His creative work.
The analogy of Paul is not fully applicable to Jesus' role in creation. While Paul is a human instrument through whom God worked, Jesus is portrayed as the divine Logos, through whom all things were made. The New Testament distinguishes between the roles of humans like Paul and the divine nature of Jesus. The miracles performed through Paul were by the power of God working through a human agent. In contrast, creation through Jesus involves Him as the divine agent of creation itself, integral to the Godhead.
The concept of appointment does not negate Jesus' role as Creator. In the context of the incarnation, Jesus, who is fully God and fully man, is given authority and dominion as the Messiah. Philippians 2:9-11 speaks of Jesus being exalted and given the name above every name after His obedience unto death. This exaltation and appointment reflect His messianic role and the fulfillment of God's redemptive plan. The Father's appointment of Jesus over creation can be seen as a recognition of His victory and authority in the redemptive process, not a statement about His creative role.
The identification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 with Jesus in the New Testament is metaphorical and typological, not literal. Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom in a poetic and literary manner to emphasize the value and eternality of God’s wisdom. This is different from making a direct ontological statement about the pre-existence of Jesus. The theological use of Wisdom in later Christian thought (such as in John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-20) emphasizes the eternality and divine nature of Jesus as the Logos, not as a created entity.
The Syriac translation's use of "brny" aligns with a certain theological perspective that emphasizes creation. However, the underlying Hebrew text of Proverbs uses the term "qanah," which can mean "acquired" or "possessed," as well as "created." The Greek Septuagint (LXX) also uses "ktizo," meaning "created," but this is part of the interpretive tradition and not a definitive linguistic mandate. Moreover, the broader canonical context, particularly in the New Testament, reveals Jesus as eternally begotten, not made (John 1:1-3, 14; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2-3). By the way, according to researchers, among the OT books of the Peshitta, Proverbs is the one most influenced by the LXX.
In Jewish thought, Wisdom literature uses personification to convey theological truths about God’s wisdom and creative power. Early Christians adopted and adapted these concepts to articulate the pre-existent Christ. For example, in John 1:1-3, the Logos (Word) is identified with Jesus, who is with God and is God, participating in the creation of all things. The use of personified Wisdom in Proverbs is an antecedent to, but not a direct one-to-one identification with, the divine Logos. Furthermore, the theological articulation of Jesus' nature in the New Testament goes beyond the literary personification found in Proverbs.
"So since this guy believes Jesus, the Father, and holy spirit are three persons but one God, he also believes the Father and holy spirit are the firstborn of all creation since they are one God."
I think that the title "The Firstborn" belongs to the entire deity in relation to the kosmos/olam/world and the "whole creation", but it is especially applied to the Son because he was appointed as the Messianic King in relation to the whole created world. The Trinitarian view acknowledges that Christ became part of creation when He "became flesh" (John 1:14, Philippians 2:1-6). Therefore, the idea that Jesus is a member of creation does not contradict Trinitarian theology but rather supports it.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
"neither you nor you confederates can produce a SINGLE exception"
Why, how many pieces of Christ do you think there should be? It goes without saying that there is only one of him, so such titles cannot arise in any other case.
Isaiah 45:5 emphasizes monotheism and God's sovereignty, stating, "I am the LORD, and there is no other." The New Testament expands on this revelation by revealing the triune nature of God, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons yet one in essence. The Son's involvement in creation does not diminish the Father's role but rather demonstrates the unity and cooperation within the Godhead.
The use of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 is about supremacy, not necessarily inclusion within a set of created beings. Jesus being the agent (διά, dia) through whom creation occurred indicates His divine role in creation. John 1:3 supports this by stating that “all things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made,” indicating that Jesus Himself is not a part of the created order but the divine agent of creation.
The comparison with Genesis 3:20 ("Adam named his wife Eve because she would become the mother of all the living") does not align with the context of Colossians 1:15. Adam and Eve are distinct from their offspring; similarly, Christ, as the agent of creation, is distinct from the created order. The argument here fails to recognize the distinction between the creator and the created in the biblical context.
The idea that the one who acts through another must necessarily outrank the agent is not a universal principle. The Father and the Son, within the Trinity, share in the divine essence and work harmoniously in creation and redemption. Philippians 2:6-7 describes Christ as existing in the form of God and taking on human form, indicating His divine status and voluntary submission in the economy of salvation. Hebrews 1:10-12 applies Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son, demonstrating that the Son shares in the work of creation, highlighting His divine nature.
Your statement misinterprets the use of διά (dia). In the New Testament, the term is used to describe the means by which creation occurred, with Christ as the divine agent. This does not imply subordination in essence but rather a functional role within the Godhead. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal, working together in creation and redemption. Isaiah 45:5 states there is no other God besides Yahweh, but this monotheistic declaration does not exclude the plurality of persons within the one divine essence. The consistent testimony of Scripture affirms the deity of Christ and His active role in creation, as seen in John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:16-17.
The argument attempts to connect Vergil’s use of ktisis (foundation) poetry in the Aeneid with the New Testament’s usage of similar language, suggesting a shared cultural or literary backdrop. However, this comparison is misleading. The Greek term "ktisis" and its use in the New Testament primarily conveys the act of creation by God and the establishment of a new order through Christ, distinct from Roman or Greek foundation myths which are more political and mythological in nature. This distinction highlights a fundamental difference in the purposes and contexts of the texts.
For a deeper understanding of the biblical usage and its theological implications, refer to the detailed analysis available here: https://t.ly/4cZ36
I've already explained why you are incorrect about 89:27:
"I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth."
There firstborn is clearly partitive. You can't be the highest "of the kings of the earth" unless you're part of the group, "kings of the earth". David was above all *other* kings, but was still a member of the class "kings of the earth".
You're also misusing Numbers 23:9, as you're confusing a decision with the reality that makes the decision possible and meaningful. It is precisely because Israel is a people of the earth that makes it possible to *decide* not to count Israel among the *other* peoples of the earth.
A couple translations make clear what is implied:
"I see a people who live by themselves, set apart from other nations." ~ NLT
"I see a nation that lives by itself, people who do not consider themselves to be like other nations." ~ GODS WORD Translation
Like I said, so far no one has made it past the first part of the two-part challenge.
The notion that the Son was not created/made by the Father, but was born or begotten, and that it is not Michael, but God, was not "invented" by that bogeyman Athanasius and not in the 4th century. For instance, Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, wrote, “…so that we know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures.” Check these resources:
https://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm
Psalm 89:27 - The term "firstborn" here signifies rank and preeminence, not necessarily partitivity. The king is not one of the kings because "firstborn of X" is automatically and inherently a partitive formula, but because of conceptual necessity. But if you just replace/substitute "prototokos" in Col. 1:15 with "one who holds the birthright, preeminent position" (jw.org writes this), then it becomes clear that "the "one who holds the birthright, being in a preeminent position of the whole creation".
Numbers 23:9 states that Israel is not counted among the nations, highlighting their unique status as God's chosen people, distinct from other nations. The translations provided reinforce Israel's separation and distinctiveness, not their inclusion within a broader category.
NLT: "I see a people who live by themselves, set apart from other nations." GOD'S WORD Translation: "I see a nation that lives by itself, people who do not consider themselves to be like other nations."
JWs argue that “the firstborn of” always indicates the firstborn is part of the named group, implying similarity and equality. For example, the firstborn of an animal is an animal, and the firstborn of Pharaoh is part of Pharaoh’s family. They suggest that the firstborn of creation must be part of creation, thus a created being. This reasoning is flawed. If taken to its logical conclusion, it suggests absurdities like creation being the parent of Jesus. This clearly is not the intended meaning of "firstborn of creation."
The “firstborn” is indeed “part of the group”, but ONLY IF in fact the word “firstborn” is used in a literal sense; otherwise, this rule does not necessarily apply. But the term “firstborn of” in the scriptures can have non-literal meanings. For instance, creation cannot literally give birth, so Colossians 1:15 must be understood figuratively. A Greek lexicon analysis shows that "firstborn" (prototokos) has no literal definition when not applied to man or beast, further supporting the non-literal interpretation. Throughout the Bible, “firstborn” is often used figuratively, always explained by context.
1. Honorable distinction or preeminence: Verses like Exodus 4:22, Psalm 89:27, Jeremiah 31:9, Hebrews 1:6, Hebrews 12:22-23, Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:18, and Revelation 1:5 use “firstborn” to signify honor and preeminence. For example, God calls Israel “My firstborn” in Exodus 4:22 to highlight their special status. In Hebrews 12:22-23, Christians are called the “firstborn” to signify their favored status as God’s children.
2. Superlative form of an adjective: In Isaiah 14:30 and Job 18:13, “firstborn” is used to mean the most extreme or significant. Isaiah 14:30’s “firstborn of the poor” refers to the most miserable of the poor, and Job 18:13’s “firstborn of death” signifies the deadliest disease.
3. Title for birthright owner: In Deuteronomy 21:16, “firstborn” refers to the heir or person given the birthright, not necessarily the eldest. This shows that “firstborn” can signify a position of honor or inheritance rather than literal birth order.
Given these non-literal usages, it is essential to interpret "firstborn" in context. In Colossians 1:15-16, Paul calls Christ the “firstborn” because He created all things, bestowing on Him the unique honor of priority and dignity. This interpretation aligns with the biblical usage of the term. Therefore, Jesus holds preeminence over every creature, underscoring His divinity.
JWs inconsistently apply the so-colled „rules,” such as with the comma placement in Luke 23:43. While they argue that "firstborn of" always indicates being part of the group, Colossians 1:15 must be understood contextually. The expression “firstborn of all creation” differs from other usages like “firstborn of Pharaoh.” Colossians 1:15-17 states that by Him all things were created, indicating Jesus is not part of creation but the creator.
Paul’s use of “firstborn” signifies preeminence and honor, not literal birth order. Jesus is referred to as the “firstborn among many brethren,” “the firstborn of all creation,” and “the firstborn from the dead,” highlighting His supreme status. This preeminence supports translating “firstborn of all creation” as “preeminent over all creation.”
Isaiah 44:24 states that God alone created all things. This, combined with Colossians and John 1:3, shows that Jesus was with God during creation, affirming His divinity. The term "firstborn" indicates preeminence rather than creation. In Genesis 41:51-52 and Jeremiah 31:9, "firstborn" implies a status of honor, not merely being the first child.
You refer to the Syriac translation of Proverbs 8:22-31 to claim that Wisdom, depicted as created, supports the idea that Jesus (as Wisdom) is also a created being. The identification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 with Jesus in the New Testament is metaphorical and typological, not literal. Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom in a poetic and literary manner to emphasize the value and eternality of God’s wisdom. This is different from making a direct ontological statement about the pre-existence of Jesus. The theological use of Wisdom in later Christian thought (such as in John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-20) emphasizes the eternality and divine nature of Jesus as the Logos, not as a created entity.
Translations often reflect interpretive choices. The Syriac translation's use of "brny" aligns with a certain theological perspective that emphasizes creation. However, the underlying Hebrew text of Proverbs uses the term "qanah," which can mean "acquired" or "possessed," as well as "created." The Greek Septuagint (LXX) also uses "ktizo," meaning "created," but this is part of the interpretive tradition and not a definitive linguistic mandate. Moreover, the broader canonical context, particularly in the New Testament, reveals Jesus as eternally begotten, not made (John 1:1-3, 14; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2-3).
In Jewish thought, Wisdom literature uses personification to convey theological truths about God’s wisdom and creative power. Early Christians adopted and adapted these concepts to articulate the pre-existent Christ. For example, in John 1:1-3, the Logos (Word) is identified with Jesus, who is with God and is God, participating in the creation of all things. The use of personified Wisdom in Proverbs is an antecedent to, but not a direct one-to-one identification with, the divine Logos. Furthermore, the theological articulation of Jesus' nature in the New Testament goes beyond the literary personification found in Proverbs.
The New Testament teaches that Jesus, as the divine Logos, is fully involved in creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). The "appointment" language in Hebrews 1:2 and Psalm 8:6 reflects the incarnational economy where Jesus, in His humanity, is given dominion and authority. This does not negate His divine role as Creator but rather highlights His mediatorial role in redemption and His exaltation post-resurrection (Philippians 2:9-11)
Hebrews 1:10-12 explicitly applies the attributes and actions of God in Psalm 102 to Jesus, indicating His divine nature and eternal existence. This is not merely about a mediatorial role but an affirmation of Jesus' full participation in the divine essence and creative work. The broader context of Hebrews 1 presents Jesus as the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word (Hebrews 1:3).
Proverbs uses poetic personification to exalt divine Wisdom, a concept later applied to Christ to highlight His divine and eternal nature, not His creation. The New Testament consistently presents Jesus as the divine Logos, pre-existent and co-creator with the Father, upholding all things. The idea of Jesus as a created being is contrary to the weight of biblical evidence affirming His deity and eternal existence.
The wisdom at Proverbs 8:22 is CREATED "CANA" and thus cannot refer to JEHOVAH'S Eternal wisdom,but is an expression of that wisdom at a definite point in time( a beginning) hence it is spoken of as being "apo arkhe" from the beginning at 1John Ch.1:1 Logos is always used in the context of communication between minds and not of mere gnosis within a single mind.
There is NO co-creator there is only one creator i.e the God and Father of Jesus, Isaiah Ch.44:24ASV"Thus saith JEHOVAH, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb: I am JEHOVAH, that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth (who is with me?);" ALL of the power and wisdom manifest in the creation has its source in the God and Father of Jesus ALONE.
“However, the term "the Father" here, especially in the Old Testament, is not synonymous with God the Father (from whom the Son/Logos was born before all aeons), but with God,” - that’s redefining the meaning to the word and interpreting it differently throughout When the OT says “God” they mean the Father Not the trinity itself Adding another to my counter Ninc
Read my notes regarding Proverbs 8:22 https://justpaste.it/aisrx
"at a definite point in time( a beginning)"
However, the text does not say "breshit" (at the beginning), but "reshit", which does not indicate time ("AT the beginning"), but makes it a double accusative structure ("AS the beginning").However, the text does not say "Breshit" (at the beginning), but simply "reshit", which does not indicate time ("AT the beginning"), but makes it a double accusative structure ("AS the beginning"). The text of the LXX does not have εν ἀρχῇ either, but ἀρχὴν. The Septuagint's use of "ἀρχὴν" (archēn) instead of "ἐν ἀρχῇ" (en archē) supports the interpretation of Wisdom as the beginning or first principle rather than indicating a temporal beginning. In Hebrew, "reshit" indicates a double accusative structure, meaning "as the beginning" rather than "at the beginning," emphasizing Wisdom’s role and not a specific point in time. John’s Gospel emphasizes the preexistence of the Logos, indicating that Jesus (the Logos) is eternal and divine. The Logos WAS with God already "in the beginning," not created at a point in time.
The Hebrew word “qanah” in Proverbs 8:22, often translated as "created," can also mean "possessed" or "acquired." This semantic range opens the possibility that Wisdom was not created but possessed eternally by God, reflecting His inherent nature. The Greek translation (LXX) uses "ektise" (created), yet this does not necessarily imply a temporal beginning of Wisdom but can express the manifestation of eternal Wisdom in creation. The Septuagint’s use of "ektise" does not necessarily denote a created being but can imply the manifestation of an eternal attribute in the created order.
Proverbs 8 employs personification, where Wisdom speaks as if a person. This literary device illustrates God’s Wisdom in creation without implying that Wisdom is a separate, created entity. Jewish understanding often views Wisdom as an attribute of God, inherent and eternal, rather than a created being. This aligns with seeing Wisdom as a representation of God’s eternal attributes. The concept of Logos in Greek philosophy and Jewish thought encompasses more than mere communication; it signifies the rational principle of the universe, a mediator between God and the world.
The term "apo arche" (from the beginning) in 1 John 1:1 refers to the eternal existence of the Word (Logos), indicating preexistence rather than creation. It emphasizes the Word’s timeless nature, being with God already from the start.
Isaiah 44:24 YHWH declares Himself as the sole Creator, this statement does not exclude the involvement of the consubstantial Son, but this clearly excludes the demiurge Michael-Jesus. Hebrews 1:10 quotes Psalm 102:25-27, applying it to Jesus: “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” This verse explicitly identifies Jesus as the Creator, affirming His divinity and eternal nature. This aligns with the broader biblical witness of Jesus' involvement in creation (Hebrews 1:2, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16).
You interpret statements of God’s singularity in creation as excluding Jesus’ involvement. However, the broader biblical context shows these statements highlight God's ultimate authority while not excluding the cooperative work within the Godhead. The application of Psalm 102 to Jesus in Hebrews 1:10 underscores His deity and role in creation, reinforcing that He is not a created being but the eternal Creator.
And reading again, Ninc is making a case about ek in col 1:18… however is failing to mention important information to his readers… Rev 1:5 and a variant of col 1:18 omits “ek” in firstborn of the dead - ALL reputable scholars ( and the church fathers) connect col 1:18 and rev 1:5 ( firstborn of the dead) they mean the same thing with or without “‘ek” Whether he likes it or not… that argument is null and void And if ek was so important for making some tbh of part of a category: why is it omitted in other places to classify part of a group?
By nincs logic here: Jesus is still part of the dead… which is false
Atha, shamounian, bowman and Robertson - all scholars ( except atha, shamounian does better scholarship than most, I’ll give him that ) who have lied at one point, are more credible than Ninc on this subject.. who I have caught out over 100 times.. which he has then lied again.. And I have little respect for Bowman.. and less for shamounian
"This semantic range opens the possibility that Wisdom was not created but possessed eternally by God, reflecting His inherent nature. " - The results of one study taking all occurrences of qanah show that it literally means "something [person] did not possess before" as in it is something newly acquired or bought or created
"it a double accusative structure " - nope it does not, it is Hebrew apposition and can be used to signify something means the same thing... note 22 -25 Where certain words are used to mean the same thing
"The Septuagint’s use of "ektise" does not necessarily denote a created being but can imply the manifestation of an eternal attribute in the created order." - sure
"Isaiah 44:24 YHWH declares Himself as the sole Creator, this statement does not exclude the involvement of the consubstantial Son, but this clearly excludes the demiurge Michael-Jesus." - Tetullian covers this point, it omits false gods, but does not omit the son as the agent of creation...
I specifically referred to 1John Ch.1:1 which mentions the Logos as existing "apo arkhe" why do you keep ignoring my actual arguments in favor of your strawman. The demiurge is eternal not a creation of God and so more resembles Christendom's claim of a co-creator, the Logos being created cannot be regarded as a supplement/co-creator as the information and energy that constitute him came out of his creator and is not innate. JEHOVAH is the God and Father of Jesus according to Jesus own testimony see John ch.8:54 It is illogical to speak of JEHOVAH as possessing wisdom from the beginning of creation or to speak of creation as being without a beginning the use of the term Logos at John ch.1:1 shows that an expression of JEHOVAH'S innate Wisdom is what is meant and not his innate wisdom itself and the expression "apo arkhe" that this expression occurred at a definite point in the past. Cana is never used in the Scripture in the sense of possessed but always in the sense of either produced or acquired even the very catholic Jerusalem Bible recognizes produced/created as the sense favored by the context at proverbs ch.8:22. What we have at Hebrews Ch.1:10 is an example what is called the Law of agency that is that what is done to or by the agent can be spoken of as being done to or by the authority who authorized and empowered him to act and vice versa, nothing more mystical than that is happening here, For instance the achiement of giving the JEHOVAH'S Law to Israel is ascribed to both Moses and JEHOVAH with no implication that their roles in this matter were of equal importance or that Moses was in any kind of mystical union with JEHOVAH see John ch.7:19 Psalm ch.147:19 The apostle Paul under inspiration applies a Messianic prophecy to himself see acts Ch.13:47 if we are to consistently apply trinitarian logic then we must add the apostle Paul along with the prophet Moses to christendom's incomprehensible(their words) Godhead
Proverbs ch.8:22 according to the septuagint"κύριος 8:22 The LORD 2936 έκτισέ created 1473 με me 746 αρχήν the head 3598-1473 οδών αυτού of his ways 1519 εις for 2041-1473 έργα αυτού his works.
Strong's on reshith:◄ 7225. reshith ► Strong's Concordance reshith: beginning, chief Original Word: רֵאשִׁית Part of Speech: Noun Feminine Transliteration: reshith Phonetic Spelling: (ray-sheeth') Definition: beginning, chief
Brown driver brings on where reshith is likely being used in the sense of beginning: .a beginning of kingdom Genesis 10:10 (J), year Deuteronomy 11:12, reign Jeremiah 26:1; Jeremiah 27:1; Jeremiah 28:1; Jeremiah 49:34;= first phase, step, or element in course of events Isaiah 46:10 (opposed to אַחֲרִית); of a thing (דָּבָר) Ecclesiastes 7:8 (opposed to id.); of sin Micah 1:13, strife Proverbs 17:14, wisdom Psalm 111:10, knowledge Proverbs 1:7 thy beginning Job 8:7 #NAME?his beginning Job 42:12 (both opposed to אַחֲרִית), ׳ר before clause, ׳בָּרָא א ׳בְּר Genesis 1:1 in the beginning when god created (> absolute in the beginning God created); אֹנִי ׳ר Genesis 49:3 (poem) beginning (first product) of my manly vigour ("" בְּכֹרִי כֹּחִי so Deuteronomy 21:17; Psalm 78:51 (both "" בְּכוֺת Psalm 105:36; compare דֵּרְכֵי אֵל ׳ר Job 40:19 (of hippopotamus), דַּרְכּוֺ ׳ר PROVERBS 8:22 (OF WISDOM);=first season (of a tree)
We have already discussed this many times, nothing follows from the text variants your refer to. Christ is at the same time one of the dead (because the form with the "ek" is declared about him in Col. 1:18, and specifically that he died) and that he has supremacy over them, so he legitimately uses both turns. This does not prove that with "ek" and without "ek" the two mean the same thing.
For example just because there is a certain person who is both a coach and a member of a sports team, and it both can be said about this specific person that he is "the coach of the team" and at the same time that he is "the coach from the team", it does not follow that the two expressions mean the same thing in an equivalent general sense, and every single coaches are automatically players at the same time of their respective team.
It does not follow at all from the fact that Christ is said to be "firstborn of the dead" (Rev. 1:5) and "firstborn from the dead" (Rev. 1:5) that these two expressions are equivalent, and it does not follow that "firstborn of all creation" is equivalent to that "the firstborn of all creatures."
Your argument assumes that the absence of "ἐκ" in Revelation 1:5 means the same as its presence in Colossians 1:18. This is incorrect because "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" specifically highlights Jesus' resurrection from the dead, an event that underscores His unique role and supremacy. Greek grammar nuances matter. The use of "ἐκ" specifies origin, indicating Jesus was the first to be resurrected and never to die again. Its absence shifts focus to His position among the dead.
Like a certain person can be both a "coach of a team" and a "coach from the team", but these roles emphasize different aspects. Similarly, Jesus can be described in terms that emphasize different aspects of His relationship to creation and resurrection. In Colossians 1:15, "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" (firstborn over all creation) emphasizes Jesus' authority over creation, not inclusion as part of creation. The context of the passage emphasizes His supremacy and preeminence (Colossians 1:16-17). Your interpretation conflates the distinct roles described by the presence or absence of "ἐκ." Proper exegesis requires recognizing the specific theological emphasis in each passage.
The presence or absence of "ἐκ" (ek) affects the specific contextual meaning but does not imply general equivalence across different usages. "Πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν" (firstborn OF the dead) and "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" (firstborn FROM the dead) emphasize different aspects of Christ's role. In Colossians 1:15, "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" (firstborn of all creation) highlights Jesus' supremacy and preeminence over creation, not His inclusion as part of it. The argument that "ἐκ" could be implied is invalid as it changes the intended meaning, making it inconsistent with the broader theological context. The inclusion of "ἐκ" specifies originating from within a group, while its absence in "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" indicates authority over the group. Assuming equivalence between "of" and "from" without context leads to misinterpretation. Greek grammar and syntax must be understood within their specific contexts. Applying the same meaning of "πρωτότοκος" with and without "ἐκ" across different passages without contextual consideration is a flawed approach.
The interpretation that "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" (Colossians 1:15) means "firstborn from all creation" (implying Christ is part of creation) is incorrect. The term signifies preeminence over creation, consistent with biblical usage of "firstborn" as indicating supremacy and authority. The use of "πρωτότοκος" with and without "ἐκ" in different passages underscores distinct theological points about Jesus' role and nature. Colossians 1:15 uses "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" to denote Jesus' supreme authority over all creation, not His inclusion in it. This contextually nuanced understanding invalidates your argument that "firstborn of all creation" means Jesus is a created being.
Anyway, there is no text variant that includes "ek" in verse 15, and it's never declared about the Son the He was created/made by the Father, but on the contrary, it's declared that He was born/begotten.
By the way, if this is such a fundamentally important teaching that the Son is a creature and was created, then why is this not stated explicitly anywhere and should be speculated in such an imbecile way? If the Son were a creature, this foundational doctrine would be explicitly stated in Scripture. The lack of such a statement and the consistent depiction of Jesus as begotten/born rather than created/made supports His divine nature and preeminence over creation.
This is a mistake, the Father-Son in NT sense is not explained in the Old Testament, it only appears in the New Testament. The concept of "Father" in the Old Testament often denotes God’s relationship with His creation and His people as a whole, not specifically the First Person of the Trinity.
When we speak in the relation of creation-God, or fatherhood-sonship, it does not exist (only) with God the Father, but with the entire Godhead. "Our Father" is not (only) the person from whom the Son was born, but the entire Godhead. It is also declared e.g. In Isaiah 9:6, the Son is the "Everlasting Father" as well, which supports the idea that titles within the Trinity are fluid and context-dependent, highlighting the unity and distinct roles within the Godhead.
Christ also indicated several times that in his case there is an ontologically different kind of sonship relationship than between us, which is why he said "my Father *AND* your Father" (John 20:17), which highlight the unique Sonship of Jesus, distinct from the general filial relationship believers have with God. There is also a linguistic distinction in John's writings: Jesus is the Son (huios), and we are the children (teknon). The relational distinctions within the Godhead are more fully revealed in the New Testament.
In many biblical contexts, “Father” can be a synonym for God as a whole, representing the entire Godhead (Trinity), not just the First Person. Remember, usually "Father is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God" (Encyclopedia of Religion, 54). So, the term "the Father" only refers to the first person of the Trinity (the Father of the Son) if "the Father" is specifically mentioned in the context in opposition to "the Son", otherwise it means the entire Trinity, with whom the creatures have a Father-sonship (children of God) relationship.
The JW argument is based on the following facts 1. According to Revelation 1:5, the Son is "πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν" (no ἐκ) according to the established text 2. According to Colossians 1:18 and "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" (with ἐκ) according to the established text 3. There is a total of one manuscript variant that adds ἐκ in Revelation 1:5 and a few manuscript variants that omit ἐκ in Colossians 1:18
According to JW's argument, it follows that: 1. "πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν" and "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" are equivalent in terms of content, and the textual variants prove that the copyists understood it in the same way. 2. For the genitive construction "πρωτότοκος" + ἐκ must always be understood, even if it is not there 3. According to them, it also follows that in Colossians 1:15 "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" means exactly the same without ἐκ as if it says "πρωτότοκος *ἐκ πάσης κτίσεως"
Answer:
In Col. 1:18 variants such as omission of "ἐκ" are minor and not supported by the most reliable manuscripts In Revelation 1:5 the addition of "ἐκ" in one single manuscripts from the 7th century is not considered original by most critical editions, supporting the standard text without "ἐκ." Hence the NA28 apparatus shows that "ἐκ" in Col. 1:18 has robust manuscript support, indicating its authenticity, and the singular variant in Rev. 1:5 lacks similar support and is not considered original.
The Greek preposition "ἐκ" clarifies the source or origin in Col 1:18, indicating "from among the dead." This usage underscores that Christ is one of the dead, having experienced death and resurrection, emphasizing His primacy in resurrection as well. The omission or presence of "ἐκ" changes the nuance. Without "ἐκ," the phrase can imply a broader relationship, whereas "ἐκ" specifies origin. The presence of "ἐκ" in Colossians 1:18 specifically indicates origin ("from among the dead"), emphasizing Christ's resurrection. The omission in Revelation 1:5 rather emphasizes His primacy over the dead.
Therefore, Col 1:18's "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" does not equate to "πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν", these are not equivalent expressions. This argument fails to consider that the presence or absence of "ἐκ" changes the nuance but does not necessarily imply equivalence in all contexts.
Using the analogy of a coach who is also a player: A person who is both a coach and a player can be referred to as "the coach of the team" and "a coach from the team." These expressions are contextually distinct. "The coach of the team" implies leadership over the team. "A coach from the team" emphasizes the person's origin within the team. Similarly, "πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν" and "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" have distinct implications, and their meanings are not automatically equivalent.
"Πρωτότοκος" can mean "firstborn" in terms of priority, preeminence or rank, not necessarily as part of the group, particularly in theological contexts like Col 1:15, where it emphasizes Christ's supremacy over creation. The argument that Col 1:15 should be understood as "πρωτότοκος ἐκ πάσης κτίσεως" contradicts the theological assertion of Christ's pre-existence and role as Creator. Christ cannot be part of the creation He Himself created.
Your interpretation that "πρωτότοκος" + genitive implies an automatic "ἐκ" is unsupported. Textual variants and contextual analysis do not validate this equivalence. Therefore, Colossians 1:15 does not imply Christ is part of creation but rather emphasizes His supremacy over it.
Once we've established, as I think we have, that the Son is the first being created by God, then some might be tempted to think of him as a sort of co-creator. While I understand why some might feel compelled to think along those lines, I don't think Paul would agree.
When we look at Col. 1, we note that the passive ἐκτίσθη is used, which tells us that the Son is not the creator, but the instrument through or in whom God created. If you start with verse 15 and proceed backwards, you'll find the creator in verse 12, namely, God. This distinction is important, and its significance is highlighted by two astute commentators I've quoted many times:
Emil Brunner:
"…the world, it is true, was created through — διὰ — the Son, but not by — ὑπo — the Son, that it has been created in Him and unto Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator." (The Christian Doctrine of God), p. 308
Eduard Lohse:
"It should be noted that ἐν (in), διὰ (through), and εἰς (for) are used, but not ἐξ (from). ‘From whom are all things’ (ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the preexistent Christ is the mediator of creation." (A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Hermeneia Series), p. 50, footnote 125
Clearly, if we call the Son "creator" or "co-creator" then we aren't doing justice to the distinctions Paul carefully made.
Some might ask: If we're not going to refer to the Son as co-creator, than how do we properly describe his role in the act of creation?
Here's the analogy that I've been using for years, which I think better captures Paul's distinctions than does called the Son a 'co-creator':
Mozart alone created the wonderful composition Eine kleine Nachtmusik, and every orchestra that has performed it since was not the creator, but a tool used to bring it from the conceptual stage to its physical/audible realization. God is Mozart; the Son is His orchestra.
So, the person who became Jesus the Christ was God’s first created heavenly Son before his earthly sojourn, and this gave him special status in God’s heavenly family as his firstborn. This special Son was then used as the instrument, or master worker, through whom God proceeded to bring his creation from its ‘blueprint’ stage to its physical realization. He was subsequently used to bring about God’s ‘new creation’ as well, which seems most appropriate to me. This is biblical ‘high Christology,’ and I can’t help but smile as I look up at it and bask in the warmth of its radiant glow.
I will also mention cause I know Ninc will deny with or without ek they mean the same, that there are 3 textual variants of Rev 1:5 where “ek” is added listed on biblehub ( I know of one other)
Question: why would a scribe remove or add “ek” in both versions of the phrase - intentionally alter the meaning so significantly to what the original writer meant?
Ninc burden of proof is on you to linguistically prove they do not mean the same When even the very people you refer to justify your position basically admit they mean the same.. and use them interchangeably.. and together to justify just one point & I will only accept a linguistically justified answer not theologically motivated rubbish.. In my view firstborn from Mary and firstborn of Mary mean basically the same thing ( one denotes origin the other focuses on descent) but the point is it ends with Mary Jesus is not a descendant of creation but he was not a descendant of the dead either Firstborn of Israel - this person was not a descendant of the nation of Israel, but an Israelite Firstborn of death - this disease is not a descendant of death itself But these all have one thing in common they are are part of their groups and are first in some sense. (firstborn of the world is relevant unless you want to rely on someone who relied on Jewish mysticism pretty much a form of magic from my understanding)
There is ex at colossians ch.1:15 either so this just more scurrilous pleading. One nonsequitir after another With or without "ex" the prototokos is always a member of the implied group and you are yet to provide a single scripture where that is not the case. You must provide a SCRIPTURAL Precedent for your claim that the lack of "ex" removes the prototokos from the group. I wait patiently for your example.
JEHOVAH is the Father and the God of Israel this Clearly explained in the O.T Malachi ch.2:10NIV"Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?" N.T Does not deviate. Ephesians ch 4:6 NIV"one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." The God and Father of Jesus is plainly declared to be the MOST High God see Luke ch.1:32 thus he is clearly identified as JEHOVAH see psalm ch.83:18. Jesus himself identifies his God and Father as the one God to whom Israel owed exclusive devotion see John ch.8:54. Acts ch.3:13NKJV"The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob(JEHOVAH), the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. "
I am saying that prototokos is part of the implied group whether or not reference is to the literal or figurative parent of the group or to the group directly. If you are contending with that you must produce an example from SCRIPTURE where this is not the case. That is my challenge.
The semantic range of "qanah" in Hebrew indeed includes "to acquire," "to possess," and "to create." However, in the context of Proverbs 8:22, "qanah" is used poetically to express the relationship between God and Wisdom. Wisdom, personified, is not necessarily a newly created being but can signify an inherent and eternal attribute of God. The term can imply possession and origination from God’s own nature, reflecting His inherent wisdom. Even if "qanah" were interpreted as "created," the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs is seen by many early Church Fathers only as typological and not a direct reference to Christ's ontological status.
While apposition can clarify meaning, in this context, it is not simply equating two synonymous terms. Proverbs 8:22's structure emphasizes Wisdom’s origin and intimate association with God. The phrase "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works" (NIV) highlights the preexistence and foundational role of Wisdom in creation, which aligns more with being possessed by God rather than a mere created entity. By the way, all ancient Greek OT translations, including the LXX, interpreted the text as a double accusative and not as a tense, cf. "ἀρχὴν" (archēn) instead of "ἐν ἀρχῇ" (en archē).
The Greek "ektise" (from ktizo, "to create") can mean to establish or ordain. In Proverbs 8:22 LXX, it reflects Wisdom's role in God's creative order without necessarily implying Wisdom itself was created. Wisdom can be seen as an eternal attribute manifesting in creation, not as a separate created being. This aligns with the New Testament depiction of Christ as the embodiment of divine wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:24, Colossians 2:3).
saiah 44:24 declares YHWH as the sole Creator, emphasizing His unique and unshared role in creation. However, this does not preclude the involvement of the Son, as Christian theology posits the consubstantial Son as sharing in the divine essence and creative work of the Father (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). The Son is not a separate agent but an integral part of the triune Godhead, fully participating in the act of creation. However, these antihenotheistic statements of the prophets do exclude the participation of demiurge-like secondary deities in creation, such as the Michael Jesus of WTS.
The Hebrew word "qanah" can mean "possessed," "acquired," or "created," depending on the context. In Proverbs 8:22, the context of Wisdom being with God from the beginning suggests "possessed" or "acquired" in a non-temporal sense. The LXX translates this as "ektise," which can mean "created" but also "established" or "ordained." The broader semantic range of "qanah" supports the interpretation of Wisdom being an inherent, eternal attribute of God.
The Hebrew apposition "reshit" in Proverbs 8:22 can denote a title or role, not a temporal priority, so it means "AS the beginning", not "AT/IN the beginning, which would be B'reshit. This is seen in its use in other scriptures like Genesis 1:1 ("B'reshit" meaning "In the beginning") and its LXX counterpart "archēn," signifying a foundational or principal aspect, not a created one.
The Hebrew "reshit" and the LXX "archēn" emphasize a role of primacy or preeminence rather than a temporal starting point. In Genesis 1:1, "B'reshit" means "In the beginning," but in Proverbs 8:22, "reshit" in the context of Wisdom being with God indicates a status of being the first and foremost, not implying creation. Thus the use of "archēn" in LXX and "reshit" in Hebrew highlights roles of primacy and preeminence, not temporal origins.
"Apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 does not imply a created beginning but indicates the Logos's existence from the beginning of time as understood in a temporal context. "Apo archē" indicates that Christ existed from all eternity, similar to "en archē" in John 1:1. It emphasizes Christ's pre-existence before the creation of the world, stressing that the Logos was with the Father before time began, not merely at the beginning of His public ministry or creation. The term emphasizes the eternal pre-existence of the Logos, not a point of creation. This aligns with John 1:1, where the Logos is identified as God and with God from the beginning. The term "apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 emphasizes Christ's eternal pre-existence, not a created beginning. Commentaries consistently interpret it as signifying existence before time, aligning with "en archē" in John 1:1.
It's a pity that you don't answer me directly on the merits of my answer written specifically for you. I thought you were a challenging discussion partner, but I found the blog from which you mainly work. I like thought-provoking arguments, although I don't know if you edit that blog, it could be less sarcastic, without triumphalist, sharp, snide comments, considering: Proverbs 15:1, 2Tim. 2:25, Tit. 3:2. This will not make your argument stronger or more convincing, it will just make it more annoying and tiring to read the text.
While the passive verb ἐκτίσθη (was created) is used in Col. 1:16, it does not diminish Christ’s role in creation. The distinction between “through” (διὰ) and “by” (ὑπo) indicates the means by which creation occurred, affirming Christ's mediating role in creation, which does not imply a lesser status but rather a unique and divine function within the Godhead.
Comparing God to Mozart and Christ to an orchestra oversimplifies the divine relationship. Scriptural references emphasize unity and co-equality within the Godhead rather than a hierarchical creator-instrument relationship (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). The Greek preposition "δῐᾰ́" (dia) with the genitive case indeed means "through" or "by means of," indicating causality or agency. This use of "dia" emphasizes that the action is carried out through an agent or instrument that actively participates in the action. In contrast, "dia" with the accusative case means "thanks to", "by aid of", "because of" or "on account of," which often denotes a more passive role or reason. Christ is consistently presented as integral to creation, sustaining all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3). And of course, the Son's creative contribution is not only described with a passive formula, but also with an active one: Hebrews 1:10 explicitly attributes creation to the Son, "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." This reinforces the co-creative role of Christ.
The use of "διά" (through) with the genitive case indicates agency, not a mere passive instrumentality. Christ is described as the agent through whom all things were made, not merely a tool. Wallace and other scholars affirm that this construction does not imply a mere intermediary role but denotes the Word's active participation in creation. DIA does not simply denote a passive instrument; it does not exclude active participation, especially when Heb. 1:10 specifically declares it. The Father working "through" the Son (dia + genitive) in no way implies that the Son is a mere instrument or secondary being. Instead, it affirms the Son's integral and divine role in creation.
Sean Origen makes this distinction aswell between dia + passive and upo In his reasoning… Justin calls Logos a Second god ( or God) Ninc ignores this distinction, see previous threads - he also ignores the other evidence.. The witnesses win, Ninc simply can’t admit it
Quick fire response: “in the context of Proverbs 8:22, "qanah" is used poetically to express the relationship between God and Wisdom” - wouldn’t proverbs 8:30 be more that style?
“The Greek "ektise" (from ktizo, "to create") can mean to establish or ordain” - yes “can” however it’s “highly unlikely” ( NET) with the verbs used in 8:23-25, which are all verbs for “something someone did not possess before” Cite an instance where it has this meaning in the NT or lxx ( I am unaware of there is one)
“the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs is seen by many early Church Fathers only as typological and not a direct reference to Christ's ontological status.” - again even Atha did not deny Wisdom in proverbs was Christ he only disputed the meaning of the passage… And Justin and Origen explicitly IDENTIFY Wisdom as Christ… As does Paul and Matthew and Clement Origen goes as far as stating Wisdom Is not by nature a different person from Christ The NET ( in a footnote) agrees.. most bibles cross reference prov 8:22 -25 with jn 1:1
“By the way, all ancient Greek OT translations, including the LXX, interpreted the text as a double accusative and not as a tense” - yes I know, I have done the study - Are you going to mention that it is common for creation clauses to have double accusatives?
“these antihenotheistic statements of the prophets do exclude the participation of demiurge-like secondary deities in creation, such as the Michael Jesus of WTS.” - Tettulian himself explicitly states it only omits false gods.. Passive instrumentality does not make Christ inferior… it puts him in a relative position ( proverbs 8:30) Matt 1:16 illustrates this where God spoke via the prophets - the prophets are passive in their actions but are equally important as God because they are giving his word.. ( shiliach) And again switching a couple of things around like the verb from passive to active and the subject to an object we get the one mentioned in 1:12 as the creator, not Christ… Origen agrees with this. As does Justin.. for the papers you cited I have read shamounian and disagree with him for multiple reasons. The other I may read when I can be bothered..
The inclusion of "ἐκ" in Revelation 1:5 is a minor variant found in a single later (7th century) manuscripts and not supported by none of the early manuscripts. This indicates it was not original. If you don't believe me, check out the NA28 footnote. A scribes could have added or omitted "ἐκ" for simple copying error, or clarification or due to misunderstanding, but the primary manuscripts do not support these changes as original. The changes likely reflect attempts to harmonize or clarify the text, not to convey equivalent meanings.
"πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" (Col 1:18) emphasizes Jesus' origin from the dead, highlighting His resurrection. "πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν" (Rev 1:5) emphasizes His preeminence over the dead without focusing on the resurrection origin. The presence or absence of "ἐκ" affects the nuance and emphasis. In Colossians, "ἐκ" specifies the origin ("from among the dead"), which is crucial for theological emphasis on resurrection. Greek prepositions and cases are precise, and their inclusion or exclusion can change the meaning significantly. Assuming they mean the same disregards these nuances. Linguistic analysis shows that "ἐκ" (from) and its absence in the Greek text provide different emphases. "ἐκ" specifies origin or source, while its absence broadens the scope to general preeminence. Scholars agree that prepositions in Greek (e.g., "ἐκ") serve distinct functions and should not be disregarded. The presence of "ἐκ" in Col 1:18 is intentional and context-specific.
"Firstborn from Mary" (implying origin) and "firstborn of Mary" (implying relationship) can be contextually distinct. By the way, your example is also lame because it is not possible to be Mary's firstborn without being born of Mary. The firstborn of Israel was indeed not born from all of Israel, but "only" from one Israelite, but the Son was not born from "the whole creation", nor from a specific creature, but from the Father. Your disease example is also absurd, since it is not possible to be the deadliest disease without being a disease (which is not a theological context, but figurative language), but it is possible to be the distinguished, preeminent heir (=Lord) of creatures without being a creature, so "firstborn" here denotes preeminence and authority rather than literal membership in the group e.g., Col 1:15 emphasizes Christ's supremacy over creation.
"on someone who relied on Jewish mysticism" - Genetic fallacy again, this is a broad rabbinical tradition, not some bogeyman witchcraft.
Even though you are waiting for such a precedent, you are after all waiting for a conceptual impossibility, because the Son is not only the first-born (prototokos) of the Father, but also his only-begotten (monogenes), why should the Bible declare similar titles about others to mean that? I'd rather throw the ball back to you, so show me precedents when the term "firstborn" is used in the Bible in such a way, where membership is not a conceptual necessity (for example being born into the category), but the "firstborn of X" formula itself performs the classification. Because all your examples show that it's not the "firstborn of X" formula what implies category membership.
Malachi 2:10 and Ephesians 4:6: These passages affirm that God is the Creator and Father of all, but they do not exclude the Trinitarian understanding of God. The New Testament reveals the distinct persons within the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), each fully and equally God.
John 8:54 and Acts 3:13: Jesus acknowledges the Father as His God, aligning with His incarnate role. However, John 1:1, 1:14, and Colossians 1:15-17 affirm Christ’s divine nature and active role in creation, which aligns with the concept of the Trinity.
The argument that "πρωτότοκος" implies group membership overlooks the contextual usage of the term to denote preeminence and authority. Scriptural examples show that "πρωτότοκος" can signify supremacy without implying that the subject is part of the group. In Colossians 1:15, the context clearly indicates Christ’s authority over creation, affirming His divine nature and role as Creator.
@Anonymous Instead of abusing Origen's Christology (which is like 85% orthodox), read more:
* https://t.ly/HeIRb
* https://t.ly/z-fv4
* https://justpaste.it/f2gf7
Origen emphasized the eternity of the Son and His preexistence. He did not view the Son as a mere instrument but as a divine agent of creation. Origen explains that "διά" with the genitive indicates agency, not mere instrumentality, supporting the Son's full divinity and active role in creation. The distinction of "διά" (through) and "ὑπό" (by) is to clarify relational aspects within the Trinity, which does not diminish the Son's role or divinity but emphasizes a different aspect of their unified divine work. The Son, as "διά," is an active participant, fully divine, working in harmony with the Father.
The Greek preposition "διά" with the genitive case indeed means "through" or "by means of," indicating causality or agency. In the context of creation, this affirms the Son's integral and divine role, not a mere instrumental role. Hebrews 1:10 explicitly states that Christ laid the foundation of the earth, affirming His active involvement in creation. This aligns with the understanding of "διά" as indicating agency and involvement, not subordination, and especially not ontological inferiority.
Justin Martyr did not actually use the exact phrase “second God” (Gr. deuteros theos) in reference to Jesus. However, he did use a couple of equivalents: “another God and Lord” (Gr. theos kai kurios eteros), and “second place” (Gr. deutera chōra).
“I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things — above whom there is no other God — wishes to announce to them.” (Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 56)
"God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son, . . . sometimes Lord and Word ... We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was" (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 61).
"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed." (First Apology, ch. 13; see also ch. 60.)
While Justin Martyr used phrases like "another God and Lord" (Gr. theos kai kurios eteros) and "second place" (Gr. deutera chōra), he did so within the context of subordination in order, not in nature or essence. This does not mean a lesser deity but indicates the relational roles within the Godhead. Justin maintained the divinity of the Logos while distinguishing the Father and the Son's relational role.
The entire wisdom literature uses this literary poetic style in Ketuvim, especially the Proverbs. While "ktizo" generally means "to create," it can contextually mean "to establish" or "ordain." Examples include Ephesians 2:15 ("create" in the sense of establishing peace) and 1 Corinthians 11:9 (creation of man and woman establishing roles). Proverbs 8:23-25 uses poetic language, emphasizing Wisdom's unique role in creation rather than literal creation.
Early Church Fathers saw Proverbs 8 as *typologically* referring to Christ. However, they viewed it as an *allegory* illustrating Christ's eternal relationship with God, not a statement on Christ’s ontological status. Athanasius, in particular, used Proverbs 8:22 to argue for the eternal generation of the Son, not His creation.
It doesn't work if you take "ektise" out of context from the LXX translation and then ignore the accusative "arkhen", which just changes the meaning of the text. The LXX rendering of Proverbs 8:22, "κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχήν," does reflect a double accusative, indicating "the Lord 'created' me AS the beginning," emphasizing the role of Wisdom in creation rather than a literal creation event.
Tertullian may distinguish between true and false gods, but the antihenotheistic statements in Isaiah (44:24) and other prophetic writings exclude any secondary deities from participation in creation, affirming monotheism. This counters the Watchtower Society’s view of Michael-Jesus as a demiurge-like being. Hint: a demiurge is also a "false god".
The passive role of prophets in delivering God's message (Matthew 1:16) is different from Christ’s active role in creation. Christ being the Logos (John 1:1-3) involves Him as an active agent, not a passive tool. Hebrews 1:10 attributes creation directly to Christ, affirming His divine nature and active participation in creation.
Both Origen and Justin Martyr emphasized Christ's preexistence and divinity, they emphasized Wisdom's preexistence and eternal nature, not as a created being. Origen specifically argues that Wisdom proceeds from God and shares His substance, aligning with the orthodox view of Christ's divinity and eternal generation. Justin explicitly identifies Christ as God and eternal (First Apology, ch. 63), rejecting the notion of Christ as a mere created being.
Some quotes from Origen:
"The Father of the universe has a Son... the Saviour is also God." (De Principis, On Christ, Book 1, Ch 2)
Origen explicitly states that Christ shares in the omnipotence and divinity of the Father, contradicting the idea of Christ as a created being.
"Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 7)
Origen's assertion of equality within the Trinity emphasizes the co-equal status of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rejecting any notion of ontological subordination or creation of the Son.
Here are some relevant quotes from Origen to counter the JW's points:
Omnipotence of Father and Son: "And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father..." (De Principis, On Christ, Book 1, Ch 2)
Co-eternality: "The holy Apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, treated with the utmost clarity of certain matters... Secondly, that Jesus Christ himself was born of the Father before all creatures... Although He was God, He took flesh, and having been made man, He remained what He was, God" (De Principis, Preface, sections 3 - 4).
These quotes highlight Origen’s view of Christ’s divine nature and eternal relationship with the Father, opposing the JW's interpretation of subordination and creation.
Tertullian used terms like "substance" and "person" to describe the Trinity, affirming the full deity of the Son while maintaining functional subordination in the economy of salvation. His views reflect early theological development and do not equate to Arian subordinationism.
Although some early Fathers saw Proverbs 8 typologically, they did not see it as diminishing Christ's divine nature. They emphasized Christ's role as eternally begotten, not made, aligning with the creedal affirmations of Nicaea. The double accusative structure is a common syntactical feature in creation clauses, emphasizing the relationship between subject and object in a profound way. It doesn't inherently suggest a literal creation but often a functional role.
The term "Son" in a Trinitarian context doesn't imply biological offspring but signifies a unique and eternal relationship within the Godhead. In the Greek New Testament, the term "υἱός" (huios) carries connotations of relationship and representation rather than mere biological descent. Jesus referred to himself with two specific expressions: he is the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man." The "son of ...." structure, like in other languages, mostly expresses a genealogical relationship in Hebrew (e.g., Jonah's son, Simon), but it is also a unique grammatical phenomenon in Hebrew that does not relate but qualifies, for example, the "sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2) are those who are disobedient, as the "son of death" is dead.
We should consider what "sonship" meant in the context of ancient Eastern patriarchal conditions, where in the son, the entire household could see the father's alter ego, the heir to all his possessions, a sharer in all his authority. In Roman culture, the title "Son of God" indeed conveyed the idea of divinity or divine incarnation, often associated with emperors like Caesar. This context influenced how early Christians understood and proclaimed Jesus' divine status.
The Greek term "λόγος" (logos), translated as "Word" in John 1:1, connotes reason, speech, and divine communication. It implies Jesus as the ultimate revelation and representative of God, embodying divine wisdom and presence.
The expression "Son of Man" (Aramaic: בַּר אֲנָשׁ, bar 'enash) is a Semitic idiom meaning "a human being." It emphasizes Jesus' humanity and is often used in the Gospels to denote His identification with humanity.
The title "Son of David" denotes messianic lineage, affirming Jesus as the promised Messiah from David's royal line. It emphasizes fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah.
The title "Son of God" signifies divinity and is a direct claim to Jesus' divine nature, which is why it was controversial and led to rejection by some Jewish authorities. It signifies more than just an anointed representative but an intrinsic divine status within the Godhead.
The titles and descriptions in the Gospels highlight Jesus' unique nature as both fully divine and fully human. This dual identity is foundational to Christian doctrine, affirming His ability to bridge the gap between God and humanity.
There is no such thing as a non temporal emergence/ occurrence/beginning Even your Jerusalem Bible admits that create is the better fit. 1John ch.1:1 indicates that the Logos emergence was from a definite beginning.
I thought the Logos preceded time,you people need to make up your mind, and if time is not infinite then neither is the Logos, The commentaries are wrong. Arkhe here is clearly the beginning of creation revelation ch.3:14KJV"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the BEGINNING(Arkhe) of the creation of God;"
The prophet cannot be equal to God JEHOVAH is the source,JEHOVAH Can replace his prophet or any of his instruments. He alone is absolutely necessary autotheos and thus of supreme worth.
The assertion that "there is no such thing" (?!) as a non-temporal emergence is nothing more than proof by assertion, and a misunderstanding of metaphysical concepts. In Christian theology, specifically Nicene Christology, the Son's begetting by the Father is understood as an eternal generation, not a temporal event. This means it is a logical, not temporal, subalternation and relationship, affirming the co-eternity of the Son with the Father. "Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." (Council of Florence) Orthodox Christology affirms the eternal, non-temporal begetting of the Son.
Origen explains this as an eternal act within the Godhead:
"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood."
"Now this expression which we employ — that there never was a time when He did not exist — is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words when or never have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages. "
This affirms that the Logos (Word) existed eternally with the Father, beyond the confines of time.
1 John 1:1 uses "apo archē" (from the beginning) to indicate the Logos’ existence before creation, aligning with John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word." This indicates a pre-temporal existence, not a temporal beginning. The claim that "apo archē" refers to a temporal beginning is refuted by the context of John 1:1-3, which clearly states that the Logos was with God and was God, emphasizing the eternal nature of the Word.
The phrase "archē tēs ktiseōs" in Revelation 3:14 is often mistranslated in the NWT as "the beginning of the creation BY God." The correct translation, "the 'archē' of the creation OF God," indicates Christ as the source or origin of creation, not the first created being. The NWT's use of "by" instead of "of" is misleading. The Greek text does not support "hupo" (by), but rather "archē" denotes the origin or source, aligning with John 1:3 where all things were made through Him. It is also no coincidence that no one referred to Rev. 3:14 in the 4th century Arian debates, why? Because a native Greek speaker would never think of such nonsense, since all educated Greeks knew that the archē is the first principle from which creation flows, not the first piece of created things. Read this: https://justpaste.it/bv4ep
Your claim that a prophet cannot be equal to God and can be replaced overlooks the unique nature of Christ. Jesus is not just a prophet but the incarnate Word of God (John 1:14), fully divine and human.
Hebrews 1:3 states, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being," affirming the full deity of Christ. Unlike prophets, Jesus shares the same nature as the Father, making Him indispensable and uniquely qualified as the Redeemer.
"Origen makes this distinction aswell between dia + passive and upo In his reasoning… Justin calls Logos a Second god ( or God) Ninc ignores this distinction, see previous threads - he also ignores the other evidence.. The witnesses win, Ninc simply can’t admit it"
In my experience, Trinitarians don't seem to like Justin's reference to the LOGOS as "a second god." Many is the time when I've encountered someone offering uninformed and misinformed criticisms of the "a god" rendering at John 1:1c, and I've posed the following question:
"Justin Martyr referred to the LOGOS as 'a second god.' Where do you think he got the idea to do that?"
The responses have come in three forms:
1. They ignore the question or move on to other subjects, revealing that they don't want to talk about it.
2. They present their favorite cherry-picked quotes form JM in an effort to prove that, despite the "second god" reference, he was "orthodox" in his Christology.
3. One Trinitarian went so far as to argue that what JM *meant* in calling the LOGOS "a second god" is in harmony with an "orthodox" understanding of Jesus, because by "second god" JM really meant something like "second divine person of God."
Personally, I don't care one way or the other what JM believed, but what I find funny about responses 2 and 3 is that, if it is the case that referring to Jesus as a "second god" is perfectly compatible with "orthodox" Christology, then Trinitarians are left with no basis for denying that the "a god" rendering of John 1:1c is correct:-) I think they should just throw in the towel, admit that the "a god" rendering is what the author of GJohn clearly meant, and proceed as they will from there. Let's see if they can convince people that "a god" really means "a divine person of God";-)
About "Ninc," that person seems oblivious to the fact that Edgar, I, and others here have seen the sorts of flawed arguments that he or she tries to drown this blog in many, many times over, and we haven't found them to be compelling. Repeating them over and over isn't going to make them seem more compelling to people who have done their homework.
In my younger days I was willing to spend quite a lot of time conversing with folks of Ninc's disposition, but those days are behind me. After spending too much of my valuable time in such discussions, I came to realize that Trinitarianism, once one has embraced it, is both presuppositional in a sort of transcendental sense, and non-falsifiable in the Popperian sense. Suddenly the frustration I had experienced over the years made perfect sense to me. This is why discussions with Trinitarians never go anywhere but back to where they started. Ever notice that?
Let's delve into the "partitive" issue. Scripture frequently states in the NT that the Son is begotten (eɡénnese) or born (eteke) of the Father. However, nowhere in the NT do we read that He was "created" (ektise), "made" (epoise), or "came into being" (egeneto).
First, consider why, if it is such a fundamental teaching that the Son is a creature, this isn't explicitly stated anywhere? If you took the principle of 'sola Scriptura' seriously, which according to the standard Protestant interpretation of 1 Cor. 4:6 means “do not go beyond what is written,” then the fact that Scripture uses the terminology of begotten/born should suffice, and you should simply state that the Son is begotten/born of the Father, period.
But no, you insist that He was created/made, and since such a statement does not exist, you cling to three verses whose context isn't even about this. Of these, Prov. 8:22 and Col. 1:15 were already cited by the 4th-century Arians, but not Rev. 3:14, as no ancient Greek speaker interpreted it that way, even though they had the Revelation.
Now, let's focus on Col. 1:15 and its alleged "partitive" nature.
The genitive structure (“something of something”) inherently expresses a relationship, and what kind of relationship depends on the narrower or broader context and the meanings of the words. Moreover, Greek allows for nuances to be fine-tuned with word order, which you can't reverse in English. "The house of the dog" is different from "the dog of the house," etc.
The standard interpretation of Col. 1:15 is that the Son holds the position of "preeminent one," "distinguished heir," "supreme one" concerning "all creation." According to Matt. 28:18, this is trivial. The relationship is therefore one of supremacy. Whether He is a creature or not, it does not declare Him a creature nor declare that He isn't. You claim that besides confessing His supremacy, this statement also declares that the Son is one of the creatures.
On what basis do you claim this? You assert that since the Scripture generally portrays firstborns as members of the category to which their "firstbornness" is stated, it follows that the "firstborn of X" inherently and automatically means partitive—so it is impossible to declare someone the firstborn of a category without simultaneously acknowledging their inclusion in that category. What a bold claim! But let's see!
This kind of “rule”-setting is a foolish method. There are no strict "rules," only tendencies. Interestingly, in Luke 23:43, the comma is after "to you," as in all other introductory phrases (even in the NWT, 73 out of 74 times!). Still, they do not follow the logic that it should always be the same.
Indeed, there are inherently partitive expressions. For example, if someone is "the best student of the university," it not only means that they are the best but also that they are a student of that university. This follows because conceptually, one cannot be the "best student" without being a student.
But can one be the "firstborn" of something without being part of that category? It depends on the meaning of "firstborn" in the given expression. If we take the standard, everyday literal meaning, i.e., "the person who was born first," then no, because one cannot be the firstborn of a family or a person without being born from them, thus conceptually belonging to that category. But here, it is not the "firstborn of X" formula that establishes inclusion but the applied meaning of "firstborn."
The situation is different if "firstborn" refers not to "being born first" but to the biblical concept of birthright, which has conceptually diverged from being born into something and declares supremacy. In Col. 1:15, "firstborn" clearly means preeminent status, possession of the birthright, and then we only need to ask: Can someone hold a preeminent status concerning a category without being part of that category? If the answer is yes, as it evidently is, then it is not true that the expression used there is inherently partitive. The key is the required conceptual necessity.
You can interpret it this way, but a "maybe" is not evidence, just as a prosecutor cannot cite something as "evidence" that only shows "it may prove the defendant's guilt."
“The inclusion of "ἐκ" in Revelation 1:5 is a minor variant found in a single later (7th century) manuscripts and not supported by none of the early manuscripts. This indicates it was not original. If you don't believe me, check out the NA28 footnote.” - why are there 3 listed on Biblehub? You claim there is only 1 I have already found 3. Why would I believe you? I have caught you out over 100 times blatantly lieing in public forums.. you are not a credible source - Shamounian is a better source of information.. Okay none are “early” manuscripts but they cannot be rejected outright just because they are later… the variants still support that they mean similar ( and scholars and commentators alike agree, you are the exception- if Robertson never made bones about this I’m sure you are wrong ) Have you noticed all of the mentions of Jesus’ resurrection involve “ek”? Even so you still have to get out from under Clement and his use of “first created” and “first begotten” as synonyms along with the lxx in prov 8:22,25 and Deut It should be noted the distinction between firstborn and firstcreated didn’t exist in the time of the apostles or Clement.. you can’t be firstborn of something without being that thing yourself… (Prove the Jewish mysticism thing then.. go on - there’s a reason no credible scholar cites this as an argument, it’s not a credible or solid argument but a “fanciful interpretation” according to the 2 comments I have read - only one person used this argument) Even David who was MADE firstborn of all the kings is still a king himself and not a descendant of those kings “Of creation” - well wouldn’t it be implied creation is from the father? (Mark 10:6) Your argument is wrongheaded anyway I also said linguistical, your response was theological - I don’t care for most of that garbage
“Tertullian may distinguish between true and false gods, but the antihenotheistic statements in Isaiah (44:24) and other prophetic writings exclude any secondary deities from participation in creation” - not according to Tetullian Again he makes the point and I will quote him if I have too ( in its context) he says this specific statement omits the false gods that were in focus at the time… not the angels ( job 38:7, see tetullian on this subject ) and not Wisdom/ Logos You are omitting elements to suit your argument, exactly what you accuse WTS of doing… 0 credibility
“The Son, as "διά," is an active participant, fully divine, working in harmony with the Father.” - Origen clearly says the “maker” is the father.. not Logos proverbs 8:30 would indicate similar Again the role is relative and passive rather than Logos being the actual creator ( he is never called creator) As Wallace states: the father is thought of as the creator Logos is thought to have a more “hands on” role.. ( 1 Corin 8:6) “One God the father” and one Lord which I have a working theory on what Paul means by that… not hard when you read Hebrews 1:2,3 Heb 1:10 can be applied to both however creation is only ever credited to the Father - take note of the last part of Hebrews 2:7 ( which concerns Christ so the “your” could not possibly include him) also proverbs 8:31 “ rejoicing before HIS” - not the Creator YHWH is the father in the OT, I can prove that. “Father” is never used of the Holy Spirit and is never used of Christ outside of prophetic means ( and has a different meaning in prophetic means) - I’ll use your excuse: it wouldn’t hurt for a simple mention..
“It doesn't work if you take "ektise" out of context from the LXX translation and then ignore the accusative "arkhen", which just changes the meaning of the text” - your amusing, your trying every trick in the book to get around the inevitable meaning to the text. When I first mentioned this you tried the whole “it is only translated once as “created” in proverbs and no where else ( NWT)” to which I respond the lxx does the same thing.. only once is ektisen or any of its relations used.. I then cited Clement, which has literally what trinitarians want.. you then say something along the lines of it can mean first over creation.. Dude you have been proven wrong stop making excuses and just admit it, your finished How do you know that 8:22 is actually a double accusative? A lot of bibles disagree with you… with me you have no credibility left.. Verses 23 - 25 make it highly it unlikely you are correct, I agree with the NET here
“The LXX rendering of Proverbs 8:22, "κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχήν," does reflect a double accusative, indicating "the Lord 'created' me AS the beginning," emphasizing the role of Wisdom in creation rather than a literal creation event.” - really? Thought you said there was no such thing as the word “as” in the Hebrew text? Does it considering the next 8 verses I would say otherwise and sources like Baruch and Sirach which catholic bibles cross reference, most definitely you are wrong. Bdag lists the meaning to beginning as first-created as “probable” ( relating to 3:14, but I would consider this a paraphrase) infact prov 8:22 seems to be where John got his inspiration for Rev 3:14.. ( which wouldn’t surprise me considering most writers associate him as Wisdom) John never used arkhe to mean anything other than “beginning” - if you think I am making up rules - cite the exception! ( there is one, but that has a linguistical reason) John follows the OT messianic prophecy structure quite strictly( regarding usage of arkhe and arkhon) = Micah 5:2 LXX Check out Barnes on the subject ( Rev 3:14 Biblehub) he has some relevant observations
“Christ being the Logos (John 1:1-3) involves Him as an active agent, not a passive tool.” - All verbs for christs role in creation are passive.. not active even in proverbs 8:22 the antesedent to “ἔκτισέν” is YHWH and the verb is active not passive.( relating to Wisdom, keep in mind) the only active verb is Heb 1:10 and is simply because it’s a reapplication - the only one from memory ( on the subject of creation). ( see also the reasoning book) One function of the passive is to keep the previous subject in view… Still an agent so not the creator.. he is the channel of the action not the action
Did you not know that all ( most) church father writings have been tampered with.. Most scholars ( I know of maybe one, but I do not quite understand those comments atm) conclude Origen and Justin were “subordinates” ( autocorrect doesn’t like the other word, sorry) Justin still doesn’t consider Christ the “Maker” ( or “creator”) as is put into another category.. the words “beside(s)” should make that self- evident.
“Both Origen and Justin Martyr emphasized Christ's preexistence and divinity,” - as does the WTS
“Origen specifically argues that Wisdom proceeds from God and shares His substance” - the word for eternity simply means indefinite period of time.. and Origen uses substance ( roughly) 4 different ways, one being union in purpose You have changed your argument yet again..
"Justin explicitly identifies Christ as God and eternal (First Apology, ch. 63), rejecting the notion of Christ as a mere created being. “ - or is this like the verse in Romans ( “the son” being the “action”of the verb) where the father is the antesedent and your just cheating? Justin implies different else where. How do you know Justin calling Jesus "God" (apparently) is not typology - Paul came close to equating Jesus with God but never actaully did it (same with John) “"Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 7)” - did he mean the modern day trinity or the same one as Augustine ( not the modern day trinity)? Also Origen contradicts this a lot.. If this quote is even in its context
“Here are some relevant quotes from Origen to counter the JW's points” - I’ll counter this later And I’ll response to your “son” comment later when I find the article I want But you are misleading others again..
Sean "have seen the sorts of flawed arguments that he or she tries to drown this blog in many, many times over, and we haven't found them to be compelling." - the only one that has some weight is his descendant argument... but even that can be dealt with in a few seconds when we look at NT usages of words..
" I think they should just throw in the towel, admit that the "a god" rendering is what the author of GJohn clearly meant" - Origen implicitly admits this, no one is autotheos except the Father... The Father is the creator.. Proverbs 8:30 proves some sort of agency was involved that was outside this so called "Godhead"
"Let's see if they can convince people that "a god" really means "a divine person of God";-)" - thats what I thought they would try.. but a god could also refer to a false god, When do the CF or Bible writers ever use terms like "person" still waiting on the Bible writers to explicitly state certain things as Ninc expects from Jehovahs Witnesses (I find the hypocrisy quite amusing and feel no sympathy for catholics - mostly thanks to Ninc - been thinking about becoming a Witness and these conversations have thrown alot of what I disagree with the Witnesses out teh window) like with Johns quotation of psalms 82:6, im suprised Ninc hasnt tried to say Jesus is "God" because he literally quoted God verbatum and played the "role" of GOd in the context of that quotation the "gods" (according to Augustine etc) were Jesus' opposers.
"This is why discussions with Trinitarians never go anywhere but back to where they started. Ever notice that?" - oh I know and I notice it all the time - Ninc just amuses me because he (she?) cant just do a linguistical debate and has to sound theologically motivated. I love the quote mining accusations aswell - what are they doing now? exactly the same thing... ignorance (intentional) is bliss isnt it? I have reversed google searched some of the just paste links I can find them on a few other forums under different names.
I love this one: " you cling to three verses whose context isn't even about this. Of these, Prov. 8:22 and Col. 1:15 were already cited by the 4th-century Arians, but not Rev. 3:14" - They wouldnt need to cite Rev 3:14 as scholars I have read conclude that the inspiration for this was from Prov 8:22... done. or "but to the biblical concept of birthright, which has conceptually diverged from being born into something and declares supremacy" - which is only used in the OT, all occurences in the NT mean First in some sense of the word in a temporal priority "This kind of “rule”-setting is a foolish method. There are no strict "rules," only tendencies. " - Do I need to cite the scholars that disagree And Im pretty sure most Witnesses say Johns rule was self imposed so not really a rule - but clearly Ninc is copying and pasting otherwise they would acknowledge this..
From thayer's:tropically Christ is called πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (partitive genitive (see below), as in τά πρωτότοκα τῶν προβάτων, Genesis 4:4; τῶν βοῶν, Deuteronomy 12:17; τῶν υἱῶν σου, Exodus 22:29), "
Genesis ch.4:4NKJV"Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering,"
Deuteronomy ch.12:17NKJV"You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine or your oil, of the firstborn of your herd or your flock, of any of your offerings which you vow, of your freewill offerings, or of the [f]heave offering of your hand. "
Exodus ch.22:29NKJV"“You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me."
In the scriptures whether the prototokos is literal or figurative he is ALWAYS a member of the implicit or explicit set. It's not a rule its uniformity. If this is not the case why can't you and your confederates come up with a single example of the reverse,there must be hundreds right. And this is not a translation issue so why the red herring,both NWT and most catholic translations render prototokos the same way. This is an interpretation issue.
Let me make a few comments on the ethics of debate. Firstly, I am not the one jumping between topics. The original topic here was the interpretation of Colossians 1:15, which might extend to 1:16, but if you read the debate thread honestly, it wasn't me who introduced new threads, new Bible verses, and patristic references. And I have tried my best to respond to each of them. And after all this, you bash me for allegedly not wanting to debate about Justin? You are being somewhat unfair here.
Regarding patristics, it also has its own hermeneutics, which JWs understand even less than Biblical hermeneutics. What you and @Anonymous have been doing here is a method I call the "dung beetle method," where you collect "yummy" quotes (cf. cherry picking) to shove in the faces of those dirty Trinitarians. What's the problem with this?
First, it's not fair that on the one hand, you theoretically stand on the ground of 'sola Scriptura,' starting from the premise that the proto-orthodox and pre-Nicene Church Fathers were the proponents of the so-called "great apostasy," who supposedly eradicated the "original" (= JW-like) Christianity, so let's rely on the Bible alone. Naturally, the question arises, where are your Church Fathers? But it doesn't work that if the Church Fathers are taken as authorities, sources, or evidence, then they were "apostates" (cf. "no true Scotsman" fallacy), and thus cannot serve as evidence against you that the original Christians did not have a JW-like theology, yet with the "dung beetle" method, you still "diligently" search the patristic sources as busy bees, hoping to find some "useful," "yummy" little quote. This doesn't work; we must decide whether we argue on the basis of 'sola Scriptura' and thus neither I nor you argue with patristics, or the entire discourse falls apart.
One can of course argue over patristic sources, but it is a much broader corpus of texts than the Bible, and as I said, it has its own hermeneutics, which you and your comrades here completely ignore: you do not want to understand the theology of the given Church Father as a whole (and then compare it to see which it ultimately aligns more closely with, yours or mine), but you only need a sentence, a half-sentence, or even a phrase to brandish like some victory trophy. In contrast, I can tell you sight unseen that the Christology of all these Church Fathers is 80-90% orthodox, which is what you should face. Because neither Justin, Clement, nor anyone ever said things like "ho pater epoise ton huion" or "en arkhe egeneto ho huios," nor did they speak of "Jehovah," nor did they say that Jesus is Michael. I could continue the list endlessly. And do you have anything to say to this? Of course not.
And now, what is our answer to the quotes, half-sentences you brandish, which might even sound heretical? Well, it is not that we fall over and admit that before 325, everyone was a JW, calling the Son Michael, the Father Jehovah, and eagerly calculating how many years were left until 1914.
Instead of the "let's hack at patristics with an axe" approach, let's first examine the sources on the matter of trinitology with the appropriate hermeneutical-citatological attitude. There is a difference between the simple confession of faith by the believer and its speculative elaboration in the workshop of theological knowledge. The former only requires a pious mindset. The latter, however, is severely complicated by the greatness and uniqueness of the mystery of the Trinity, the fluctuation of terminology, and various unrefined religious and philosophical currents of the time: the Stoics' doctrine of the Logos (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικός); the Platonic theory of ideas, which tempted them to identify the entire world of Platonic ideas with the Logos; and finally, the belief, fed equally by the Jews' doctrine of transcendence (God's absolute transcendence above the world, making the world as such unreachable) and the Gnostics' theories of emanation, that God needed a mediator for creation and the governance of the world. Therefore, it is true of many fathers, as Athanasius wisely states about Origen (Athanas. Decret. Nic. 27.): We must sharply distinguish between what he asserted as a simple witness of tradition (θετικῶς) and what he speculated about concerning the persons of the Trinity and their relations (γυμναστικῶς); as a witness, he spoke rightly; as a speculative theologian, he sometimes overshot the mark.
The Church Fathers were often prompted to speak by heretical one-sidedness, and thus it could easily happen that while they represented the anti-heretical element with full force, they unwittingly veered towards the opposite extreme; not in doctrine, but in expression; not in content, but in presentation. We must not overlook that given the rich content of the mystery of the Trinity, our limited minds cannot adopt a standpoint that adequately and proportionately appreciates all its aspects: If we start from the persons (the Greeks), we might drift towards tritheism; if from the divine reality (Augustine), the danger of Sabellianism threatens. However, the great Church Fathers and theologians avoided the reefs of heretical excesses.
There are expressions in the aforementioned authors that simply aim to convey the order of the Trinitarian origins and missions, but do so with terms that can be misunderstood and misinterpreted. For example: "The Father is the God above all, the Son is in the second place, the Holy Spirit in the third place"; the Father is "the God" (ho Theos), the Son "God" (Theos); the Father is God from Himself (Autotheos), the Son is God from God (Theos ek Theu). It also happens that they do not yet distinguish between the internal life of the Trinity and its manifestations in salvation history, thus attributing invisibility to the Father, visibility to the Son at the creation of the world, and appearance to the Holy Spirit at the sanctification of the world. When we read such things, we should consider that the Son embodies the Father's creative plans (Col 1:17; Heb 1:2) and as such became perceptible at creation, while the Holy Spirit became most apparent to people at the peak of His activity, at the first Pentecost.
However, not every expression that has a heretical flavor immediately contains heresy. Namely, the frequent subordinationist expressions often allow for a perfectly correct orthodox interpretation:
a) From the perspective of origin, the Father is first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. This sequence within the Trinity itself does not imply rank, essence, or temporal succession; in our time-bound perspective and expression, however, it takes on a form of subordination; anyone who, for any reason, falls further back in the order, our discursive thinking and evaluation are also inclined to rank lower; but one who speaks thus does not necessarily want to deny the actual equality of essence and rank or to teach heretical subordination.
b) During visible missions, the Son appeared at a later stage of salvation history, and the Holy Spirit even later; the Father, on the other hand, is the eternal sender who is not sent; thus, from this perspective, it can be said that the Father is invisible, the Son became visible; similarly the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if the early fathers, when shedding intellectual light on the mysteries, did not yet precisely distinguish between mission and manifestation, property and attribution (proprium et appropriatum), their teaching was not yet heretical.
Hence Justin Martyr’s terminology must be understood within the context of second-century philosophical and theological language, and he affirms the Logos’ divine nature, pre-existence, and essential unity with the Father. This reflects a nuanced understanding rather than a simplistic (ontological) hierarchy, he simply indicates distinction in personhood, not inequality in essence or divinity, since Justin worshiped Jesus as God, and he clearly saw Jesus as fully divine and co-eternal with the Father. Justin Martyr’s writings, when accurately interpreted, basically align with the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. He consistently affirmed Jesus as God, worshipped alongside the Father and the Holy Spirit. Misinterpretations by JWs arise from selective quoting and misunderstanding the context and theological implications of Justin's works.
Since the early Christians weren't henotheists and in the positive, affirmative and proper sense, God is a monadic concept, next to which there is no place for a demiurge, therefore the translation "a god", especially its JW sense, is completely foreign to any pre-Nicene source. Trinitarianism on the other hand is based on the comprehensive interpretation of Scripture, affirming the full divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within a monotheistic framework. The doctrine arises from the need to reconcile the divine nature of all three persons as revealed in the Bible, forming a coherent theological system.
The context of Proverbs 8, where Wisdom is described as existing before creation, supports the idea of Wisdom being inherent to God rather than created. The translations using "created" reflect interpretative choices, not a definitive rendering of the original Hebrew. Do you even know the renderings of Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus? "Qanah" is used in Genesis 4:1 to mean "acquired" or "gotten." Similarly, in Deuteronomy 32:6, it refers to God "creating" or "fathering" Israel, indicating the flexibility of the term.
"Ektise" in the LXX can indeed mean "established" or "ordained." Proverbs 8:22 in the LXX does not solely imply creation but can indicate an eternal, foundational role of Wisdom in God's plans. The verb "ktizo" changes the meaning of the text with a double accusative, and it will not be about creation, but about making someone something, e.g. to make him a king, here to make him "arkhe" or "reshit", which can best be translated as "first principle". In Genesis 1:1, "B'reshit" means "in the beginning." In Proverbs 8:22, "reshit" as apposition indicates a principal role rather than temporal priority. This aligns with Wisdom being foundational and eternal. The semantic range of "qanah" includes "acquired" and "possessed," fitting the description of Wisdom as an eternal aspect of God's nature. Translators' choices reflect interpretive decisions rather than definitive meanings.
In context, "reshit" and "archēn" emphasize the primacy and preeminence of Wisdom, not its creation. "Reshit" in Proverbs 8:22 denotes a foundational aspect of Wisdom being the foremost, similar to how "archē" is used in John 1:1 to indicate eternal pre-existence rather than a created beginning.
While some translations interpret "qanah" as "created," the broader context and semantic range of "qanah" support interpretations like "possessed" or "acquired," which align with Wisdom being an eternal attribute of God. The use of "qanah" can imply an eternal aspect of Wisdom rather than a temporal creation.
"Apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 is contextually understood to signify Christ's pre-existence from eternity, consistent with John 1:1's "en archē." It emphasizes the eternal nature of the Logos, not a created origin. The use of "apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 is not about a temporal beginning but highlights the Logos's existence before creation. The usage of "apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 and other contexts does not necessitate a created beginning. Instead, it points to a state of existence that predates all creation, aligning with the concept of the eternal Logos in John 1:1.
"Archē" in Revelation 3:14 can also mean "origin", "first principle" or "source," indicating that Christ is the foundational principle through which all creation came into being. This aligns with Colossians 1:16, which states that all things were created through Him.
Your interpretation of "reshit," "qanah," and "apo archē" as implying created beginnings is not consistent with the broader semantic and contextual analysis of these terms in Scripture. Actually Proverbs 8:22, 1 John 1:1, and Revelation 3:14 emphasize the eternal pre-existence and primacy of Wisdom and the Logos, aligning with traditional Nicene doctrine.
The term "prototokos" (firstborn) in Greek does not inherently mean "first created." It often signifies rank, preeminence, or priority in status rather than origin. Paul's use of "prototokos" in Colossians 1:15 emphasizes Jesus' supremacy and authority over all creation, indicating His preeminent status rather than suggesting He is part of the created order. The surrounding verses in Colossians 1:16-17 clarify that Jesus is the agent of creation: "For by Him all things were created... all things have been created through Him and for Him." This shows Jesus' active role as Creator, not as a part of creation. The term "prototokos" aligns with this context by highlighting Jesus' supreme authority over all creation, reinforcing His divine nature and role as Creator.
Hebrews 1:6 refers to Jesus as the "firstborn" and clearly positions Him above all angels, emphasizing His superiority rather than His inclusion in the category of angels. The term "monogenes" means "only-begotten" or "unique," highlighting Jesus' unique relationship with the Father. This does not imply creation but signifies a unique and eternal relationship. In the New Testament, "monogenes" is used to emphasize the uniqueness and special status of Jesus as the Son of God (John 1:14, 3:16).
The argument that Jehovah creates through preceding creations fails to address the specific role of Jesus as described in the New Testament. John 1:3 explicitly states that "all things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being," affirming Jesus as the Creator, not a created being. Colossians 1:16-17 reiterates this by stating that "by Him all things were created" and "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together," emphasizing His pre-existence and sustaining power over creation.
The JW argument incorrectly conflates "prototokos" with creation. While "prototokos" can denote priority, it does not necessarily imply that the one referred to is part of the created order. In biblical usage, it often signifies preeminence and authority. The use of "prototokos" in Colossians 1:15 highlights Jesus' supreme position over creation, in line with the overall biblical portrayal of His divine nature and role as Creator.
John 8:54 and Acts 3:13 highlight Jesus' relationship with the Father during His earthly ministry. These passages do not contradict His divine nature but emphasize His incarnate role and submission to the Father as part of the salvific plan. You completely unfoundedly confuse the Old Testament use of the word "the Father" with the way "the Father" is used in the context of the NT, when it speaks of him in opposition to the Son.
Biblehub is a useful tool for quick reference, but serious textual criticism relies on more authoritative sources like the Nestle-Aland (NA28) apparatus. This scholarly resource compiles critical textual variants and provides a comprehensive and accurate representation of the earliest manuscripts. The inclusion of "ἐκ" in a later manuscript does not outweigh the earlier, more reliable manuscripts that do not include it.
"...always a member of..." - You can only repeat this like a parrot or a stuck record player, read what I wrote about the partitive above. I'd rather throw the ball back to you, so show me precedents when the term "firstborn" is used in the Bible in such a way, where membership is not a conceptual necessity (for example being born into the category), but the "firstborn of X" formula itself performs the classification. Because all your examples show that it's not the "firstborn of X" formula what implies category membership.
Your assertion relies on an oversimplified interpretation of the term "firstborn." While "firstborn" often implies a preeminent position within a group, it does not universally necessitate membership within that group. The use of "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 highlights Christ's supremacy and authority over creation, not His inclusion as a part of creation. While some instances of "firstborn" imply membership within a group, this is not universally applicable. For example, Hebrews 1:6 refers to Christ as the "firstborn" in a manner emphasizing His supremacy over angels, not His inclusion within the category of angels, but on the contrary.
Tertullian often differentiated between true and false gods, emphasizing the unique divine nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He did not support the notion of secondary deities participating in creation alongside Jehovah. Tertullian's writings consistently uphold the monotheistic view of God as the sole creator, without attributing creative power to any other beings, whether they be angels or demiurges. Isaiah 44:24 explicitly states that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth, excluding any secondary entities from this creative role. This aligns with Tertullian's broader theological framework, which does not attribute creative power to any being other than God.
While Origen often speaks of the Father as the Creator, he does not deny the Son's divine role in creation. The unity in the Trinity means that the Son is an active participant, not merely a passive instrument. Origen also said: "For indeed Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Lord and Creator of the soul..."
The verb "ktizo" can change the meaning of the text when combined with a double accusative. In Proverbs 8:22, "ktizo" does not imply creation 'ex nihilo' but making someone into something, such as making the Logos the "arkhe" (beginning or first principle) of God's ways. This can best be translated as "first principle," aligning with the Son’s eternal role.
"How do you know that 8:22 is actually a double accusative?" - Because after "ektise", the "me" and "arkhen" are also in accusative? So it's not about creating 'ex nihilo' the speaker (the lady Wisdom), it's about making her (into be) the "arché".
Clement explicitly states that the Son is uncreated: "There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." (Fragments, Part I, section III).
I have provided you with robust materials, links, on Origen and Tertullian, have you looked at either of them?
Origen did distinguish between the Father as "autotheos" and the Son, but he did not deny the full divinity of the Son. Origen acknowledged that the Son is fully divine and eternally begotten from the Father. By the way, not only Origen, but also the Nicene theology, claims that only the Father of the Trinity is 'autotheos', since he is unbegotten, "principle without principle", as the Council of Florence declares:
"Because of this unity the Father is entirely in the Son, entirely in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entirely in the Father, entirely in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entirely in the Father, entirely in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning. Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle."
[Arians] "wouldnt need to cite Rev 3:14" - I think they should have referred to it, if this text should sound as you claim even to a native speaker of ancient Greek. I think that the phrase "arkhe of creation" in Rev. 3:14 means exactly the same as Colossians 1:16, since it Jesus the "arkhe", certainly because through him all things were created.
The ironic thing is that none of my proposed interpretations of these three Bible verses would contradict JW theology at all, but you can't admit that, because then you're left with nothing :)
"which is only used in the OT" - Not according to the quotes above from jw.org.
The Greek phrase "κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχήν" does not imply a literal creation event. The double accusative construction emphasizes the role or status (arkhe/reshit/principle) of Wisdom in the creation narrative. While the Hebrew text of Proverbs 8:22 uses "qanah," which can mean "possess" or "acquire," the LXX translators chose "ktizo," which commonly means "create." However, this translation choice reflects the broader semantic range of "qanah," which includes establishing or ordaining, not just creating.
Baruch and Sirach, while supportive of a wisdom literature context, do not definitively argue against the interpretation of "Wisdom" as an eternal attribute of God. In Revelation 3:14, the term "arkhe" can mean "beginning," but it can also denote "ruler" or "principle." Given the Johannine context of emphasizing Christ's preeminence and authority, "arkhe" likely refers to Christ as the "first principle" or "originator" of creation, not a created being. The broader context of John’s writings, including Revelation, consistently emphasizes Christ’s divine authority and role in creation, supporting an interpretation of "arkhe" that aligns with Christ's preeminence rather than suggesting He is a created being.
While some verbs describing Christ's role in creation may appear passive, passages like John 1:3 ("All things were made through Him") and Colossians 1:16 ("by Him all things were created") indicate active participation. The preposition "dia" (through) underscores the Logos as the means by which creation occurs, not a mere passive instrument. Hebrews 1:10 explicitly states, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning," directly attributing creation to the Son. This aligns with the broader New Testament portrayal of Christ as the active agent in creation, affirming His full divinity and creative power.
BEKHOR is not a name of the Divine, but a title. Talmudic sources are Second Temple Era writings, and some are as late as the Middle Ages. This doesn't mean that in passing there has been a phrase like this attributed to God. But there's countless phrases used that Maimonides, Spinoza and then later Kaplan caused most Jews to view as improper.
You wouldn't find anything like this used in reference to the divine today as it goes against the views of Maimonides in teaching against attributing anthropomorphic qualities to God, thus tantamount to idolatry. Since the Middle Ages such references in Judaism stopped.
I have asked two scholars friends of mine, specialists who deal with the Trinity, one a Jew who studies Christianity and the other a Catholic who specializes in Trinitarian dogma to make sure I had this right and they both agree.
It generally refers to both legal status and a term of being favored, and after this it means just what it says, order in which someone or something (like an animal is born).
The "legal" and "favored" status is what is meant in the New Testament about Jesus in which Christ is called the "firstborn" of God and "firstborn" of creation because Christians do not believe Jesus was ever literally born. Jesus, being God, had no temporal beginning and thus was never "born," even though he experienced "birth" as a human, his life has always been eternal.
Paul's use of the "firstborn of all creation" means that Jesus is the most "favored" and has the "legal" right to inherit it all.
“But it doesn't work that if the Church Fathers are taken as authorities, sources, or evidence, then they were "apostates"” - please cite evidence for this claim, they weee philosophers that is a fact… Origen was heavily into neo- platonism
And do they just search for quotes that agree? - you do the same thing… how is it fair that you call what I do quite mining ( citing dictionaries and academic sources ( in their entirety most of the time) but you are the only one allowed to cite others? And you are the only one allowed to change the meaning to words and mislead others? ( you omit to mention quite abit) Witnesses and scholars alike use more than just the NT to get a better / bigger pool for the usage of certain words… how could you not realise this… Limiting debates to just the NT is actually stupid and pointless, why is the OT not included? ( church fathers did it constantly) why not other sources, at least they prove a lot of what the witnesses are saying is true.. As I have stated it is WELL KNOWN the church fathers writings have been tampered with.. the care just wasn’t there
Also the church fathers are cited mainly to those in opposition to the Wisdom/Logos connection which some claim was invented by the witnesses - well it quite obviously wasn’t.. some of Origens writings also reflect witness teachings aswell Augustine agrees with what I have been saying in multiple places.
Please cite evidence that the witnesses quote out of context, an actual credible source..
It’s also not fair that you come into a Witnesses blog and start spouting stuff that is not as straight forward as you would like it to be.. you have made out a lot of things are straight forward and easy to solve to suit your doctrine, when we all know ( except you apparently) that that’s not 100% true. quoting ones who agree is a common practise among academics in the academic field, it’s called citing evidence… and not spouting unfounded rubbish.. all quotes are out of context to some extent.. but really if you don’t go and read the original source then in my personal opinion you deserve to be mislead. ( if the quotation is out of context) if I’m not mistaken you have said you are a lawyer/ attorney - well in your profession do you not do this all the time aswell? Find quotes that agree with you? I’m sure you do..
You ever considered you might be wrong? I have hence I’m not a witness or catholic- never seen you once admit you might be wrong, I have seen Edgar countless times do so How is what you cited in our previous conversations not quote mining? Trinitarian opinion is dominant so of course you can find it more easily that agree with you..
Quick fire: “but serious textual criticism relies on more authoritative sources like the Nestle-Aland (NA28) apparatus.” - and what is Biblehub source for these variants?
https://biblehub.com/texts/revelation/1-5.htm
Take a look yourself…
“I think they should have referred to it, if this text should sound as you claim even to a native speaker of ancient Greek.” - doesn’t really matter what you think does it? Again it is acknowledged in the academic field that Rev 3:14,s inspiration is likely proverbs 8:22 There is no need to cite 2 verses that mean the same thing.. Bdag is the authoritative lexicon…
“Because after "ektise", the "me" and "arkhen" are also in accusative” - yep sure, that can also be apposition And 8:23 - 25 would indicate otherwise..
“Clement explicitly states that the Son is uncreated:” - considering that’s in a fragment and not in the stromata “family “ ( that I am aware) we can probably assume it was altered..
“Isaiah 44:24 explicitly states that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth, excluding any secondary entities from this creative role.” - shall I quote the portion? You are 110% wrong. Tetullian only knots false gods from this Even angels he includes.
“In Revelation 3:14, the term "arkhe" can mean "beginning," but it can also denote "ruler" or "principle." Given the Johannine context of emphasizing Christ's preeminence and authority, "arkhe" likely refers to Christ as the "first principle" or "originator" of creation” - cite the exception to John’s self imposed rule, it shouldn’t be hard if there is an example.. where does John use arkhe to mean anything other than “beginning” ( passive sense)?
“none of my proposed interpretations of these three Bible verses would contradict JW theology at all” - One would, the other 2 kinda do but not really and I still would have a leg to stand on.. just not going to reveal what that is. You mean like your resistance to “other”? Which excludes God from creation Or changing your argument to suit?
“"which is only used in the OT" - Not according to the quotes above from jw.org.” Cite please - and again having pre- eminence doesn’t negate that they come from the catergory You can be the head of the church and still be part of it.
"Let me make a few comments on the ethics of debate."
I'm not in a debate with anyone. You seem to think that this is your personal debate forum, and that anyone who makes a comment has joined a debate with you. However, this isn't a debate forum, it's Edgar's blog.
Your obsession with JWs and Trinity seems rather unhealthy, frankly. You swamp this blog, you swamp Roman's blog, and I'm guessing you tried to begin swamping my blog, as someone who refused to post his/her name attempted to submit a post on my blog that appeared to be virtually identical to one you posted here. Edgar and Roman are free to run their blogs as they see fit, but I'm not going to let mine become a debate forum. Not only do I not have time for that, but I have no interest in it. As I said above, I've been there, done that, moved on, and intent to keep moving on, as Trinitarianism appears to be both presuppositional in character, and non-falsifiable.
BTW, the Greek at Prov. 8:22 in the LXX appears to be what's known as a fake double accusative. You can read about that, here:
https://tinyurl.com/4x7zjujw
It seems pretty clear that the translators of Proverbs for both NETS LXX and the NET Bible both understand the Greek that way. No, I'm not interested in debating this point with you, so you're free to agree or disagree as you please. I bring it up only because some may not be aware of the fake double accusative, and I think you failed to mention it.
I have no problem with heated intellectual debates, as long as they are regulated by appropriate methodological standards, it was not by chance that I told your "colleague" that his sarcastic remarks would not make his position seem stronger in my eyes, and if the goal on his part is not self-satisfaction, but make me reconsider things, then skip it. Likewise, it doesn't hurt to clarify the basis of the debate, because it doesn't work either to jump around on various threads within the NT, and within Paristics.
While it is true that many Church Fathers, including Origen, were influenced by contemporary philosophical ideas, this does not automatically disqualify their theological insights. The integration of philosophy was often used to articulate and defend Christian doctrine against heresies and misunderstandings. The claim that early Church Fathers were "apostates" because they used philosophical concepts is unfounded. The early Church used the philosophical language available to them to explain and defend the faith, not to introduce heretical ideas.
I am not quoting the Church Fathers out of context, but the parts that reflect the writer's actual view, while you are quoting half-sentences that can be misinterpreted, their speculations.
Quote mining involves selectively citing passages out of context to support a particular argument while ignoring other relevant passages that may contradict it. The accusation here is that JW apologists often use selective quotes from early Church Fathers without considering the broader context of their writings. Proper scholarly work involves considering the entirety of a source's context. Many criticisms of JW interpretations highlight how selective quoting from Church Fathers misrepresents their overall theological positions.
Using both the Old and New Testaments, as well as other historical writings, is important for comprehensive theological study. However, JW interpretations often selectively use these sources to support their preexisting views rather than letting the full scope of biblical and historical evidence inform their theology. True exegesis involves understanding the original languages, historical context, and the entirety of scripture. Many mainstream scholars argue that JW interpretations often lack this comprehensive approach, leading to skewed theological conclusions.
While some texts have undoubtedly undergone variations and interpolations over centuries, the broad consistency of core theological doctrines in the extant writings of the Church Fathers undermines the claim that significant tampering has occurred to the extent suggested. Modern textual criticism has worked extensively to identify and correct these variations, providing a reliable understanding of what the early Church Fathers taught.
You cannot assume 'a priori' that a text is falsified, and if Clement wrote that the Son is uncreated and Wisdom is "firstcreated", then the solution is that, according to this, Clement did not identify Wisdom one-to-one, literally with the Son, but simply made a *typological* application that does not affect the ontological status of the Son. By the way, Augustine also wrote about Created Wisdom, it is an existing concept.
The concept of the Logos as divine and preexistent is well attested in the writings of early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr and Origen. The JW interpretation that reduces the Logos to a created being is inconsistent with these early theological views.
Examples of JW misquotations and selective quoting from academic sources and early Church Fathers are documented by numerous scholars. For example, references to Origen’s work often omit his clear assertions of Christ's divinity and eternal nature. Scholars frequently criticize the New World Translation and JW literature for their selective use of sources and context manipulation. This is a well-documented critique in academic circles.
John ch.8:54 and Acts 3:13 speak of the God and Father of Jesus' relationship to the nation of Israel he is the one and only God of Israel if the trinity is true their would supposedly be an unincarnated spirit who is also God of Israel ,even if we go along with the idea that the almighty could become lower than the angels which is an unscriptural violation of his immutability and thus the father could not be the one and only God of Israel, furthermore acts ch.3:13 speaks regarding the state of affairs after Jesus' glorification.
@Anonymous Use Google and you'll find many reviews such as "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" how misleadingly the brochure quoted ancient and modern authors.
It's essential to respect the context and rules of any forum, but discussing and debating theological points, especially those of substantial importance, should be approached with respect and rigor. Theological discussions should be based on evidence, context, and scholarly interpretation, not just on the preferences of any particular group.
While quoting supportive sources is a common academic practice, it is crucial to ensure these quotes are not taken out of context or misrepresented. A thorough reading of the original sources is necessary to understand the full intent and meaning behind quotes.
Admitting the possibility of being wrong is a sign of intellectual honesty. The goal of these discussions should be to seek the truth, even if it challenges our preconceptions. Open-mindedness and humility are crucial in theological debates.
On Biblehub, there are three not from the manuscript, but from the modern text edition, Nestle-Aland would clarify for you how many ancient or early medieval manuscripts this appeared. While Biblehub can provide useful resources, serious textual criticism relies on comprehensive and authoritative sources like the NA28 apparatus, which rigorously evaluates manuscript evidence. The NA28 apparatus is widely respected in scholarly circles for its detailed critical analysis of New Testament texts, ensuring that the most accurate and historically supported readings are available. The inclusion of "ἐκ" in later manuscripts does not undermine the consensus among early and reliable manuscripts that omit it. The NA28 apparatus supports this.
In Revelation 3:14, "arkhe" can indeed mean "beginning," but it should not be understood in the modern English way, but as "principle", hint: the English "principle" is a Latin loanword, Latin principium, which is how the Vulgate translates it in Rev. 3:14, as well as John 1:1a tc. The NT's usage in other contexts emphasizes a role of preeminence and authority, aligning with the interpretation of Christ as the "first principle" or "originator" of creation. By the way, according to the modern consensus, the author of Revelation is not the same John as the one who wrote the Gospel or the three Johannine epistles.
The verb "ktizo" indeed allows for a double accusative construction, changing the emphasis from a mere creation to a designation of role, i.e., to make someone something (e.g., make him "arkhe" or "reshit"). This nuanced understanding supports the interpretation of Wisdom’s foundational role rather than a literal creation event. This is a critical distinction often overlooked in simpler translations.
Isaiah 44:24 explicitly states that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth, which inherently excludes any secondary deities or entities from this creative role. This monotheistic assertion aligns with the broader scriptural narrative, emphasizing Yahweh's sole sovereignty in creation.
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Isaiah%2044:24 Look at what the church fathers write, there is no sign that they exclude "only" pagan gods, not alleged demiurges, angels, etc.
Tertullian argues against Hermogenes' view that matter is eternal and co-existent with God. He emphasizes that God alone is the Creator who "stretched out the heavens alone" (Isaiah 44:24), countering any notion that matter or any other entity shares this creative power. Tertullian addresses the unity of God and the distinction between the Father and the Son. He affirms that while God says He stretched out the heavens alone, this does not exclude the Son but rather includes Him in the divine act of creation, emphasizing the Son's unity with the Father.
Athanasius explains that when Scripture says God created alone, it implicitly includes the Son. He stresses that the Son, being the Word of God, was present and active in creation, thus maintaining the unity and co-eternity of the Son with the Father. He argues against Arianism by highlighting that God declaring "I alone" in creation includes the Son as the Word through whom all things were made. This assertion upholds the Son’s divinity and eternal nature, countering the Arian view of the Son as a created being.
Ambrose discusses the concept of God working alone in creation. He states that this "alone" includes the Son, who is described in Proverbs 8:30 as being with the Father during creation. This interpretation aligns with the understanding of the Trinity, where the Son is co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father.
The term "firstborn" (πρωτότοκος, prototokos) in Colossians 1:15 refers to rank and preeminence, not temporal order. The Watchtower's own publication, "Aid to Bible Understanding," states:
"David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the “first-born,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89:27) In this position David prophetically represented the Messiah."
"Jesus Christ, as the “first-born of all creation,” always faithful to his Father Jehovah God, has the birthright through which he has been appointed “heir of all things.”—Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:2"
So they admit that "firstborn" in Col. 1:15 is understood precisely in the Old Testament sense, which indicates a position of supremacy, not simply being the first created. Biblical precedent for this usage includes Psalm 89:27, where David, though not the firstborn son of Jesse, is called "firstborn" because of his preeminence and chosen status by God. This reinforces that "firstborn" indicates a status of preeminence rather than chronological birth order. Just as David was not the firstborn but was given the title due to his preeminence, Jesus is referred to as "firstborn of all creation" to indicate his supreme status over creation, not that he was the first created being.
Thus in Colossians 1:15, Paul uses "firstborn" in a context that emphasizes Christ's authority and supremacy over all creation, which aligns with the biblical concept of birthright denoting rank and preeminence. The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prototokos) in this context reflects Christ’s sovereignty and role as the heir and ruler of all things, not a temporal creation
Not all uses of "firstborn" in the NT imply temporal priority. For instance, in Hebrews 1:6, the term "firstborn" refers to Christ being brought into the world with a status that requires worship from the angels, indicating a position of honor and authority. Revelation 1:5 refers to Jesus as "the firstborn of the dead," which signifies his preeminence in resurrection, not that he was the first to be resurrected chronologically.
The term "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 aligns with the Old Testament usage to denote rank, preeminence, and authority rather than chronological birth order. This interpretation is consistent with both biblical context and the Watchtower’s own publications. The New Testament usage of "firstborn" emphasizes Christ’s supremacy and divine role, refuting the claim that it always indicates temporal priority.
Of course, you have the right to sulk and not talk to me, but you made an observation about me, and I responded to it— I believe in a respectful manner— that's all. Naturally, the blogger has the right to ban certain discussions altogether; Mr. Foster has not indicated to me so far that my presence is undesirable. He has made a few requests, such as not referring to confidential WT documents or ex-JW sources, and I have respected that.
Regarding you or others, if you respond to someone’s comment, it means you are engaging in communication or discourse with them. For example, in my country’s criminal code, there is an offense of harassment, which is realized if someone "regularly or continuously disturbs" another person, for example, by repeatedly contacting them by phone or DM unsolicited. However, as soon as the person responds or reacts to these contacts, it immediately disproves the offense. By analogy, as long as you respond substantively to what I have written, you are participating in a discourse with me; this is evident.
Regarding Proverbs 8:22 and the "fake double accusative," it's important to recognize that interpretations of ancient texts can vary. The concept of a "fake double accusative" is a modern grammatical analysis that helps clarify the function of certain Greek constructions. However, it is one among several ways to understand the Greek text. Scholars might use different linguistic frameworks to interpret the same passage, and these interpretations are open to discussion and debate within the academic community.
Anyway, both the NETS LXX and the NET Bible renders it as "The Lord created me *AS* the beginning" rather than "created me AT/IN the beginning," and the latter's footnote explicitly states:
"Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (“appointed,” “given birth”) argue for the translation of “create” or “establish.” Verbs of creation often involve double accusatives; here the double accusative involves the person (i.e., wisdom) and an abstract noun in construct."
By the way, why don't you address the fact that apart from the LXX, every single ancient Greek translator and interpreter of the OT who knew Hebrew (Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and Eusebius) preferred the rendering ἐκτήσατο με?
You cannot assume 'a priori' that a text is falsified” - why? If it was the reverse you would do exactly the same… An academic study shows Clement uses Wisdom and Logos interchangeably and firstbegotten and firstcreated interchangeably
“Admitting the possibility of being wrong is a sign of intellectual honesty. “ - you have just proven my point you are theologically motivated and misleading because you have never admitted you may be wrong.. And you are no better at quoting because one of your recent quotes was out of its context…
“Use Google and you'll find many reviews such as "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" how misleadingly the brochure quoted ancient and modern authors.” - I have, when looked at critically they are as misleading as you… they omit information and the quotes really aren’t out of context else you would address Justin’s claim and Origens ( who viewed the Father as the creator)
“In Revelation 3:14, "arkhe" can indeed mean "beginning," but it should not be understood in the modern English way, but as "principle"”- you just spoke about authoritative NA28 trying to refute my examples ( which don’t really matter) but are now doing the exact same and ignoring an authoritative lexicon which literally agrees with the witnesses Dishonesty at its finest
“there is no sign that they exclude "only" pagan gods, not alleged demiurges, angels, etc.” - sure… why did I literally read just that - Tettulian reasons the context indicates it’s directed solely at false gods You just cited modern scholarship on Revelations author - consider it with Job 38:7
“Jesus Christ, as the “first-born of all creation,” always faithful to his Father Jehovah God, has the birthright through which he has been appointed “heir of all things.”—Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:2" - this doesn’t negate the first one created ( or begotten ) aspect, it simply states what one scholar said that both meanings should apply as they do to firstborn of the dead - Jesus was part of the dead and was the first raised and has pre- eminence over them.
“Biblical precedent for this usage includes Psalm 89:27, where David, though not the firstborn son of Jesse, is called "firstborn" because of his preeminence and chosen status by God. “ - David is still a king, and is temporarily first in another aspect..
"Of course, you have the right to sulk and not talk to me..."
The fact that I'm not interested in your arguments doesn't mean that I'm sulking. It just means that I'm not interested in your arguments. I explained why in previous posts and see no need to repeat myself.
People who hide their identities and troll the internet looking for people to argue with are as common raindrops in April, which is why I keep an umbrella at the ready on my blog.
From Nincsnevem. This is the absolute last post in this thread. Best.
Dear Mr. Foster, please let me answer to Anon in short.
* * *
Why should we dismiss a priori the authenticity of Clement's explicit assertion that the Son is uncreated? If the situation were reversed, and Clement's writings suggested the Son was created, JWs would undoubtedly consider it valid without hesitation.
This admission indeed signifies intellectual honesty, yet your argument remains theologically biased and misleading. Your stance rarely, if ever, concedes the potential validity of mainstream Christian interpretations. Furthermore, quoting out of context, as you have accused others, undermines your credibility.
A critical analysis of such reviews reveals similar biases and omissions. These sources often selectively quote, ignoring broader contexts that might contradict their stance. For instance, they fail to fully address Justin Martyr's or Origen’s views when they support the mainstream Christian understanding.
According to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon ἀρχή (arkhe) can mean "beginning," "origin," "active cause," or "principle." The specific usage depends on the context, and in Revelation 3:14, it refers to Christ as the divine Logos, indicating He is the active cause or origin of creation, not a created being. The term "arkhe" in Revelation 3:14 should be understood in the context of Christ’s role as the origin and active cause of all creation (John 1:3, Col. 1:16). This interpretation aligns with the overall biblical narrative that portrays Jesus as divine and preexistent.
If it were not stated in the NT that Christ really died, and it were not in it that the Son was "the firstborn from/among the dead" (with 'ek'), then it would certainly be reasonable to argue that he never died and "the the firstborn OF the dead" (without 'ek') would not prove the opposite. The term "firstborn" (prototokos) in contexts such as "firstborn from the dead" implies both participation and preeminence. Christ was part of the dead and the first to be raised, underscoring His supremacy. But the notion that Christ would be created, or that He would be a creature, or that He would be connected to creation with "ek" is *nowhere* in the NT.
Your example about David also does not refute my position, according to which "firstborn of X" is not an inherently partitive structure, but whether the classification has taken place or whether the given concept conceptually requires membership is what decides it. It is not possible to be a pre-eminent king without being a king, but it is indeed possible to be a pre-eminent, distinguished heir being in a supreme position in relation to the whole creation, without being a creature.
147 comments:
https://justpaste.it/bx192
In Colossians 1:15, the phrase "the image of the invisible God" emphasizes Christ's unique role in making the invisible God known. This is not merely about reflecting God's image but about embodying God's nature. This concept aligns with other New Testament teachings, such as Hebrews 1:3, where Christ is described as "the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being."
The term "first-born of all creation" (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs) refers to Christ's preeminence and supremacy over all creation, not to being a part of it. This interpretation is consistent with the use of "firstborn" in Jewish tradition, where it often denotes rank or status rather than chronological order. In Psalm 89:27, David is called "firstborn," not because he was the eldest son of Jesse (he was actually the youngest), but to signify his preeminence as king. Similarly, in Jeremiah 31:9, Ephraim is called "firstborn" even though Manasseh was Joseph's firstborn. These instances demonstrate that "firstborn" denotes status and rank rather than birth order.
In Jewish literature, God is sometimes referred to as "the firstborn of the world" (bekhoro shel olam, בכורו של עולם). This does not mean God is part of creation but underscores His preeminence over it. The use of "firstborn" for Christ in Colossians 1:15 aligns with this Jewish concept, highlighting His supremacy over all creation.
Hebrews 1:6 uses "firstborn" for Jesus in a context that clearly affirms His divinity and superiority. Hebrews 1:3 calls Jesus the "radiance of God's glory" and the "exact representation of His being," and Hebrews 1:10 describes Him as the Creator, further reinforcing that "firstborn" is about rank, not creation.
Colossians 1:16-17 states that all things were created "in him, through him, and for him." This passage highlights Christ’s role as the agent of creation and its ultimate purpose. It underscores his divinity and preexistence, showing that he is not a created being but the one through whom all creation came into existence. The phrase "all things were created through him and for him" indicates that Christ is the goal and reason for creation, affirming his central and divine role in God's plan. The phrase "all things were created through Him and for Him" aligns with the Trinitarian doctrine where the Son's role in creation is integral to the Godhead. This does not diminish the Father's role but highlights the unity and distinct roles within the Trinity.
While 1 Corinthians 8:6 emphasizes God the Father as the source of creation and Christ as the one through whom creation exists, it does not contradict Colossians 1:15-17. Both passages affirm the distinct roles of the Father and the Son in creation, with the Father as the ultimate source and the Son as the agent through whom creation is realized. The argument that these ideas do not appear elsewhere in Paul’s writings is not accurate. Philippians 2:6-11 speaks of Christ’s preexistence, divinity, and exaltation, further supporting the high Christology seen in Colossians. Additionally, John 1:1-3 and Hebrews 1:2-3, 1:10 align with Colossians in presenting Christ as the divine agent of creation.
The JWs' interpretation of "first-born of all creation" as indicating that Christ is a created being is problematic for several reasons:
1. The Greek term "πρωτότοκος" (prōtotokos) can denote rank and preeminence, not merely birth order. The context of Colossians 1:15-20 emphasizes Christ's supremacy and preeminence over all creation.
2. The addition of "other" in their translation ("all *other* things") is not supported by the Greek text and alters the meaning to fit their theological perspective. The use of "all things" (Greek: πάντα, "panta") indicates everything in existence. In contexts where "other" is inserted in certain translations, such as Luke 13:2, 21:29, and Philippians 2:21, a comparison is clearly being made. However, in Colossians 1:16, no such comparison exists. The insertion of "other" in Colossians 1:16-17 by the NWT is therefore unwarranted and distorts the text’s meaning.
3. The consistent testimony of Scripture affirms Christ’s divinity and role as the Creator. This comprehensive involvement in creation underscores His divine nature. If Jesus were a created being, He could not be the agent through whom all creation came into existence. John 1:3 explicitly states that "all things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." This explicitly states that Christ is not part of creation but its Creator, which excludes the possibility of Christ being a created being.
4. Hebrews 1:2-3 also presents Christ as the one through whom God made the universe, further affirming his divine nature and preexistence.
The JWs’ argument that "firstborn" MUST mean Jesus is part of creation BECAUSE other "firstborn" individuals are part of their respective groups (e.g., firstborn of Pharaoh, firstborn of Israel) is a fallacy of equivocation.
In each cited example, the "firstborn" status denotes a special position within a family or group DUE TO direct birth from the parent. However, Jesus’ title of "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 signifies His supreme rank and authority over creation, not His being created.
If we were to apply the Watchtower's logic consistently, then saying Jesus is the "firstborn of creation" would imply that creation gave birth to Jesus, which is absurd. The term "firstborn" in this context must be understood as denoting preeminence.
The interpretation that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation" in the sense of being the first created being is not supported by the broader context of Scripture, the original Greek language, or the theological consistency of the New Testament. Instead, "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 emphasizes Christ’s supremacy and preeminence over all creation, affirming his divinity and role as the agent and purpose of creation.
Pretty sure Freed is trinitarian aswell…
At least there are some honest trinitarians around
Seems to fit with Clements “Firstcreated” term of which he applied to Logos/ Wisdom ( used interchangeably)
Ninc - your applying an OT meaning to the NT - all occurrences of FIrstborn in the Nt ( excluding the disputed example) mean first one in a “line” or first in terms of priority
Also why are you not holding yourself to the same standards you hold witnesses?
Not very Christian of you Ninc…
Nincsnevem.
1. True, but the genitive form, as well as the precedence of the termanology in Jewish wisdom and middle-platonic logos theology give us the wider context in which it would be understood, i.e. Christ is the preeminent and supreme creature over all of creation, yet still part of it. (see Philo on the logos).
2. That's an argument against a move in the translation, not against the Christology itself.
3. Yes, scripture affirms Christ's divinity, but that Christ is divine does not imply that Christ is homoousioun with the most-high God. Yes he is involved in creation, but that needs to be understood within the context in which it would have been understood by the original audience, i.e. within the framework of divine hiearchies with the most-high God at the top and a demiurgic logos/sophia/high angel figure below, subsequent divine beings down to humans etc etc.
John 1.3 references Genesis 1:2ff, Genesis 1:2ff is about the creation of the visible and material world, that does not exclude Christ from being part of creation proper.
4. Yeah
Firstborn is metaphorical, it's a familial metaphor, David being firstborn obviously is a metaphor (he was the youngest), but the metaphor works in indicating that he was the highest rank over a group he was apart of. Yes, Christ is the firstborn of God, it's metaphorical, obviously, but that doesn't mean the metaphor doesn't have clear implications about grouping.
I don't think that firstborn of all creation necessarily implies that he was sequentially first, although it probably does, but it does imply that he is (as the genitive form suggests) part of creation.
The בכורו של עולם is Adam in Jewish writings, not God, afaik.
Also, the argument about the "firstborn" is wrong.
It's being "firstborn OF something", that systematically entails being part of this something.
You cannot be "first born of X" without being part of X.
and that "Firstborn of the world" argument doesn't hold much weight either - It was written by one person. Firstborn of the world could also mean other things
The person who wrote that relied on Jewish mystism... not a good person to be citing especially for a catholic.. (I cannot be accused of the same as I'm not a Jw, and that happens to be advantageous in this case. I cannot be held to the same standards as you or the Witnesses)
"The use of "firstborn" for Christ in Colossians 1:15 aligns with this Jewish concept, highlighting His supremacy over all creation." - I still raise the question to you, why not both meanings?
yet you omit Clement because apparently firstcreated is applied to Wisdom... tho reading Clement, he uses them interchangably Like Justin, Origen and others - even atha didnt dispute the logos being Wisdom just the hebrew term qanah (Which is already "Game Over!" anyway)
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/06/against-nincsnevem-ad-pluribus-viii.html
Nincs:The consistent testimony of Scripture affirms Christ’s divinity and role as the Creator. This comprehensive involvement in creation underscores His divine nature. If Jesus were a created being, He could not be the agent through whom all creation came into existence. John 1:3 explicitly states that "all things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." This explicitly states that Christ is not part of creation but its Creator, which excludes the possibility of Christ being a created being.
Me: The fact that the creation is "en" "Dia" Christ is evidence that he is NOT the source of the information and energy in the creation. The fact that all things were created "en""dia" him is no more evidence that he is not created than the fact that all are to be resurrected "en""dia" him is evidence that he was not resurrected.
1Corinthians Ch.15:22NKJV"For as in Adam ALL die, even so in Christ ALL shall be made alive."
The Bible routinely uses the word "all" with sensible exceptions.
@Anonymous
You claim that בכורו של עולם (Bekoro Shel Olam) refers only to Adam in Jewish writings and not God. This is not true, Jewish writings do refer to God with titles like “Firstborn of the World” (Bekoro Shel Olam) and “Primordial One of the World” (Qadmono Shel Olam). These terms highlight God’s preeminence and eternal existence, rather than implying that He is part of creation. Therefore, applying such terminology to Christ in Colossians 1:15 aligns with the Jewish concept of divine supremacy.
https://www.sefaria.org/Rabbeinu_Bahya%2C_Shemot.34.20.1?lang=bi
Several Jewish writings refer to God as the "firstborn of the world" (בכורו של עולם, bekoro shel olam). For example:
In the Talmudic literature the phrase "firstborn of the world" (bekoro shel olam) signifies God's ultimate origin and preeminence in creation. This concept appears in various Jewish texts, emphasizing God’s status as the supreme creator and origin of all things.
Rabbi Bechai: Refers to God as "the firstborn of the world," highlighting His preeminent status.
Kli Yakar on Exodus 9:14: Describes God as the "firstborn of the world," emphasizing His role as the ultimate creator and origin.
These references show that the term "firstborn" can indeed be used to signify preeminence without implying creation, aligning with Paul's usage in Colossians 1:15.
You write:
"The person who wrote that relied on Jewish mystism... not a good person to be citing especially for a catholic.."
Our methodology does not follow this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
https://justpaste.it/apztr
You claim that being the "firstborn of" something systematically entails being part of that group. However, this is a misunderstanding of the term’s usage in biblical and historical contexts. The Greek term "prototokos" (πρωτότοκος) can signify preeminence or priority in rank, not necessarily inclusion as a member of the created order. Examples from the Old Testament, such as David being called the “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27 despite not being the literal firstborn son of Jesse, illustrate that "firstborn" can denote a status of honor and authority rather than birth order.
The argument that "firstborn of" always entails being part of the group fails when examined logically. For instance, if we apply the same logic to familial terms, the “firstborn of Pharaoh” would only mean that the child is part of Pharaoh’s family because Pharaoh is the father. It does not follow that Pharaoh’s firstborn is a separate being created by Pharaoh.
If Jesus were part of creation as the “firstborn of all creation,” it would imply that creation gave birth to Jesus. This is logically inconsistent with the biblical teaching that Jesus is the Creator of all things (John 1:3).
Although Origen sometimes uses the term "created" when referring to the Son, he clarifies that this should be understood in a special, metaphorical sense. The Son is not a creature like the rest of creation but is eternally begotten by the Father. This eternal generation signifies that the Son's existence and nature are fundamentally different from those of created beings. See: https://justpaste.it/f2gf7
There is literally no evidence that early Church Fathers like Clement or Justin claimed that the Father created or made the Son. Their writings consistently emphasize the unique, divine nature of the Son as eternally begotten, not created.
The argument that being "firstborn of" systematically entails being part of a group is flawed. The term "firstborn" indicates a position of honor and authority, not necessarily inclusion in a created group. The phrase "firstborn of creation" signifies Jesus' authority over creation, not that He is part of it. The firstborn of Pharaoh is part of Pharaoh's family BECAUSE Pharaoh is the father, not because the term "firstborn" implies inclusion in a category.
Jehovah's Witnesses often misinterpret early Church Fathers to support their theological position. However, Clement of Alexandria clearly affirms the eternal and uncreated nature of the Son:
"There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." (Fragments, Part I, section III)
Exhortation to the Greeks: Clement describes Jesus as "Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the Expiator, the Savior, the Soother, the Divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son." (Exhortation to the Greeks, 10:110:1)
Clement never called the Son a creature. He explicitly refers to Jesus as "eternal and uncreated," affirming His divinity and equality with the Father.
@Roman
Your claim that the genitive form and Jewish wisdom literature suggest Christ is the supreme creature within creation is a misunderstanding. While Jewish wisdom literature and middle-Platonic Logos theology provide valuable context, they do not support the JW interpretation.
Philo's concept of the Logos is different from the Johannine Logos. Philo viewed the Logos as an intermediary, an emanation, or an attribute of God rather than a distinct person. The Christian understanding of the Logos, as presented in John 1:1-3, is that the Word was both with God and was God, indicating a unique personal existence within the divine essence. This Logos became incarnate in Jesus Christ, a fundamental departure from Philo's non-incarnational and abstract concept.
The Christian doctrine of the Logos comes from divine revelation, not from Jewish or Greek philosophical traditions. John presents the Logos as a distinct person who was intimately united with the Father and who shared the divine essence. This is not simply an attribute or emanation but the person of the Son, fully divine and fully distinct from the Father.
Your argument that "Christ is divine but not homoousious with the Most High God" fundamentally misunderstands the strict monotheistic framework of the New Testament and the implications of Christ’s divinity within that framework. The New Testament is grounded in the strict Jewish monotheism of the Second Temple era, which unequivocally affirms that there is only one God. This foundational belief excludes the possibility of any lesser divine beings or demiurges existing alongside the one true God. The New Testament writers, including Paul, uphold this monotheistic belief while simultaneously affirming the divinity of Christ. The concept of a demiurge, a secondary deity involved in creation, is foreign to New Testament theology. Such a being would undermine the strict monotheism affirmed by the early Christians.
Given the New Testament’s strict monotheism, the only way to consistently affirm Christ’s divinity is to recognize Him as homoousios with the Father. This means that Christ shares the same divine essence as the Father, fully participating in the one divine being. Any attempt to place Christ as a lesser divine being or a demiurge not only conflicts with the monotheistic framework but also contradicts the clear scriptural affirmations of His full divinity. The New Testament theology does not allow for a demiurge-like divine being who is divine but not of the same essence as God the Father. Christ’s divinity, as affirmed by Scripture, necessitates that He is homoousios with the Father
@Roman
Your claim that Genesis 1:2ff and John 1:3 only reference the creation of the visible and material world, thus not excluding Christ from being part of creation proper, also lacks a solid scriptural foundation. The term "all things" (Greek: πάντα, panta) is comprehensive and all-inclusive. It does not limit itself to the visible and material world but encompasses everything that exists. The context of John 1:1-3 firmly establishes that the Logos (Word) is the agent of all creation, implying that nothing came into existence apart from Him.
Genesis 1:1 starts with, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This phrase is a Hebrew merism, meaning it includes everything — all of creation. The terms "heavens and the earth" collectively refer to the entire universe, both visible and invisible realms. Genesis 1:2 and the subsequent verses detail the ordering and filling of creation but do not restrict the scope of creation.
Colossians 1:16 explicitly includes both visible and invisible realms, indicating Christ's role in the creation of all things, not just the material world.
In Hebrews 1:2 the term 'tous aiōnas' refers to the entire created order, including all space and time.
If the Son is involved in the creation of everything that exists, He logically cannot be part of the created order. The creator of all things cannot be a part of the all things that were created. This is a fundamental principle of causality; a cause must exist prior to and independently of its effect.
The argument that John 1:3 and Genesis 1:2ff only refer to the creation of the visible and material world does not hold up under scrutiny. Both passages, along with other New Testament affirmations, clearly teach that Christ is the agent of all creation, encompassing both the visible and invisible realms. This understanding aligns with the doctrine of Christ's full divinity and preexistence, reinforcing that He is not a part of creation.
The genitive construction in Greek does not necessarily imply inclusion in the group described. Instead, it often denotes a relationship or association, "firstborn of creation" can be understood as "having preeminence over creation" without implying that Christ is part of the created order. This is consistent with the metaphorical use of "firstborn" to signify rank and authority. Your claim that the genitive form implies Christ is part of creation misunderstands the use of the genitive case. The genitive often indicates possession, relationship, or origin, rather than inclusion.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The claim that "en" (in) and "dia" (through) suggest that Christ is not the source of creation misunderstands the context and language used in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16. These verses emphasize the comprehensive role of Christ in creation. The phrase "without him was not anything made that was made" excludes any possibility that Christ Himself is a created being, as it would be self-contradictory. The use of "in him" (ἐν αὐτῷ) and "through him" (δι’ αὐτοῦ) indicates that Christ is the locus and agent of creation, emphasizing His preeminence and divine nature.
The comparison with 1 Corinthians 15:22, which speaks about resurrection, is not valid in this context. This verse discusses the effects of Adam's sin and Christ's resurrection, not the nature of Christ in relation to creation. It uses "in" (ἐν) to describe union with Adam or Christ in terms of the consequences of their actions (death through Adam, life through Christ). The argument that "all are to be resurrected 'en' 'dia' him" does not parallel the creation context. Resurrection is an act of power by Christ, not an inherent attribute of His being. In contrast, creation "through" Christ indicates His fundamental role and existence before creation, aligning with His divine nature.
If Christ were a created being, the verses stating "all things were made through him" would have to exclude Christ Himself from "all things." The Greek text does not support this exclusion. The phrase "without him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3) encompasses all of creation, leaving no room for Christ to be included in "all things" as a created being. Being "before all things" (Colossians 1:17) means He existed prior to everything created, underscoring His eternal nature and role as Creator.
The language of "in" and "through" used in reference to Christ in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 does not suggest that He is part of creation. Instead, it emphasizes His divine role as the agent and sustainer of all creation. The comparison with resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15:22 is not applicable to the discussion of Christ's nature in creation. Scripture consistently presents Christ as preexistent and divine, the Creator of all things, excluding any possibility of Him being a created being.
The Bible consistently attributes creation to God alone (Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 45:12; 48:13; Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8; Psalm 95:5-6; Nehemiah 9:6). This emphasizes that God created everything by Himself, without any cooperation from another entity. Hebrews 1:10 and other passages (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16) affirm that Christ was involved in creation, suggesting His divine nature since creation is a divine act. Thus, claiming that Jesus, as a created being, participated in creation contradicts this clear scriptural assertion.
Jeremiah 10:11 asserts that gods who did not create the heavens and the earth will perish. JW theology faces a dilemma because if Jesus is "a god" (a lesser divine being, a demiurge9 and did not participate in creation, he would be a false god. However, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:10, and Colossians 1:16 affirm Jesus' active participation in the creation.
The expression 'something of something' becomes partitive only IF: (1) from the expression itself or (2) it is specifically stated in some form that it is included in the genitive of the whole. In Greek, the genitive case can denote a variety of relationships, including partitive, possessive, and descriptive. The specific interpretation often depends on the broader context.
The genitive can denote supremacy or preeminence rather than inclusion. This is supported by examples such as "κεφαλή τῆς ἐκκλησίας" (head of the church) and "κεφαλή ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ" (head over all things for the church). These examples show that the genitive does not necessarily mean belonging to a group but can denote authority over it.
While "all" (πάντα) can sometimes mean "all other" in specific contexts, it does so only when the context clearly indicates exceptions. In the case of Colossians 1:16, there is no contextual basis for adding "other." The examples given (Luke 13:2, Luke 21:29, Philippians 2:21) involve contexts that clearly define the limits of "all." Colossians 1:16, however, is expansive and inclusive, not limiting.
About Proverbs 8:22
https://justpaste.it/aisrx
@Anonymous
Clement of Alexandria did not equate the Son with a created being. He explicitly refers to the Son as eternal and uncreated in various works. Origen sometimes used terms like "created" metaphorically or in a nuanced way to describe the Son, they did not mean that Christ was a created being in the same sense as for the creatures. Origen clarified that the Son is eternally begotten, not made, and thus fundamentally different from created beings.
Athanasius, a staunch defender of the Nicene Creed, argued vigorously against Arian interpretations that would make the Son a creature. He emphasized the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, maintaining the Son's full divinity and equality with the Father. Athanasius argued that "begotten" in reference to the Son does not imply creation but an eternal relationship within the Godhead.
The term "qanah" in Proverbs 8:22 has been interpreted as "created" by some, but this interpretation is not universally accepted. Many scholars and early Church Fathers understood it as "acquired" or "possessed," reflecting Wisdom's integral role in God's creative work rather than implying a beginning in time. Even if "qanah" were interpreted as "created," the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs is seen by many early Church Fathers as typological and not a direct reference to Christ's ontological status.
Nowhere in the Bible does any writer refer to the Father as a Firstborn. If any person does that blasphemous. If Jewish writers did they may want to repent.
https://www.academia.edu/119605998/Jesus_Christ_eternal_or_created
No where in the Bible is Christ identified as the Creator but was a worker or builder alongside the Father, who alone is the source of all the things. The Firstborn in Colossians 1:15 rightly show Christ is the beginning or the first creation of God. Other creation came after him.
https://www.scribd.com/document/209607822/Colossians-1-16-Is-the-translation-all-other-things-appropriate
https://www.academia.edu/50808377/V14_An_Expository_Rendering_of_John_1_1_4
Nincs,
Regarding "בכורו של עולם", the singular Rabbi (as referenced by Lightfoot) Rabbi Bechai who you are clinging to, also wrote - Elohim is El Haym. These are gods. Remember your creators (Ecclesiastes 12:1).
I did not claim that God was called 'bekhoro shel olam' in the Old Testament, but that in the Talmud, so this is a completely accepted name in a Jewish context. The claim that calling the Father "firstborn" would be blasphemous misunderstands the use of the term "firstborn" in a metaphorical and typological sense. When Jewish writings use terms like "firstborn of the world" for God, it signifies preeminence and primacy, not literal birth order or creation. It emphasizes God's supreme authority and eternal nature.
I am familiar with Lesriv Spencer's writings, and I do not find them convincing in several respects, he only repeats the already known JW arguments at a higher level, he could not even found the appropriate Jewish sources.
The Epistle to the Hebrews does not describe this "master craftsman" or auxiliary creator role as found in Proverbs 8. I hope you read it and do not confuse your own interpretation with what the text actually states: "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth," (Heb. 1:10) and "through whom he made the universe." (Heb. 1:3) (See also: "All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:3) On the other hand, the author quotes a psalm addressed to Jesus, which clearly speaks to God. Feel free to check it in the NWT.
The exceptions you argue for are implied by the context they are not explicitly stated that is my point. If all things are made dia him,then he is a logical exception to the all things there is NO need for the Bible to explicitly make a case for his exception . There is no exception in scripture to prototokos being included in the family of which he is prototokos not one. So we already have a data point including him in the creation. The fact that he is not part of the all things created dia him is neither here nor there,
1Corinthians Ch.15:27NKJV"For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted." There is no need to make a case for what should be axiomatic
Genesis Ch.3:20NIV"And Adam called his wife’s name Eve,[g] because she was the mother of all living."If we followed your pedantry here we would have to conclude that eve was not numbered among the living as she obviously is not her own mother.
The scriptures actually consistently show the creation as being done by a superior "dia" Christ on the other hand it NEVER(as in not a single time) Speaks of the creation or resurrection as occurring "dia" JEHOVAH, no JEHOVAH Creates unqualifiedly that is he is the ultimate source of all the energy and information in the creation and not as anyone's instrument.
Note that in not one of those verses does the creation occur "dia" or "en" JEHOVAH. He creates by himself he is the source of all the information an energy in the creation he is not supplemented by equals or superiors, this is a very different kind of statement,to John ch.1:2 or Hebrew ch.1:2 where the Logos is the instrument of a superior acting "dia/en" him.
@Anonymous
The Thornhill article argues that the Greek conjunction "καὶ" (and) in John 1:1 indicates a sequence of events rather than a simultaneous existence. It suggests that "In the beginning was the Word" implies a starting point for the Word.Traditional Christian exegesis, supported by numerous scholars, interprets "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος" (In the beginning was the Word) as signifying the eternal existence of the Word. The use of "ἦν" (was) is in the imperfect tense, indicating an ongoing, continuous action in the past, implying that the Word always existed. The BDAG lexicon and other Greek lexicons affirm that "καὶ" can connect phrases without implying temporal succession. It is used here to emphasize the unity and co-eternality of the Word with God.
The document suggests that John 1:3 should be interpreted as God creating through the Word as an intermediary, not ascribing direct creation to the Word. John 1:3 explicitly states, "πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο" (all things were made through him), indicating that the Word was the active agent in creation. This aligns with other New Testament passages (Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2, 1:10) that describe Christ as the direct agent of creation. The use of "διὰ" (through) with the genitive in Greek indicates agency. Wallace and other scholars affirm that this construction does not imply a mere intermediary role but denotes the Word's active participation in creation. DIA does not simply denote a passive instrument; it does not exclude active participation, especially when Heb. 1:10 specifically declares it.
@Duncan
Rabbi Bechai's writings, like many rabbinic writings, are filled with metaphorical and allegorical language. Citing a single rabbinic source out of context does not provide a comprehensive view of Jewish theology. When he refers to Elohim as El Haym, which means "gods" or "living God," he is likely using a form of mystical or theological language that is typical in Jewish exegesis. Rabbinic literature often uses poetic and symbolic language, which needs to be understood within its own context.
The term "Elohim" in Hebrew, although plural in form, is most often used in a singular sense when referring to the one true God in the Hebrew Bible. This is a grammatical nuance in Hebrew that does not imply polytheism. The phrase "Remember your creators" in Ecclesiastes 12:1 can be interpreted differently based on the context and translation. Some translations render it as "Remember your Creator" in a singular form, which aligns with the monotheistic interpretation. The plural form in some Hebrew manuscripts might reflect a majestic plural or refer to the multiple aspects of God's creative power rather than indicating a plurality of gods.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The Greek preposition "δῐᾰ́" (dia) with the genitive case indeed means "through" or "by means of," indicating causality or agency. This use of "dia" emphasizes that the action is carried out through an agent or instrument that actively participates in the action. In contrast, "dia" with the accusative case means "thanks to", "by aid of", "because of" or "on account of," which often denotes a more passive role or reason.
It is not "Jehovah" who acts 'dia' through the Son, because the New Testament never speaks of "Jehovah," only of the Father, and the Father indeed acts 'dia' through the Son. However, this does not exclude the Son from being an active participant in creation or from being truly God. While the TTetragrammaton is typically used in the Old Testament to refer to the covenant name of God, the New Testament reveals the Trinitarian nature of God, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully and equally God. The Father working "through" the Son (dia + genitive) in no way implies that the Son is a mere instrument or secondary being. Instead, it affirms the Son's integral and divine role in creation.
The argument that the Son is merely an instrument in creation is refuted by multiple scriptural references that affirm His active role. In passages like 1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2, Christ is consistently described as the agent through whom all things were created. This does not imply subordination or inferiority but rather a distinct role within the Godhead. The use of "διά" (through) in relation to the Son does not imply mere instrumentality. As noted, "διά" is used in contexts that describe the Father’s actions as well, such as in 1 Corinthians 1:9, which states, "God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord." Here, "διά" is used for the Father, demonstrating that the preposition signifies agency and involvement, not a lower status.
In Colossians 1:16, the use of "δῐᾰ́" (dia) with the genitive case indicates that all things were created through Christ, emphasizing His active and essential role in the creative process. This does not imply a secondary or passive role but rather highlights Christ's direct involvement in creation.
Hebrews 1:10 explicitly states that Christ laid the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the work of His hands, reinforcing the idea that Christ is actively involved in creation. This aligns with the understanding of "dia" with the genitive as indicating an active agent.
The New Testament consistently speaks of the Father working through the Son in the act of creation. This does not diminish the Son's divinity but rather underscores the unity and cooperative work within the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work together in perfect harmony, each fulfilling their roles within the Godhead. The New Testament operates within a strictly monotheistic framework, leaving no room for a demiurge or secondary god.
The assertion that implied exceptions are adequate in context overlooks the precise language used in Scripture. For example the phrase "not any thing made" (John 1:3) leaves no room for exceptions, explicitly excluding the possibility of Jesus being part of creation. This verse categorically states that everything created was made through Christ, thereby excluding Him from being a created being.
The passage in 1 Corinthians 15:27 speaks of God putting all things under Christ's feet and clarifies that God Himself is excepted. This explicit exception is necessary to maintain theological clarity. Nevertheless, Paul wants to say, since the Son has all power, it is not necessary to believe that the Father renounced everything, or simply submitted himself to the Son, as is often the case with earthly fathers, when they hand over power and possessions to their sons. The apostle may have considered it necessary to make this comment for the Christians who had converted from paganism, who might have thought of the pagan belief that Jupiter had deprived his father, Saturn, of his empire and authority.
The comparison with Genesis 3:20 ("Eve, the mother of all living") is flawed. Eve being the "mother of all living" naturally excludes herself as she cannot be her own mother. This is a contextual understanding that does not apply to the theological statement about Christ in John 1:3. The Bible's language about Christ's role in creation is precise and explicit, unlike the general and contextual statement about Eve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_ben_Asher
Good points, Roman.
I recently made the point on FB that one of the reasons Paul used “firstborn” rather than “first-created” and “first-resurrected” at Colossians 1, verses 15 and 18, respectively, is because he wanted to develop the Son’s parallel role in both instances, in original creation and in new creation via resurrection.
In verse 15 and in verse 18 of Col. 1, “firstborn” is partitive, and the Son’s preeminence emerges precisely because he is the first one brought into being in both old and new creation, and that all others came/come into being through him.
This may not be obvious to some when looking at verse 15 in isolation, but this logic is crystal clear in verse 18, which is conceptually parallel.
How do we know this? Because of the use of hína. Here’s what the word dictionary available at Biblehub says about hína:
“2443 hína (a subordinating conjunction) – for the purpose that (in order that), looking to the aim (intended result) of the verbal idea. 2443 /hína (“for the purpose that”) is “the semantically marked (dramatic) way of expressing purpose in Greek (as compared for example to the plain infinitive)” (G. Archer).”
In other words, in verse 18 its function is to show that X occurred so that Y could result.
X = Jesus was firstborn from the dead, i.e. he was resurrected first, before others who would follow.
Hína/so that the following would result
Y = his preeminent status
He was resurrected first (firstborn) so that he could have preeminence as a result. Then all others can be given life in new creation via resurrection through him. He is the preeminent member of new creation precisely because he was brought into being via resurrection first, then the rest through him.
Verse 15 functions the same with respect to original creation. He was brought into being first in the context of original creation so that he could have preeminence as a result. Then all others were brought into being through him.
He is therefore the preeminent member of both original and new creation.
Here’s the bottom of the bottom line:
1. There are so many exceptions to “all” that one writer went so far as to ask whether “all” EVER means “all without exception” in Scripture.
2. As far as I can tell, there are no exceptions to the partitive nature of “firstborn” in Scripture. The one named “firstborn” is always part of the group, whether explicitly stated or implied. Even when “firstborn” is used metaphorically, as it is with king David, it still retains its partitive sense.
So which way should we go in our exegesis? Should we interpret “firstborn” in light of the flexible sense of “all” or should we interpret “all” in light of the rigid partitive sense of “firstborn”?
In my judgment, it clearly it makes more sense to understand the sense of “all,” which is less rigid, in light of the partitive sense of “firstborn,” which is quite rigid. To do otherwise makes no sense, and I would suggest that this is done by Trinitarians because the post-biblical doctrine is controlling what they’re willing to conclude from the text.
Nincsnevem,
notice I did not deny that firstborn can be metaphorical, my argument is about the use of the genitive. Look at a Greek grammar and look at the genitive examples of "supremacy" or "preeminence," almost all of them include the idea that the subject is part of the group she is preeminent over (in Wallace's list of examples the only potential exception is satan and the world, but not really).
Firstborn is a familial metaphor, and you're right we have to take into account first the historical context, and then the biblical.
The historical context is not going to be rabbinic Judaism, he's writing to a congregation in Colossae in the mid-first century. It's going to be the middle-platonism, stoicism, Jewish mysticism, etc etc going on in that context.
Paul uses OBVIOUS concepts from middle-platonism and Jewish sophia theology, and it's clear what he's saying. He's saying that Christ takes the role that the Demiurge/Logos/high-angel/deuteros theos/ etc etc takes in those thoughts.
The language Paul used is almost identical to language used by Philo.
Yes we get divine revelation, but the people who read Paul's letter did so from the viewpoint of the world they lived in, so we should know what world that was.
No one denies that Christ took an active role in creation, the point is there is an ontological difference between the source of all being and the mediating agent.
Gen 1:1, is (given the standard theological interpretation) a statement of creation ex-nihilo, Gen 1:2ff literally only talks about the creation of the physical universe ... the language in John (egeneto) is only used in Genesis LXX when God speaks and things "egeneto," the idea being that Christ is the Logos, the all things being mentioned are all the things that "egeneto" in Genesis 1, i.e. the things mentioned, i.e. the physical universe.
Read "all" as literally everything throughout the epistle and you'll end up with nonsense, "all" is always relative and contextual.
The interpreatation I'm giving is the interpretation given by the majority of Christian thinkers in the first few centuries, up through Origen's commentary on John.
BTW, nothing in the bible is "strict monotheism" and neither was second temple Judaism. There was a whole bunch of deities, but only one most-high God who is the source of all life and being.
@Sean Kasabuske
"Firstborn" means "preeminent, distinguished heir", hence "firstborn of all" creation means "the preeminent heir of all creation", which means "Lord of all creation", that's all.
Just quoting your publications:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200010748
"Jesus Christ, as the “first-born of all creation,” always faithful to his Father Jehovah God, has the birthright through which he has been appointed “heir of all things.”—Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:2"
(I fully agree on this, apart of the equating the Father with "Jehovah")
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011483
"David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the “first-born,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89:27) In this position David prophetically represented the Messiah."
Your parallel with verse 18 is wrong, because there is an "ek" preposition, which is not in verse 15, so in the former there is classification, but not in the latter.
While Colossians 1:18 uses "firstborn FROM the dead" with the preposition "ἐκ" (ek), indicating classification among those resurrected, Colossians 1:15 does not use "ἐκ" but rather "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" (firstborn of all creation), which emphasizes supremacy over creation without implying that Christ is part of the created order.
Verse 15: The absence of "ἐκ" here underscores that Christ is not a part of creation but stands supreme over it. The genitive case in Greek often signifies possession or dominion, reinforcing the interpretation of Christ's lordship and preeminence over creation.
Verse 18: The use of "ἐκ" in verse 18 classifies Christ among the resurrected, emphasizing His role as the first to rise in a glorified state, leading the new creation through resurrection.
The term "hína" indeed indicates purpose, but its use in verse 18 underscores the result of Christ’s resurrection, which is His preeminence. This does not imply that He is a part of creation but rather emphasizes His role as the first to rise in a glorified state, leading the new creation:
Verse 18: "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that (ἵνα) He might have preeminence in everything." This shows the result of His resurrection is His supreme status, not His inclusion in the group of created beings.
Verse 15: Similarly, Christ being the "firstborn of all creation" indicates His authority and supremacy over all creation, not His being the first created entity. The context of the surrounding verses (Colossians 1:16-17) emphasizes His role as the Creator of all things, further supporting this interpretation.
Colossians 1:23 mentions that the gospel was "preached in all creation." Since Christ does not belong to "all creation" in this context, it supports the idea that "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" does not imply Christ being a part of creation but rather having authority over it.
@Sean Kasabuske
1. While "all" (Greek: "πᾶς") can sometimes be used in a hyperbolic or contextually limited sense, the context of Colossians 1:16-17 strongly supports an all-encompassing meaning. Linguistically, your reference only give an example that IF (!!!!) it is clear from the context anyway, the word "other" can sometimes be omitted after "everything" in Greek. For instance the insertion in Luke 13:2 is contextually warranted due to the comparison being made between two equal items—Galileans with Galileans. The sentence reads: "Do you suppose that these Galileans were greater sinners than all other Galileans because they suffered this fate?" Here, "other" clarifies the comparison within the same group, which is contextually appropriate. But it is not clear how the context of Col 1:16 shows that Jesus is also a creature. It should be smuggled in by none other than the Watchtower Society: with just such a biased translation, for which there is no basis in the text. I would especially draw your attention to Col 1:17, according to which "He was before all things, and in Him all things exist" - not "he became before all things" etc.
Additionally, John 1:3 reinforces this interpretation: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." Here, the totality of creation through Jesus is emphasized, further discrediting the notion of a limited "all." If "without him nothing was made that has been made", then Heis not one of the things that "has been made" (=created).
2. "The one named “firstborn” is always part of the group" - except that you are falsifying the reason for this particular "always", since it does not establish a grammatical "rule" that "firstborn of X" always means , that he is "a member of it", since the REAL reason for the "membership" can be known in the other examples. When the argument is allowed to be taken to its logical conclusion, it leads to an absurdity. The phrase “firstborn of Pharaoh” does not mean the child is merely similar to Pharaoh but rather that the child holds a special position within Pharaoh's family *due to* being born to Pharaoh. By the same logic, if Jesus is the “firstborn of creation,” it would imply that creation is the parent of Jesus, suggesting that creation gave birth to Jesus. This concept is both theologically and logically incoherent.
In Exodus 4:22, Israel is called God’s “firstborn,” signifying their special status among nations. This does not mean Israel is the first nation ever created. In addition, Israel was Yahweh's firstborn so that was not counted among the nations (Numbers 23:9). Similarly, “firstborn” signifies Christ’s supremacy over creation without implying He is part of the created order.
By the way, I don’t understand why this needs to be forced when the Bible NOWHERE refers to Christ as created (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma), or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). Instead, the Bible already has terms to describe how the Son originates from the Father, which is begetting (gennao) and birth (tikto), but never create (ktizo) or make (poio). Why wouldn’t this be sufficient, hm? Why wouldn’t Arianism be considered a "post-biblical" doctrine? Can you cite a single extra-biblical early Christian source that states, "the Father created/made the Son"?
Add one to your misleading claims Ninc
Read col 1:23 again there is a group that it was not preached too..
I’m going to keep calling you out until to can be honest
@Roman
The genitive case can indicate various types of relationships, including partitive, but it is not strictly limited to implying inclusion within a group. For example, Psalm 89:27 calls David the "firstborn," emphasizing his preeminence among kings without suggesting he is the first king or part of a group of kings. The term "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 is used metaphorically to indicate Christ's supremacy and preeminence over creation, not his inclusion as part of creation. The context of Colossians 1:16-17, which states that all things were created through him and for him, supports this interpretation by emphasizing his role as the creator rather than a created being.
The New Testament writers, including Paul, often drew on Old Testament themes and language to convey theological truths. The title "firstborn" has deep roots in Jewish tradition, where it denotes rank and inheritance, not necessarily being the first created.
Paul, a Pharisee by background (Acts 23:6), often incorporated Jewish theological concepts in his letters. The notion of Christ as the "firstborn" aligns more closely with Jewish Messianic expectations and Old Testament references to the "firstborn" (e.g., Psalm 89:27), rather than Hellenistic philosophical concepts. While there may be superficial similarities between Paul's language and Hellenistic ideas, Paul’s conception of Christ as the "firstborn" and the agent of creation is rooted in Jewish monotheism and the unique revelation of Christ's divinity and role in creation.
Some see the theological speculations of Philo of Alexandria as the cradle of the Christian doctrine of the Logos. Philo, in a Stoic manner, posits independent forces in God that are more or less personified, sometimes two, sometimes three or five, and sometimes an infinite number; among them the νοῦς or λόγος, which he occasionally calls the Son of God and once the second God. However, Philo’s λόγος is neither God nor a person but a mediator between God and the world, an instrument of creation, similar to the ultimate eon of the Gnostics and the λόγος of Arian subordinationism. John's Λόγος shares practically only the name with Philo’s λόγος (Harnack). Before the advent of Christianity, Jews referred to the creative word, the outwardly manifesting, revealing God communicating with humanity or divine activity as the Word (memra in the Aramaic Bible translations, hundreds of times). Similar ideas also appear in several ancient pagan religions, as well as in Greek and Jewish-Greek (Hellenistic) philosophy; but there the term Logos has a completely different meaning than it does for John. For Plato, it means divine reason, as the repository of divine ideas (ideals), the abstract essence, and model of things, sometimes even the world soul. For the Jewish-Greek Philo (who could also have drawn from the Old Testament holy books), the Logos is a vague and confusing concept, an emanation or attribute of God, an instrument of creation (demiurge), a mediator between God and the world, but not a separate person, not incarnated, not a redeemer, not the Messiah.
Other New Testament writers do not use the term Logos in this sense; John himself uses it only in five places (John 1:1 three times, John 1:14, 1 John 1:1, 5:7, Revelation 19:13); but where he speaks of the incarnate Word, he calls him the Son, Christ, or Jesus.
While Philo uses the term Logos, his conception is significantly different from the Christian understanding. Philo’s Logos is an impersonal principle or mediator, not a distinct divine person who became incarnate. The Logos in John’s Gospel and Paul's letters is clearly a personal, divine being who became incarnate as Jesus Christ (John 1:14). Paul’s use of the term and the concept of Christ as the "firstborn" and creator reflects a unique Christian revelation, not merely an adaptation of existing philosophical ideas. The Christian Logos is both fully God and fully man, involved directly in creation and redemption.
Nics,
I have stated a source for your assertion as to what rabbinic Judaism believed. The only source I have found that supports what you are saying. If there are more then please cite them. Rabbinic Judaism and it's documentation is full of opposing views and arguments on most subjects, so show me some consensus please?
@Roman
The original audience, while influenced by their cultural context, would have also been instructed in the Christian faith, which includes the understanding of Christ’s divinity and preeminence over creation. The teachings they received from Paul and other apostles would have clarified these truths beyond mere cultural concepts.
The New Testament consistently affirms that Christ is not just a mediating agent but is Himself the Creator, cf. Heb. 1:10. We say that the Father creates all that He creates through His Only-begotten Son, not as though the Son were a mere instrument serving the Father's ends, but as His natural and subsistential force. That no inferiority is necessarily implied by ‘through,’ as if the Son were a mere instrument, is shewn by 1 Corinthians 1:9, where the same construction is used of the Father. Hence, as Godet remarks, it "does not lower the Word to the rank of a simple instrument," but merely implies a different relation to creation on the part of the Father and the Son. The use of "διά" (through) in relation to the Son does not imply mere instrumentality. The preposition "διά" signifies agency and involvement, not a lower status. This language goes beyond mere mediation and attributes creation and sustenance directly to Christ.
The language in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 does not limit Christ’s creative work to the physical universe. John states that all things came into being through Christ, and Colossians includes both visible and invisible realms. This indicates that Christ’s creative authority extends to the entire cosmos, not just the material world. Both Genesis 1:1 and John 1:3 support the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo, and the New Testament expands on this to include Christ as the divine Logos through whom all things were made.
The context in Colossians 1:16-17, where “all things” refers to the entirety of creation, leaves little room for relative interpretation. The passage emphasizes Christ’s preeminence over all creation, asserting that nothing exists that was not made through Him. While “all” can be context-dependent, in the context of creation passages, it consistently refers to the totality of created things. This is evident in passages like John 1:3 and Hebrews 1:2, which use comprehensive language to describe Christ’s role in creation.
While Origen and some early thinkers had complex views on the nature of Christ, the consensus among the Church Fathers affirmed the divinity of Christ and His role as Creator. They recognized Christ as eternally begotten, not made, and co-equal with the Father. See: https://justpaste.it/f2gf7
The Bible consistently affirms strict monotheism, the assertion that the Bible and Second Temple Judaism were not "strict monotheism" and accommodated a variety of deities is not supported by a thorough examination of the scriptural and historical evidence. Passages like Deuteronomy 6:4 ("Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.") and Isaiah 44:6 ("I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.") emphasize the unique oneness of God. Some interpret references to “gods” in the Bible (like in Psalm 82) as evidence of henotheism. However, these references can be understood contextually as metaphorical or referring to judges and angels rather than literal deities.
While acknowledging the existence of other spiritual beings (angels, etc.), Second Temple Judaism maintained a clear distinction between the one true God (YHWH) and all other beings. Second Temple Judaism maintained a strict monotheistic framework, despite its interactions with various Hellenistic and pagan cultures. The writings from this period reflect a firm adherence to the belief in one God. The New Testament continues this monotheistic tradition, identifying Jesus as sharing in the divine essence of the one true God. See: https://t.ly/Ulnl6
Two points in response:
1. In my judgment, you're wrong about hina. At Col. 1:18 hina functions as I indicated above. Your response is essentially, "Does not," yet I think it clearly does, so no need to get into an endless "is so, is not" exchange.
Paul grounds Jesus' preeminent status as firstborn in verse 18 in chronological firstness, i.e. Jesus was resurrected first into new creation and all others through him. That means two things: (a) for Paul, being first in rank here is the result of being first in time, and (b) he deliberately placed verse 18 in parallel to verse 15, which tells us that Jesus' preeminent status in verse 15 also emerges because of the Son's chronological firstness, namely, he's the first being God created. To suggest otherwise is to break the very parallel that Paul himself brilliantly highlighted.
As the late Maurice Casey rightly observed in “From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God”:
"Similar remarks may be made about Colossians 1:15-20. So much of it has static parallels from Jewish speculation about Wisdom that we must infer an author who felt that what had previously been believed of Wisdom was true of Jesus. It begins with Jesus’ pre-existence and role in creation: ‘who is an image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation, for through him was created everything in heaven and on earth.’ This description must mean that Jesus, rather than Wisdom, or as Wisdom, was the first created being (cf Prov 8:22f; Philo, Qu in Gen., IV, 97). This was written centuries before Arius, when no-one believed that Jesus was second person of the Trinity." (ibib), p. 115
2. In the Bible "firstborn" is always partitive, and this holds true even when used metaphorically.
You mentioned how David was made God's firstborn, yet even in that text, the term is clearly partitive.
καγώ [And I] πρωτότοκον [firstborn] θήσομαι [will make] αυτόν [him] υψηλόν [high] παρά [above] τοις [the] βασιλεύσι [kings] της [of the] γης [earth].
“I shall make him my firstborn; the highest of the kings of the earth.”
It seems pretty clear to me that υψηλόν παρά τοις βασιλεύσι της γης is being used definitionally to reveal what πρωτότοκον signifies in context. The ancient Hebrews liked to make a statement then repeat the thought in different words.
Notice that David is not literally God’s firstborn; rather, God placed him in this status, and here there is a comparison of David with the other kings of the earth. But, as king, David is also part of the class of kings. He’s not the first king chronologically in this case, but he’s superior to his fellow kings. He’s superior to but still part of the group “kings”.
You could express the logic in two ways:
1. David was the highest of the king of the earth
2. David was higher than all *other* kings of the earth
Notice the partitive sense is retained in both 1 and 2, but also notice that this partitive sense justifies the use of "other" to properly clarify the thought.
If you wish to attempt to counter these observations, then your very first step must at minimum do two things:
1. You must provide biblical examples in which πρωτότοκος is not partitive; and
2. You must make a compelling case that any such counter examples not only inform the use we find at Col. 1 verses 15 & 18, but somehow negate the fact that Paul himself grounded the Son's preeminence in those texts in chronological firstness.
In my experience, no one ever gets to #2, because no one has yet provided a biblical example in which πρωτότοκος does not retain its inherent partitive sense. That sense aways inheres, even when the term is used metaphorically, and this necessitates the conclusion that the Son was part of creation at Col. 1. We know that he was also first in time because otherwise all other things couldn't have come into being through him.
The word PRWTOTOKOS (`firstborn`) is a partitive word. It has an intrinsic partitive force (for laypersons, this means that the firstborn is a part of the following implied group). It is an adjective qualifying an implied substantive. `The firstborn of the sheep` is the `firstborn sheep of the sheep` `the firstborn of Jacob` is the firstborn son of Jacob`.
The "Firstborn of Jacob" was a part of the group of Jacob's sons. Reuben remained the firstborn, the eldest son, even though the right of primogenitureship passed to Joseph (cf. Gen 49:3 Reuben, you are my firstborn, my vigor and the beginning of my generative power"). Reuben was the firstborn although he lost the right of firstborn (cf. 1 Chron 5:1 "And the sons of Reu'ben the firstborn of Israel-for he was the firstborn; but for his profaning the lounge of his father his right as firstborn was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, so that he was not to be enrolled genealogically for the right of the firstborn.")
These are the occurrences of PRWTOTOKOS in the LXX (GREEK SEPTUAGINT). Presented here are the following usage for proof behind the point:
27 examples of partitive genitive (the firstborn is a part of the group): Gen 4:4; 25:13; Ex 11:5; 13:13,15;22:28;34:19,19;34:20,20; Num 3:40,41,41;3:45,46,50;8:16;18:15,15; Deut 12:6,17;14:23;15:19; Neh 10:37,37; Ezek 44:30.
42 examples of possessive genitive, such as `my son`,implying membership of the group of sons: Gen 49:3; Ex 4:22; 4:23; 6:14;11:5; Num 1:20; 18:17,17,17;26:5; Deut 21:15,16,17; 33:17;Judg 8:20;2 Sam 3:2; 2 Sam 13:21; 1 Kings 16:34; 1 Chr 1:29; 2:3,13; 2:25, 25,27,42,50; 3:1,15; 4:4; 5:1,3; 8:1,30,38,39; 9:5,31,36,44; 26:2; Psalm 134:8; Mica 6:7; Jer 38:9
There are no example of other genitives.
Lexical semantics, therefore, sans theology, give one meaning to PRWTOTOKOS, and this meaning is intrinsically partitive. Philologically speaking, all genitives with the word uphold the partitive meaning.
Nothing in the immediate context forbids that Jesus is a creature who mediated in creation, but he is not included in TA PANTA.
Another point of lexical semantics that needs to be made clear is the difference between MEANING and CONNOTATION. After a long winter, when we see trees budding, days getting longer and warmer, bird chirping, we may say: "Ahh.. Spring!" However, none of these things are the MEANING of spring, "the first three months following the primal equinox." These are CONNOTATIONS of "spring." They naturally follow.
Likewise, "firstborn" MEANS "one born first in time." In Hebrew Society, the firstborn received certain privileges, such as increased inheritance, preferential treatment and his Father's blessing, but these things are CONNOTATIONS from being firstborn. None of them are MEANING. The firstborn was entitled to increased inheritance, preferential treatment and his Father's blessing BECAUSE he was born first in time.
The prophet Malachi identified exactly who the One True God and Creator is.
Malachi 2:10 ASV:
“Have we not all ONE FATHER? hath not ONE GOD CREATED US? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, profaning the covenant of our fathers?”
To the ancient Israelites the Father alone was the Only True God and the Creator.
Jesus has supreme status of Creation because he was made first. Jesus has supreme status of those resurrected because he was raised out of or from death first by his God who alone is the Most High.
The preached to all creation in Colossians 1:23 doesn't include angels or angels showing the relative meaning of all. By your logic I guess we can claim angels and animals have authority over creation.
Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says it is addressed to God?
Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.)
I know this text is often used to show since it talks about Jehovah in Psalms that Jesus must be Jehovah. However, we know that can't be since Jehovah is the God of the Messiah according to Micah 5:4. Could it be to understand Hebrews 1:10, we could just read a few more verses?
Hebrews 2:7 tells us, "You [God the Father] made him [Jesus] a little lower than angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and appointed him over THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS."
Whose hands?
The God and Father of Jesus Christ who is Jehovah. Now, when we go back to Hebrews 1:10, it makes scriptural sense that it speaks about the heavens and earth as the work of his hands, and Jesus absolutely was appointed to participate (Master Worker) in making all things as he always is when having a share in fulfilling God's purpose. As Psalm 8:6 tells us: "You [Jehovah] gave him [Jesus] dominion over the works of your [Jehovah's] hands; You [Jehovah] have put everything under his [Jesus] feet:"
So when it comes to Jehovah in Ps. 102, the writer here attributes these qualities to Jesus Christ, because Jesus is the one whom God used in the work of creation and to whom he has now committed all authority "in heaven and on the earth." (Matt. 28:18; Col. 1:15-17) Jesus represents the God that no one has ever seen to us fully in all his qualities and actions. (John 1:18)
Psalm 22, attributed to David, relates, partly in figurative language, some of the sufferings of Christ. (Compare Psalm 22:1 with Mark 15:34; also compare the entire Psalm with the four gospel accounts of Jesus' trial and death.) Are Jesus and David the same person? No! A scripture in Matthew 2:15 applies to Jesus, but the earlier reference in Hosea 11:1 applies to Israel. Does that make them the same? No! There is a prophecy about Elijah in Malachi 4:5 that is applied to John the Baptist in Matthew 17:12,13; 11:14. Is John the Baptist really Elijah? No! They just did a similar work. I think you get the point.
Also, Jehovah gave Jesus the ability to sustain things that don't make him God, as Jehovah is the One who gave Jesus his authority and power.
Hebrews 2:7 & Psalm 8:6 tells us Jesus is appointed over the works of his God and Father's hands. This clearly shows who the Creator is, the Father alone. If Jesus was the Creator it be no reason for someone to appoint him over his own creation. But that's not the case.
Jesus is not the Most High nor is he the Creator.
We can consider the account in Acts 19:11-12
Acts 19:11–12 — (NRSV)
God did extraordinary miracles THROUGH (Greek word διὰ/dia) Paul, 12 so that when the handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were brought to the sick, their diseases left them, and the evil spirits came out of them.
Was Paul the source of these extraordinary miracles? Or was someone greater working through him to accomplish these miracles?
It was Jehovah who performed these miracles THROUGH Paul. Paul was a worker with God but the Father was the source and power.
It's the same with Jesus and creation as it came through him.
Syriac Wisdom Prov 8:22-31 Syriac (Lansa, italics added): 22. “The Lord created me (brny) as the first of his creations (bryth), before all of his works. 23. I was established (i.e., he established me, 'tqnny) from everlasting, from the beginning, before he made the earth. 24. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25. Before the mountains were settled (ntqnw), before the hills were formed was I conceived. 26. While as yet he had not made the earth nor the valleys nor the best soil of the world. 27. When he established (mtqn) the heavens, I was there; when he set a circle upon the face of the deep. 28. When made firm the clouds above; when he strengthened the fountains of the deep. 29. When he gave to the sea its bounds, that the waters should not transgress his commandment; when he laid down the foundations of the earth: 30. I together with him was establishing them (mtqn'); and daily I was his delight, rejoicing always before him, 31. Rejoicing in his habitable earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.” - The Syriac translation here is from Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text: George M.Lansa's Translations From the Aramaic of the Peshitta. San Francisco: Harper & Row, nd.
“...As in Greek, Syriac Wisdom is unambiguously a creation of the Lord, not God's acquisition. In v. 22 Syriac the verb br', create, sharpens the sense of the Hebrew, as does the Greek. Indeed Syriac reiterates the point of Wisdom being the first creature by translating "his acts" in v. 22 as "his creation" (bryth), using a derivative of "create" in v. 22. … The Syriac term in v. 30 translated above as, "was establishing them", merits some comment. … As is evident from the italic insertions above, verbs of the same root (tqn) are used for the Creator fashioning the mountains in v. 25, for the Creator fashioning the heavens in v. 27a, and for Wisdom's role beside God in v. 30. In v. 31 the Syriac translator renders the Hebrew, not the Greek: "and daily I was HIS delight, rejoicing always before HIM, Rejoicing in HIS habitable earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." (8:30b-31, Syriac).” - SOURCE: “AUSTRALIAN EJOURNAL OF THEOLOGY INAUGURAL ISSUE – By Alan Moss, AUGUST 2003.”
Colossians 1:16-17
The same interpolation ("other") appears twice more in this passage, however, this word does not appear in the Greek text: ἕτερος (heteros) means "other (different from), or ἄλλος (allos) means "other (another one the same as). for you While it may be permissible to interpret the text this way in a commentary, it is highly misleading to mar the translation with a word that is not present, especially when building theology on it. (This is why Luther's insertion of "alone" in Romans 3:28 is not found in Protestant translations, regardless of their perceived correctness of the interpretation.)
The New World Translation similarly inserts the word "other" in Acts 10:36: "This one is Lord of all [others]," and surprisingly in Romans 8:32 as well (without parentheses): "why will he also not with him kindly give us all other things?"
In Colossians 1:15, "firstborn" does not literally mean "first in time" but denotes rank, signifying that Christ holds the rights of primogeniture over all creation without being part of it. By this reasoning, Jesus would belong to the church (the redeemed) based on Ephesians 5:23 ("ho Christos kephale tes ekklesias"), even though the same letter places Him above the church as head ("kephale huper panta te ekklesia").
The JW argument suggests a so-called "Biblical rule" that anyone or anything can only be the firstborn if they are part of what they are the firstborn of. This "rule" is not Biblical and can easily be refuted from Scripture. Among the Biblical examples is Psalm 89:27: "I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." Here, you can't equate other kings with other offspring of Yahweh because the same Psalm speaks of David being chosen from among the people of Israel, not from among other kings: "Then you spoke in a vision to your godly one, and said: 'I have granted help to one who is mighty; I have exalted one chosen from the people.'" This implies that "firstborn" here denotes rank among kings without implying membership among them. The same idea is found in Hebrews 12:23: "to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven," where "firstborn" is detached from the concept of birth and membership and takes on a connotation of dignity.
Furthermore, Israel was Yahweh's firstborn and not counted among the nations (Numbers 23:9), contrary to your claim: "God called Israel his firstborn son, and this firstborn status was considered the first among the pagan nations." It is not among them but above them. Similarly, the Son is is in the position of The Firstborn regarding all creation while not being a creature but God Himself.
The word "ktisis" can also mean "created world," thus diverging from your interpretation. Someone who is the firstborn of the entire created world is not necessarily a creature, especially given the abstract nature of the term.
The immediate context also argues against your stance. Colossians 1:16 says, "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." The word "for" connects Paul's thought from the previous verse to "the firstborn of all creation." Jesus is firstborn over all creation BECAUSE all things were created in Him, through Him, and for Him. The firstborn status here undoubtedly refers to a preeminence in rank, not among creatures but over them. How could He be a creature when all things were created through Him? Begetting (gennao) is not the same as creating (ktizo).
Firstborn is ALWAYS a member of the set ALWAYS .Your nonsequitirs constitute yet more argumentation minus any actual argument. When you find the quote that supports your substantive claim ,that is that his being the firstborn necessarily or even possibly( I'm feeling charitable) means that he is not a member of the implied set bring that quote and we'll talk.
I made NO parallel with verse 18 I Made the parallel with revelation ch.1:5 being fully aware of trinitarians' fudge with verse 18. Please stop repeating this falsehood.
So since this guy believes Jesus,the Father, and holy spirit are three persons but one God, he also believes the Father and holy spirit are the firstborn of all creation since they are one God.
More none sequiturs he is not the ultimate source of the creation the God acting dia him is, the prototokos is ALWAYS a member of the set whether he is the highest ranked member or the first member or both is yet further nonsequiturs. The fact that neither you nor you confederates can produce a SINGLE exception re:the prototokos inclusion in the implied set from scripture is evidence of the totality of the principal of the firstborn inclusion in the implied set.
The comparison of Genesis ch.3:20 is a precise parallel with your claim if the creation is being accomplished true prior creations obviously the first creation in this chain of created causes would be a logical exception not requiring mention. Just like eve's and her husband's exception should be made plain via the context.
Paul states that the clarification should be unnecessary,it should be obvious,that the one subjecting all things to him outranks him obviously Paul had not encountered any trinitarians.
Similarly the one creating dia him outranks him obviously and is to be credited unqualifiedly as the source of the power and wisdom manifest in the creation not his instrument. So either one is the ultimate source of the creation not needing supplementation as stated in Isaiah 45:5 or you part of the creation that is sustainable by him alone there us no in between. No one creates "dia" JEHOVAH
https://mosaic-blues.com/blog/2020/03/09/ktisis-in-early-byzantine-mosaics/
"Vergil’s ideas on poetic structuring may seem unique. The political and historical background of the Aeneid shows that the underlying purpose for its origin lies in the ethnic, social and cultural motivation.The poem itself, written within around eleven years, was missing some revisions at the time of Vergil’s death (Dixon-Kennedy 1998: 14). As it was suggested by Reed (2007: 1), it became one of the most well known examples of Roman ktisis poetry, or a “foundation myth.” It may be worth noting, however, that Vergil’s idea of strengthening the political influence of Augustus and providing his compatriots with an ethnic point-of-reference was not a genuine concept. Ktisis myths were already known in ancient Greece, while Vergil’s ideas were strongly influenced by poetical works of Homer. According to Kenneth Quinn (1968: 42–43):"
@aservantofJEHOVAH
"Firstborn is ALWAYS a member of the set ALWAYS."
You can rant and rave about your "always", but it's still a fallacy of equivocation, there is no such established "rule" (???), since all such examples can be perfectly justified by knowing that those "firstborns" were indeed born into that group by birth from one of the members of the group.
However, according to Hebrews 1:6, the Son is the firstborn of the Father, not of any creature.
Your examples are examples of the fact that the firstborn belongs to the category of the person from whom it was born.
@Sean Kasabuske
You assert that "hina" in Colossians 1:18 indicates a purpose based on chronological firstness. However, the term "hina" often indicates purpose or result. The text states, "He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that (ἵνα) He might have preeminence in everything." This suggests that the resurrection of Jesus to a glorified state establishes His supreme status. The phrase "so that" (hina) links His resurrection to His preeminence, emphasizing the result of His resurrection rather than suggesting His inclusion in the group of created beings.
By the way, Christ is not the first person who has ever been resurrected, the Bible records several instances where individuals were resurrected before Jesus. Here are some examples: Elisha resurrected the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:32-37). A man came back to life when his body touched Elisha's bones (2 Kings 13:20-21). Jesus raised the son of the widow in Nain (Luke 7:11-17). Jesus resurrected Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:35-43; Luke 8:49-56).Jesus brought Lazarus back to life after he had been dead for four days (John 11:1-44).
The claim that Paul grounds Jesus' preeminence in being the first created being misconstrues the broader theological context of Paul's writings. In Colossians 1:15, the term "firstborn" (prototokos) denotes rank and supremacy, not merely chronological order. If we consider "firstborn" in the context of rank, Jesus being "firstborn from the dead" in verse 18 similarly emphasizes His supremacy over death and His leading role in the new creation. The chronological firstness of His resurrection serves to highlight His preeminence, not His creation.
You argue that Paul intentionally parallels verses 15 and 18, suggesting both indicate chronological firstness. However, this parallelism serves to emphasize Christ's supremacy in both the old and new creation. In verse 15, Christ's role as the "firstborn of all creation" signifies His authority and preeminence over all things created by Him, not that He is a part of creation. Similarly, in verse 18, His being "firstborn from the dead" underscores His preeminence in the new creation through His resurrection. This parallel highlights the comprehensive scope of Christ's supremacy.
Maurice Casey's interpretation, suggesting that Colossians 1:15-20 positions Jesus as the first created being like Wisdom, fails to account for the distinct Christian understanding of Christ's divine nature. While early Jewish wisdom literature and middle-Platonic concepts may influence the language, Paul explicitly attributes creation to Christ, stating, "For by Him all things were created" (Col. 1:16). This language firmly places Christ as the Creator, not a creature, consistent with the broader New Testament witness (John 1:3; Hebrews 1:10).
The assertion that the historical context should not include rabbinic Judaism overlooks the fact that Paul, a former Pharisee, deeply rooted in Jewish thought, wrote to both Jewish and Gentile audiences. While acknowledging contemporary philosophical influences, it is critical to interpret Paul's writings within the broader biblical revelation and the theological affirmations of the early church. The doctrine of Christ's preeminence and divine nature is firmly grounded in scripture and affirmed by early Christian theology.
@Sean Kasabuske
Your claim that πρωτότοκος ("firstborn") intrinsically carries a partitive meaning is not substantiated by linguistic evidence. According to Luis C. Reyes' detailed analysis (https://t.ly/PwyKL), there is no inherent partitive semantic value in the isolated term πρωτότοκος. This means that πρωτότοκος does not inherently imply that the firstborn is part of the group to which it refers. This is a crucial point because the partitive interpretation hinges on the assumption that πρωτότοκος intrinsically means "part of the group." However, linguistic evidence shows that such an intrinsic partitive meaning cannot be isolated within the term itself.
Reyes and other scholars have examined numerous instances of πρωτότοκος in the Septuagint (LXX) and the New Testament. They found that the term does not always imply partitive inclusion. For example, in Hebrews 1:6, πρωτότοκος refers to Christ being brought into the world, emphasizing His unique status without implying He is part of the creation.
Psalm 89:27 does call David God's "firstborn," but the term here signifies rank and preeminence rather than partitive membership. The phrase "I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth" uses πρωτότοκος metaphorically to denote David's superior status among kings, not his inclusion in a group of literal firstborns. This usage aligns with the broader biblical pattern where "firstborn" often denotes preeminence or special status, as seen in Exodus 4:22, where Israel is called God's firstborn, emphasizing its special status among nations, not a literal birth order.
In Colossians 1:15-18, the term πρωτότοκος is used to underscore Christ's supremacy over all creation. Paul’s use of πρωτότοκος here does not imply that Christ is part of the created order. Instead, it highlights His authority and preeminence. Colossians 1:16-17 clarifies this by stating that all things were created through Him and for Him, placing Christ above and before all creation. This fits with the broader theological context where Christ is acknowledged as the agent of creation (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2), not as a part of it.
The argument by some Jehovah’s Witnesses that the genitive construction (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως) must be partitive is flawed. As highlighted by Reyes, the partitive interpretation is not linguistically required. The genitive can also denote a relationship of preeminence or supremacy over the group mentioned, without implying partitive inclusion. This is evident in biblical examples where "firstborn" signifies rank or status conferred by God, rather than literal birth order or group membership.
Scholars like Nigel Turner acknowledge the possibility of a partitive sense but do not conclude that πρωτότοκος inherently places Christ within the created order. Instead, the term is used to emphasize Christ's preeminence. Furthermore, the broader theological context of Colossians, which emphasizes Christ's role in creation and His divine nature, supports the interpretation of πρωτότοκος as denoting supremacy rather than partitive inclusion.
@Anonymous
I see, you wanted to take the job on the easy side and instead of a personalized answer, you started copying.
The assertion that πρωτότοκος ("firstborn") intrinsically carries a partitive force is not supported by linguistic evidence. As discussed by Luis C. Reyes (https://t.ly/PwyKL), there is no inherent partitive semantic value in the isolated term πρωτότοκος. The term itself does not necessitate inclusion in a group unless specified by the context. In Colossians 1:15, the context emphasizes Christ's supremacy over creation rather than His inclusion within it. The phrase "firstborn of all creation" (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως) signifies His preeminence and authority over all creation, aligning with biblical themes of Christ's divine role in creation (John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2).
"`The firstborn of the sheep` is the `firstborn sheep of the sheep` `the firstborn of Jacob` is the firstborn son of Jacob`."
Yes, but the lamb was born of a lamb, Jacob's firstborn was born of Jacob, but the Son was not born of the "whole creation" or of a specific creature, but of the Father. All your examples are just examples of the first born being in the category it was born from. In ALL the examples provided (e.g., the firstborn of Jacob), the firstborn is part of the group because of biological lineage. Luis C. Reyes' analysis challenges the notion that πρωτότοκος inherently carries a partitive meaning. The term does not intrinsically possess a partitive semantic value, and its meaning must be derived from the context in which it is used.
The term πρωτότοκος ("firstborn") can refer to both chronological birth order and rank or preeminence. In biblical contexts, it often signifies a position of honor, authority, rank and preeminence rather than mere chronological birth order. This is also supported by the jw.org sources copied above, so you don't believe them either? For example, in Psalm 89:27, David is called God's "firstborn," meaning he holds the highest rank among kings, not that he is the first king chronologically. The distinction between rank and birth order is clear in biblical usage. While Reuben was the firstborn of Jacob, he lost his primogeniture to Joseph, yet he retained the title "firstborn." This shows that "firstborn" can refer to a position of honor and authority rather than strict partitive inclusion.
While many examples of πρωτότοκος in the Septuagint (LXX) involve partitive genitive constructions, this does not prove that the term intrinsically carries a partitive meaning. Each instance must be evaluated contextually. In Colossians 1:15, the context does not support a partitive interpretation. Instead, it emphasizes Christ's role as supreme over all creation, which aligns with His divine nature and preexistence (John 1:1-3).
Lexical semantics must consider both intrinsic meaning and contextual usage. The term πρωτότοκος does not inherently carry a partitive meaning; its interpretation depends on context. In Colossians 1:15, the broader theological context indicates Christ's preeminence over creation, not His inclusion within it. This interpretation is consistent with other New Testament passages affirming Christ's divine role in creation (Hebrews 1:2-3). The term TA PANTA ("all things") includes all of creation, and Christ's preexistence and creative role are affirmed by phrases like "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).
The primary meaning of πρωτότοκος as "firstborn" includes both chronological and rank-based interpretations, depending on context. While in some contexts it refers to birth order, in others, it signifies preeminence and authority.
@Anonymous
"To the ancient Israelites the Father alone was the Only True God and the Creator."
However, the term "the Father" here, especially in the Old Testament, is not synonymous with God the Father (from whom the Son/Logos was born before all aeons), but with God, because while the Son only has a filial relationship with God the Father, the Father of creation is the whole Deity (theotes). Malachi 2:10 affirms monotheism and the belief in one Creator God. This is consistent with the New Testament's depiction of Christ as the divine agent of creation, acting in unity with the Father. The New Testament presents a complex understanding of the Godhead, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons within the one divine essence. This does not contradict the affirmation of one Creator God but enriches the understanding of God's nature and work in creation.
The concept of Jesus being "made first" is inconsistent with biblical teaching. Colossians 1:16-17 states that "all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." This language indicates that Jesus is preeminent over creation, not a part of it. He is eternal, existing before all things, and the agent through whom all things were made. Furthermore, John 1:3 explicitly states, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." This affirms that Jesus is the Creator, not a created being.
While Jesus is indeed the "firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), this refers to His preeminence in resurrection, not that He was the first to be resurrected chronologically. Others, like Lazarus, were raised before Jesus, but Christ's resurrection is unique because He was raised to eternal life and exalted to the right hand of God, thus guaranteeing the resurrection of all believers. The Scriptures do not exclusively attribute Jesus' resurrection to the Father. Various passages indicate that Jesus actively participated in His own resurrection: John 2:19-21: Jesus explicitly states, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The disciples later understood this to mean He was speaking of His body (John 2:22). This passage directly attributes the power of resurrection to Jesus Himself. John 10:17-18: Jesus declares, "I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." This indicates Jesus' active role and authority in His resurrection. John 11:25: Jesus proclaims, "I am the resurrection and the life." This statement emphasizes that resurrection is intrinsically tied to His divine identity and power. These passages demonstrate that Jesus was not merely a passive recipient of resurrection but had an active role and divine authority in His resurrection. This participation further underscores His divinity and unity with the Father in the work of salvation.
The phrase "all creation" in Colossians 1:23 refers to humanity, as the gospel is preached to people, not to angels or animals. This does not diminish the scope of "all" in Colossians 1:16, where "all things" clearly includes everything created, both visible and invisible, as the context specifies. The context of "all things" in Colossians 1:16-17 is comprehensive, including thrones, powers, rulers, and authorities—terms that encompass the entire created order, including angelic beings.
@Anonymous
Hebrews 1:10-12 applies Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son to affirm His divinity and eternal nature. The author of Hebrews is making the point that the Son shares in the divine attributes and works attributed to Yahweh, specifically creation and immutability. The New Testament often applies Old Testament passages about Yahweh to Jesus to highlight His divine nature. This is consistent with the overall New Testament portrayal of Jesus as fully God and fully man (John 1:1, 14). The Evangelist John says (John 12:41) that Isaiah saw (through divine revelation) Christ's glory (tēn dóxan autou)—the divine power and nature of the future Messiah and Redeemer, which was manifested to the Jews through Jesus' teachings and miracles. Here, John is referring to the majestic vision received by the prophet at his calling, described in Isaiah 6:1-10, and to the Adonai, the Lord, seen in that vision (Isaiah 6:1), whom the Targum specifically refers to using the term "the glory of Yahweh."
Micah 5:4 indeed acknowledges that the Messiah has a God, emphasizing His humanity. However, this does not negate His divinity. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that Jesus, in His incarnation, submitted to the Father, but this submission does not imply inferiority in essence. Hebrews 2:7 acknowledges Jesus' incarnation, where He was made lower than the angels for a time. However, Hebrews 1:3 and 1:8-12 affirm His eternal divine nature and role in creation. His temporary humiliation does not contradict His eternal divinity. The "works of your hands" in Hebrews 2:7 refers to Jesus' authority over creation, a role given to Him in His exaltation after the resurrection as a man, as seen in Philippians 2:9-11.
The attribution of Psalm 102 to Jesus in Hebrews 1 underscores the Son's full participation in the divine identity and work. The New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as the agent of creation and the sustainer of all things (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2-3). This application is not merely functional but ontological, indicating that Jesus shares in the divine essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
While Jesus received authority and power in His incarnation (Matthew 28:18), this does not imply He lacked divinity. It highlights His role within the Trinity and His voluntary submission during His earthly ministry. By the way, it is also a dogma that the Son received his existence and divinity (everything) from the Father, just not in time, and not through creation, but through eternal generation, begetting, and not in an ontologically inferior way.
@Anonymous
Hebrews 2:7 and Psalm 8:6 do speak of Jesus being appointed over the works of God's hands, but this does not imply that Jesus is not the Creator. The appointment highlights Jesus’ authority and role in the divine plan, emphasizing His preeminence. The New Testament consistently portrays Jesus as both fully God and fully man, with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit working in harmony. The concept of appointment can be seen as a formal acknowledgment of Jesus' role in the divine order rather than a denial of His creative work.
The analogy of Paul is not fully applicable to Jesus' role in creation. While Paul is a human instrument through whom God worked, Jesus is portrayed as the divine Logos, through whom all things were made. The New Testament distinguishes between the roles of humans like Paul and the divine nature of Jesus. The miracles performed through Paul were by the power of God working through a human agent. In contrast, creation through Jesus involves Him as the divine agent of creation itself, integral to the Godhead.
The concept of appointment does not negate Jesus' role as Creator. In the context of the incarnation, Jesus, who is fully God and fully man, is given authority and dominion as the Messiah. Philippians 2:9-11 speaks of Jesus being exalted and given the name above every name after His obedience unto death. This exaltation and appointment reflect His messianic role and the fulfillment of God's redemptive plan. The Father's appointment of Jesus over creation can be seen as a recognition of His victory and authority in the redemptive process, not a statement about His creative role.
The identification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 with Jesus in the New Testament is metaphorical and typological, not literal. Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom in a poetic and literary manner to emphasize the value and eternality of God’s wisdom. This is different from making a direct ontological statement about the pre-existence of Jesus. The theological use of Wisdom in later Christian thought (such as in John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-20) emphasizes the eternality and divine nature of Jesus as the Logos, not as a created entity.
The Syriac translation's use of "brny" aligns with a certain theological perspective that emphasizes creation. However, the underlying Hebrew text of Proverbs uses the term "qanah," which can mean "acquired" or "possessed," as well as "created." The Greek Septuagint (LXX) also uses "ktizo," meaning "created," but this is part of the interpretive tradition and not a definitive linguistic mandate. Moreover, the broader canonical context, particularly in the New Testament, reveals Jesus as eternally begotten, not made (John 1:1-3, 14; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2-3). By the way, according to researchers, among the OT books of the Peshitta, Proverbs is the one most influenced by the LXX.
In Jewish thought, Wisdom literature uses personification to convey theological truths about God’s wisdom and creative power. Early Christians adopted and adapted these concepts to articulate the pre-existent Christ. For example, in John 1:1-3, the Logos (Word) is identified with Jesus, who is with God and is God, participating in the creation of all things. The use of personified Wisdom in Proverbs is an antecedent to, but not a direct one-to-one identification with, the divine Logos. Furthermore, the theological articulation of Jesus' nature in the New Testament goes beyond the literary personification found in Proverbs.
@Anonymous
"So since this guy believes Jesus, the Father, and holy spirit are three persons but one God, he also believes the Father and holy spirit are the firstborn of all creation since they are one God."
I think that the title "The Firstborn" belongs to the entire deity in relation to the kosmos/olam/world and the "whole creation", but it is especially applied to the Son because he was appointed as the Messianic King in relation to the whole created world. The Trinitarian view acknowledges that Christ became part of creation when He "became flesh" (John 1:14, Philippians 2:1-6). Therefore, the idea that Jesus is a member of creation does not contradict Trinitarian theology but rather supports it.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
"neither you nor you confederates can produce a SINGLE exception"
Why, how many pieces of Christ do you think there should be? It goes without saying that there is only one of him, so such titles cannot arise in any other case.
Isaiah 45:5 emphasizes monotheism and God's sovereignty, stating, "I am the LORD, and there is no other." The New Testament expands on this revelation by revealing the triune nature of God, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons yet one in essence. The Son's involvement in creation does not diminish the Father's role but rather demonstrates the unity and cooperation within the Godhead.
The use of “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15 is about supremacy, not necessarily inclusion within a set of created beings. Jesus being the agent (διά, dia) through whom creation occurred indicates His divine role in creation. John 1:3 supports this by stating that “all things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made,” indicating that Jesus Himself is not a part of the created order but the divine agent of creation.
The comparison with Genesis 3:20 ("Adam named his wife Eve because she would become the mother of all the living") does not align with the context of Colossians 1:15. Adam and Eve are distinct from their offspring; similarly, Christ, as the agent of creation, is distinct from the created order. The argument here fails to recognize the distinction between the creator and the created in the biblical context.
The idea that the one who acts through another must necessarily outrank the agent is not a universal principle. The Father and the Son, within the Trinity, share in the divine essence and work harmoniously in creation and redemption. Philippians 2:6-7 describes Christ as existing in the form of God and taking on human form, indicating His divine status and voluntary submission in the economy of salvation. Hebrews 1:10-12 applies Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son, demonstrating that the Son shares in the work of creation, highlighting His divine nature.
Your statement misinterprets the use of διά (dia). In the New Testament, the term is used to describe the means by which creation occurred, with Christ as the divine agent. This does not imply subordination in essence but rather a functional role within the Godhead. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal, working together in creation and redemption. Isaiah 45:5 states there is no other God besides Yahweh, but this monotheistic declaration does not exclude the plurality of persons within the one divine essence. The consistent testimony of Scripture affirms the deity of Christ and His active role in creation, as seen in John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:16-17.
@Duncan
The argument attempts to connect Vergil’s use of ktisis (foundation) poetry in the Aeneid with the New Testament’s usage of similar language, suggesting a shared cultural or literary backdrop. However, this comparison is misleading. The Greek term "ktisis" and its use in the New Testament primarily conveys the act of creation by God and the establishment of a new order through Christ, distinct from Roman or Greek foundation myths which are more political and mythological in nature. This distinction highlights a fundamental difference in the purposes and contexts of the texts.
For a deeper understanding of the biblical usage and its theological implications, refer to the detailed analysis available here: https://t.ly/4cZ36
You may check these too:
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/irish-biblical-studies/24-3_099.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/5614052/Searching_for_Divine_Wisdom_Proverbs_8_22_31_in_Its_Interpretive_Context
https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/proverbs/patristic-citations-of-proverbs
https://ub01.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/128657/Bons_149.pdf
https://www.abarim-publications.com/DictionaryG/k/k-t-i-z-om.html
https://www.studylight.org/lexicons/eng/greek/2936.html
https://www.academia.edu/29768610/Is_there_Scriptural_Legitimacy_for_Jehovah_s_Witnesses_Christology_of_the_Firstborn_as_the_First_of_God_s_Created_Beings
I've already explained why you are incorrect about 89:27:
"I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth."
There firstborn is clearly partitive. You can't be the highest "of the kings of the earth" unless you're part of the group, "kings of the earth". David was above all *other* kings, but was still a member of the class "kings of the earth".
You're also misusing Numbers 23:9, as you're confusing a decision with the reality that makes the decision possible and meaningful. It is precisely because Israel is a people of the earth that makes it possible to *decide* not to count Israel among the *other* peoples of the earth.
A couple translations make clear what is implied:
"I see a people who live by themselves, set apart from other nations." ~ NLT
"I see a nation that lives by itself, people who do not consider themselves to be like other nations." ~ GODS WORD Translation
Like I said, so far no one has made it past the first part of the two-part challenge.
Nics, it's not dismissed so easily by you especially when you start out with Athanasius in the 4th century. It more than slightly anachronistic.
Nics, the Byzantine data also demonstrates an ongoing understanding of the term that does not fit with your assertion.
https://www.tyndalebulletin.org/article/27690-king-of-kings-in-other-words-colossians-1-15a-as-a-designation-of-authority-rather-than-revelation
@Sean Kasabuske
The notion that the Son was not created/made by the Father, but was born or begotten, and that it is not Michael, but God, was not "invented" by that bogeyman Athanasius and not in the 4th century. For instance, Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, wrote, “…so that we know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures.” Check these resources:
https://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm
Psalm 89:27 - The term "firstborn" here signifies rank and preeminence, not necessarily partitivity. The king is not one of the kings because "firstborn of X" is automatically and inherently a partitive formula, but because of conceptual necessity. But if you just replace/substitute "prototokos" in Col. 1:15 with "one who holds the birthright, preeminent position" (jw.org writes this), then it becomes clear that "the "one who holds the birthright, being in a preeminent position of the whole creation".
Numbers 23:9 states that Israel is not counted among the nations, highlighting their unique status as God's chosen people, distinct from other nations. The translations provided reinforce Israel's separation and distinctiveness, not their inclusion within a broader category.
NLT: "I see a people who live by themselves, set apart from other nations."
GOD'S WORD Translation: "I see a nation that lives by itself, people who do not consider themselves to be like other nations."
I can only encourage you to read these:
https://t.ly/Xs5QN
https://t.ly/PwyKL
JWs argue that “the firstborn of” always indicates the firstborn is part of the named group, implying similarity and equality. For example, the firstborn of an animal is an animal, and the firstborn of Pharaoh is part of Pharaoh’s family. They suggest that the firstborn of creation must be part of creation, thus a created being. This reasoning is flawed. If taken to its logical conclusion, it suggests absurdities like creation being the parent of Jesus. This clearly is not the intended meaning of "firstborn of creation."
The “firstborn” is indeed “part of the group”, but ONLY IF in fact the word “firstborn” is used in a literal sense; otherwise, this rule does not necessarily apply. But the term “firstborn of” in the scriptures can have non-literal meanings. For instance, creation cannot literally give birth, so Colossians 1:15 must be understood figuratively. A Greek lexicon analysis shows that "firstborn" (prototokos) has no literal definition when not applied to man or beast, further supporting the non-literal interpretation. Throughout the Bible, “firstborn” is often used figuratively, always explained by context.
1. Honorable distinction or preeminence: Verses like Exodus 4:22, Psalm 89:27, Jeremiah 31:9, Hebrews 1:6, Hebrews 12:22-23, Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:18, and Revelation 1:5 use “firstborn” to signify honor and preeminence. For example, God calls Israel “My firstborn” in Exodus 4:22 to highlight their special status. In Hebrews 12:22-23, Christians are called the “firstborn” to signify their favored status as God’s children.
2. Superlative form of an adjective: In Isaiah 14:30 and Job 18:13, “firstborn” is used to mean the most extreme or significant. Isaiah 14:30’s “firstborn of the poor” refers to the most miserable of the poor, and Job 18:13’s “firstborn of death” signifies the deadliest disease.
3. Title for birthright owner: In Deuteronomy 21:16, “firstborn” refers to the heir or person given the birthright, not necessarily the eldest. This shows that “firstborn” can signify a position of honor or inheritance rather than literal birth order.
Given these non-literal usages, it is essential to interpret "firstborn" in context. In Colossians 1:15-16, Paul calls Christ the “firstborn” because He created all things, bestowing on Him the unique honor of priority and dignity. This interpretation aligns with the biblical usage of the term. Therefore, Jesus holds preeminence over every creature, underscoring His divinity.
JWs inconsistently apply the so-colled „rules,” such as with the comma placement in Luke 23:43. While they argue that "firstborn of" always indicates being part of the group, Colossians 1:15 must be understood contextually. The expression “firstborn of all creation” differs from other usages like “firstborn of Pharaoh.” Colossians 1:15-17 states that by Him all things were created, indicating Jesus is not part of creation but the creator.
Paul’s use of “firstborn” signifies preeminence and honor, not literal birth order. Jesus is referred to as the “firstborn among many brethren,” “the firstborn of all creation,” and “the firstborn from the dead,” highlighting His supreme status. This preeminence supports translating “firstborn of all creation” as “preeminent over all creation.”
Isaiah 44:24 states that God alone created all things. This, combined with Colossians and John 1:3, shows that Jesus was with God during creation, affirming His divinity. The term "firstborn" indicates preeminence rather than creation. In Genesis 41:51-52 and Jeremiah 31:9, "firstborn" implies a status of honor, not merely being the first child.
@Anonymous
You refer to the Syriac translation of Proverbs 8:22-31 to claim that Wisdom, depicted as created, supports the idea that Jesus (as Wisdom) is also a created being. The identification of Wisdom in Proverbs 8 with Jesus in the New Testament is metaphorical and typological, not literal. Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom in a poetic and literary manner to emphasize the value and eternality of God’s wisdom. This is different from making a direct ontological statement about the pre-existence of Jesus. The theological use of Wisdom in later Christian thought (such as in John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:15-20) emphasizes the eternality and divine nature of Jesus as the Logos, not as a created entity.
Translations often reflect interpretive choices. The Syriac translation's use of "brny" aligns with a certain theological perspective that emphasizes creation. However, the underlying Hebrew text of Proverbs uses the term "qanah," which can mean "acquired" or "possessed," as well as "created." The Greek Septuagint (LXX) also uses "ktizo," meaning "created," but this is part of the interpretive tradition and not a definitive linguistic mandate. Moreover, the broader canonical context, particularly in the New Testament, reveals Jesus as eternally begotten, not made (John 1:1-3, 14; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2-3).
In Jewish thought, Wisdom literature uses personification to convey theological truths about God’s wisdom and creative power. Early Christians adopted and adapted these concepts to articulate the pre-existent Christ. For example, in John 1:1-3, the Logos (Word) is identified with Jesus, who is with God and is God, participating in the creation of all things. The use of personified Wisdom in Proverbs is an antecedent to, but not a direct one-to-one identification with, the divine Logos. Furthermore, the theological articulation of Jesus' nature in the New Testament goes beyond the literary personification found in Proverbs.
The New Testament teaches that Jesus, as the divine Logos, is fully involved in creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). The "appointment" language in Hebrews 1:2 and Psalm 8:6 reflects the incarnational economy where Jesus, in His humanity, is given dominion and authority. This does not negate His divine role as Creator but rather highlights His mediatorial role in redemption and His exaltation post-resurrection (Philippians 2:9-11)
Hebrews 1:10-12 explicitly applies the attributes and actions of God in Psalm 102 to Jesus, indicating His divine nature and eternal existence. This is not merely about a mediatorial role but an affirmation of Jesus' full participation in the divine essence and creative work. The broader context of Hebrews 1 presents Jesus as the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word (Hebrews 1:3).
Proverbs uses poetic personification to exalt divine Wisdom, a concept later applied to Christ to highlight His divine and eternal nature, not His creation. The New Testament consistently presents Jesus as the divine Logos, pre-existent and co-creator with the Father, upholding all things. The idea of Jesus as a created being is contrary to the weight of biblical evidence affirming His deity and eternal existence.
The wisdom at Proverbs 8:22 is CREATED "CANA" and thus cannot refer to JEHOVAH'S Eternal wisdom,but is an expression of that wisdom at a definite point in time( a beginning) hence it is spoken of as being "apo arkhe" from the beginning at 1John Ch.1:1 Logos is always used in the context of communication between minds and not of mere gnosis within a single mind.
There is NO co-creator there is only one creator i.e the God and Father of Jesus,
Isaiah Ch.44:24ASV"Thus saith JEHOVAH, thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb: I am JEHOVAH, that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens ALONE; that spreadeth abroad the earth (who is with me?);"
ALL of the power and wisdom manifest in the creation has its source in the God and Father of Jesus ALONE.
“However, the term "the Father" here, especially in the Old Testament, is not synonymous with God the Father (from whom the Son/Logos was born before all aeons), but with God,” - that’s redefining the meaning to the word and interpreting it differently throughout
When the OT says “God” they mean the Father
Not the trinity itself
Adding another to my counter Ninc
@aservantofJEHOVAH
Read my notes regarding Proverbs 8:22 https://justpaste.it/aisrx
"at a definite point in time( a beginning)"
However, the text does not say "breshit" (at the beginning), but "reshit", which does not indicate time ("AT the beginning"), but makes it a double accusative structure ("AS the beginning").However, the text does not say "Breshit" (at the beginning), but simply "reshit", which does not indicate time ("AT the beginning"), but makes it a double accusative structure ("AS the beginning"). The text of the LXX does not have εν ἀρχῇ either, but ἀρχὴν. The Septuagint's use of "ἀρχὴν" (archēn) instead of "ἐν ἀρχῇ" (en archē) supports the interpretation of Wisdom as the beginning or first principle rather than indicating a temporal beginning. In Hebrew, "reshit" indicates a double accusative structure, meaning "as the beginning" rather than "at the beginning," emphasizing Wisdom’s role and not a specific point in time. John’s Gospel emphasizes the preexistence of the Logos, indicating that Jesus (the Logos) is eternal and divine. The Logos WAS with God already "in the beginning," not created at a point in time.
The Hebrew word “qanah” in Proverbs 8:22, often translated as "created," can also mean "possessed" or "acquired." This semantic range opens the possibility that Wisdom was not created but possessed eternally by God, reflecting His inherent nature. The Greek translation (LXX) uses "ektise" (created), yet this does not necessarily imply a temporal beginning of Wisdom but can express the manifestation of eternal Wisdom in creation. The Septuagint’s use of "ektise" does not necessarily denote a created being but can imply the manifestation of an eternal attribute in the created order.
Proverbs 8 employs personification, where Wisdom speaks as if a person. This literary device illustrates God’s Wisdom in creation without implying that Wisdom is a separate, created entity. Jewish understanding often views Wisdom as an attribute of God, inherent and eternal, rather than a created being. This aligns with seeing Wisdom as a representation of God’s eternal attributes. The concept of Logos in Greek philosophy and Jewish thought encompasses more than mere communication; it signifies the rational principle of the universe, a mediator between God and the world.
The term "apo arche" (from the beginning) in 1 John 1:1 refers to the eternal existence of the Word (Logos), indicating preexistence rather than creation. It emphasizes the Word’s timeless nature, being with God already from the start.
Isaiah 44:24 YHWH declares Himself as the sole Creator, this statement does not exclude the involvement of the consubstantial Son, but this clearly excludes the demiurge Michael-Jesus. Hebrews 1:10 quotes Psalm 102:25-27, applying it to Jesus: “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands.” This verse explicitly identifies Jesus as the Creator, affirming His divinity and eternal nature. This aligns with the broader biblical witness of Jesus' involvement in creation (Hebrews 1:2, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16).
You interpret statements of God’s singularity in creation as excluding Jesus’ involvement. However, the broader biblical context shows these statements highlight God's ultimate authority while not excluding the cooperative work within the Godhead. The application of Psalm 102 to Jesus in Hebrews 1:10 underscores His deity and role in creation, reinforcing that He is not a created being but the eternal Creator.
And reading again, Ninc is making a case about ek in col 1:18… however is failing to mention important information to his readers…
Rev 1:5 and a variant of col 1:18 omits “ek” in firstborn of the dead - ALL reputable scholars ( and the church fathers) connect col 1:18 and rev 1:5 ( firstborn of the dead) they mean the same thing with or without “‘ek”
Whether he likes it or not… that argument is null and void
And if ek was so important for making some tbh of part of a category: why is it omitted in other places to classify part of a group?
By nincs logic here: Jesus is still part of the dead… which is false
Atha, shamounian, bowman and Robertson - all scholars ( except atha, shamounian does better scholarship than most, I’ll give him that ) who have lied at one point, are more credible than Ninc on this subject.. who I have caught out over 100 times.. which he has then lied again..
And I have little respect for Bowman.. and less for shamounian
"This semantic range opens the possibility that Wisdom was not created but possessed eternally by God, reflecting His inherent nature. " - The results of one study taking all occurrences of qanah show that it literally means "something [person] did not possess before" as in it is something newly acquired or bought or created
"it a double accusative structure " - nope it does not, it is Hebrew apposition and can be used to signify something means the same thing... note 22 -25 Where certain words are used to mean the same thing
"The Septuagint’s use of "ektise" does not necessarily denote a created being but can imply the manifestation of an eternal attribute in the created order." - sure
"Isaiah 44:24 YHWH declares Himself as the sole Creator, this statement does not exclude the involvement of the consubstantial Son, but this clearly excludes the demiurge Michael-Jesus." - Tetullian covers this point, it omits false gods, but does not omit the son as the agent of creation...
I could say more... But readers get my point
I specifically referred to 1John Ch.1:1 which mentions the Logos as existing "apo arkhe" why do you keep ignoring my actual arguments in favor of your strawman.
The demiurge is eternal not a creation of God and so more resembles Christendom's claim of a co-creator, the Logos being created cannot be regarded as a supplement/co-creator as the information and energy that constitute him came out of his creator and is not innate.
JEHOVAH is the God and Father of Jesus according to Jesus own testimony see John ch.8:54
It is illogical to speak of JEHOVAH as possessing wisdom from the beginning of creation or to speak of creation as being without a beginning the use of the term Logos at John ch.1:1 shows that an expression of JEHOVAH'S innate Wisdom is what is meant and not his innate wisdom itself and the expression "apo arkhe" that this expression occurred at a definite point in the past.
Cana is never used in the Scripture in the sense of possessed but always in the sense of either produced or acquired even the very catholic Jerusalem Bible recognizes produced/created as the sense favored by the context at proverbs ch.8:22.
What we have at Hebrews Ch.1:10 is an example what is called the Law of agency that is that what is done to or by the agent can be spoken of as being done to or by the authority who authorized and empowered him to act and vice versa, nothing more mystical than that is happening here,
For instance the achiement of giving the JEHOVAH'S Law to Israel is ascribed to both Moses and JEHOVAH with no implication that their roles in this matter were of equal importance or that Moses was in any kind of mystical union with JEHOVAH see John ch.7:19 Psalm ch.147:19
The apostle Paul under inspiration applies a Messianic prophecy to himself see acts Ch.13:47 if we are to consistently apply trinitarian logic then we must add the apostle Paul along with the prophet Moses to christendom's incomprehensible(their words) Godhead
Proverbs ch.8:22 according to the septuagint"κύριος
8:22 The LORD
2936
έκτισέ
created
1473
με
me
746
αρχήν
the head
3598-1473
οδών αυτού
of his ways
1519
εις
for
2041-1473
έργα αυτού
his works.
Strong's on reshith:◄ 7225. reshith ►
Strong's Concordance
reshith: beginning, chief
Original Word: רֵאשִׁית
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: reshith
Phonetic Spelling: (ray-sheeth')
Definition: beginning, chief
Brown driver brings on where reshith is likely being used in the sense of beginning:
.a beginning of kingdom Genesis 10:10 (J), year Deuteronomy 11:12, reign Jeremiah 26:1; Jeremiah 27:1; Jeremiah 28:1; Jeremiah 49:34;= first phase, step, or element in course of events Isaiah 46:10 (opposed to אַחֲרִית); of a thing (דָּבָר) Ecclesiastes 7:8 (opposed to id.); of sin Micah 1:13, strife Proverbs 17:14, wisdom Psalm 111:10, knowledge Proverbs 1:7 thy beginning Job 8:7 #NAME?his beginning Job 42:12 (both opposed to אַחֲרִית), ׳ר before clause, ׳בָּרָא א ׳בְּר Genesis 1:1 in the beginning when god created (> absolute in the beginning God created); אֹנִי ׳ר Genesis 49:3 (poem) beginning (first product) of my manly vigour ("" בְּכֹרִי כֹּחִי so Deuteronomy 21:17; Psalm 78:51 (both "" בְּכוֺת Psalm 105:36; compare דֵּרְכֵי אֵל ׳ר Job 40:19 (of hippopotamus), דַּרְכּוֺ ׳ר PROVERBS 8:22 (OF WISDOM);=first season (of a tree)
@Anonymous
We have already discussed this many times, nothing follows from the text variants your refer to. Christ is at the same time one of the dead (because the form with the "ek" is declared about him in Col. 1:18, and specifically that he died) and that he has supremacy over them, so he legitimately uses both turns. This does not prove that with "ek" and without "ek" the two mean the same thing.
For example just because there is a certain person who is both a coach and a member of a sports team, and it both can be said about this specific person that he is "the coach of the team" and at the same time that he is "the coach from the team", it does not follow that the two expressions mean the same thing in an equivalent general sense, and every single coaches are automatically players at the same time of their respective team.
It does not follow at all from the fact that Christ is said to be "firstborn of the dead" (Rev. 1:5) and "firstborn from the dead" (Rev. 1:5) that these two expressions are equivalent, and it does not follow that "firstborn of all creation" is equivalent to that "the firstborn of all creatures."
Your argument assumes that the absence of "ἐκ" in Revelation 1:5 means the same as its presence in Colossians 1:18. This is incorrect because "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" specifically highlights Jesus' resurrection from the dead, an event that underscores His unique role and supremacy. Greek grammar nuances matter. The use of "ἐκ" specifies origin, indicating Jesus was the first to be resurrected and never to die again. Its absence shifts focus to His position among the dead.
Like a certain person can be both a "coach of a team" and a "coach from the team", but these roles emphasize different aspects. Similarly, Jesus can be described in terms that emphasize different aspects of His relationship to creation and resurrection. In Colossians 1:15, "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" (firstborn over all creation) emphasizes Jesus' authority over creation, not inclusion as part of creation. The context of the passage emphasizes His supremacy and preeminence (Colossians 1:16-17). Your interpretation conflates the distinct roles described by the presence or absence of "ἐκ." Proper exegesis requires recognizing the specific theological emphasis in each passage.
The presence or absence of "ἐκ" (ek) affects the specific contextual meaning but does not imply general equivalence across different usages. "Πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν" (firstborn OF the dead) and "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" (firstborn FROM the dead) emphasize different aspects of Christ's role. In Colossians 1:15, "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" (firstborn of all creation) highlights Jesus' supremacy and preeminence over creation, not His inclusion as part of it. The argument that "ἐκ" could be implied is invalid as it changes the intended meaning, making it inconsistent with the broader theological context. The inclusion of "ἐκ" specifies originating from within a group, while its absence in "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" indicates authority over the group. Assuming equivalence between "of" and "from" without context leads to misinterpretation. Greek grammar and syntax must be understood within their specific contexts. Applying the same meaning of "πρωτότοκος" with and without "ἐκ" across different passages without contextual consideration is a flawed approach.
The interpretation that "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" (Colossians 1:15) means "firstborn from all creation" (implying Christ is part of creation) is incorrect. The term signifies preeminence over creation, consistent with biblical usage of "firstborn" as indicating supremacy and authority. The use of "πρωτότοκος" with and without "ἐκ" in different passages underscores distinct theological points about Jesus' role and nature. Colossians 1:15 uses "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" to denote Jesus' supreme authority over all creation, not His inclusion in it. This contextually nuanced understanding invalidates your argument that "firstborn of all creation" means Jesus is a created being.
Anyway, there is no text variant that includes "ek" in verse 15, and it's never declared about the Son the He was created/made by the Father, but on the contrary, it's declared that He was born/begotten.
By the way, if this is such a fundamentally important teaching that the Son is a creature and was created, then why is this not stated explicitly anywhere and should be speculated in such an imbecile way? If the Son were a creature, this foundational doctrine would be explicitly stated in Scripture. The lack of such a statement and the consistent depiction of Jesus as begotten/born rather than created/made supports His divine nature and preeminence over creation.
@Anonymous
This is a mistake, the Father-Son in NT sense is not explained in the Old Testament, it only appears in the New Testament. The concept of "Father" in the Old Testament often denotes God’s relationship with His creation and His people as a whole, not specifically the First Person of the Trinity.
When we speak in the relation of creation-God, or fatherhood-sonship, it does not exist (only) with God the Father, but with the entire Godhead. "Our Father" is not (only) the person from whom the Son was born, but the entire Godhead. It is also declared e.g. In Isaiah 9:6, the Son is the "Everlasting Father" as well, which supports the idea that titles within the Trinity are fluid and context-dependent, highlighting the unity and distinct roles within the Godhead.
Christ also indicated several times that in his case there is an ontologically different kind of sonship relationship than between us, which is why he said "my Father *AND* your Father" (John 20:17), which highlight the unique Sonship of Jesus, distinct from the general filial relationship believers have with God. There is also a linguistic distinction in John's writings: Jesus is the Son (huios), and we are the children (teknon). The relational distinctions within the Godhead are more fully revealed in the New Testament.
In many biblical contexts, “Father” can be a synonym for God as a whole, representing the entire Godhead (Trinity), not just the First Person. Remember, usually "Father is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God" (Encyclopedia of Religion, 54). So, the term "the Father" only refers to the first person of the Trinity (the Father of the Son) if "the Father" is specifically mentioned in the context in opposition to "the Son", otherwise it means the entire Trinity, with whom the creatures have a Father-sonship (children of God) relationship.
@Anonymous
The JW argument is based on the following facts
1. According to Revelation 1:5, the Son is "πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν" (no ἐκ) according to the established text
2. According to Colossians 1:18 and "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" (with ἐκ) according to the established text
3. There is a total of one manuscript variant that adds ἐκ in Revelation 1:5 and a few manuscript variants that omit ἐκ in Colossians 1:18
According to JW's argument, it follows that:
1. "πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν" and "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" are equivalent in terms of content, and the textual variants prove that the copyists understood it in the same way.
2. For the genitive construction "πρωτότοκος" + ἐκ must always be understood, even if it is not there
3. According to them, it also follows that in Colossians 1:15 "πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως" means exactly the same without ἐκ as if it says "πρωτότοκος *ἐκ πάσης κτίσεως"
Answer:
In Col. 1:18 variants such as omission of "ἐκ" are minor and not supported by the most reliable manuscripts In Revelation 1:5 the addition of "ἐκ" in one single manuscripts from the 7th century is not considered original by most critical editions, supporting the standard text without "ἐκ." Hence the NA28 apparatus shows that "ἐκ" in Col. 1:18 has robust manuscript support, indicating its authenticity, and the singular variant in Rev. 1:5 lacks similar support and is not considered original.
The Greek preposition "ἐκ" clarifies the source or origin in Col 1:18, indicating "from among the dead." This usage underscores that Christ is one of the dead, having experienced death and resurrection, emphasizing His primacy in resurrection as well. The omission or presence of "ἐκ" changes the nuance. Without "ἐκ," the phrase can imply a broader relationship, whereas "ἐκ" specifies origin. The presence of "ἐκ" in Colossians 1:18 specifically indicates origin ("from among the dead"), emphasizing Christ's resurrection. The omission in Revelation 1:5 rather emphasizes His primacy over the dead.
Therefore, Col 1:18's "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" does not equate to "πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν", these are not equivalent expressions. This argument fails to consider that the presence or absence of "ἐκ" changes the nuance but does not necessarily imply equivalence in all contexts.
Using the analogy of a coach who is also a player: A person who is both a coach and a player can be referred to as "the coach of the team" and "a coach from the team." These expressions are contextually distinct. "The coach of the team" implies leadership over the team. "A coach from the team" emphasizes the person's origin within the team. Similarly, "πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν" and "πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" have distinct implications, and their meanings are not automatically equivalent.
"Πρωτότοκος" can mean "firstborn" in terms of priority, preeminence or rank, not necessarily as part of the group, particularly in theological contexts like Col 1:15, where it emphasizes Christ's supremacy over creation. The argument that Col 1:15 should be understood as "πρωτότοκος ἐκ πάσης κτίσεως" contradicts the theological assertion of Christ's pre-existence and role as Creator. Christ cannot be part of the creation He Himself created.
Your interpretation that "πρωτότοκος" + genitive implies an automatic "ἐκ" is unsupported. Textual variants and contextual analysis do not validate this equivalence. Therefore, Colossians 1:15 does not imply Christ is part of creation but rather emphasizes His supremacy over it.
Once we've established, as I think we have, that the Son is the first being created by God, then some might be tempted to think of him as a sort of co-creator. While I understand why some might feel compelled to think along those lines, I don't think Paul would agree.
When we look at Col. 1, we note that the passive ἐκτίσθη is used, which tells us that the Son is not the creator, but the instrument through or in whom God created. If you start with verse 15 and proceed backwards, you'll find the creator in verse 12, namely, God. This distinction is important, and its significance is highlighted by two astute commentators I've quoted many times:
Emil Brunner:
"…the world, it is true, was created through — διὰ — the Son, but not by — ὑπo — the Son, that it has been created in Him and unto Him, but that He Himself is never called the Creator." (The Christian Doctrine of God), p. 308
Eduard Lohse:
"It should be noted that ἐν (in), διὰ (through), and εἰς (for) are used, but not ἐξ (from). ‘From whom are all things’ (ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the preexistent Christ is the mediator of creation." (A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, The Hermeneia Series), p. 50, footnote 125
Clearly, if we call the Son "creator" or "co-creator" then we aren't doing justice to the distinctions Paul carefully made.
Some might ask: If we're not going to refer to the Son as co-creator, than how do we properly describe his role in the act of creation?
Here's the analogy that I've been using for years, which I think better captures Paul's distinctions than does called the Son a 'co-creator':
Mozart alone created the wonderful composition Eine kleine Nachtmusik, and every orchestra that has performed it since was not the creator, but a tool used to bring it from the conceptual stage to its physical/audible realization. God is Mozart; the Son is His orchestra.
So, the person who became Jesus the Christ was God’s first created heavenly Son before his earthly sojourn, and this gave him special status in God’s heavenly family as his firstborn. This special Son was then used as the instrument, or master worker, through whom God proceeded to bring his creation from its ‘blueprint’ stage to its physical realization. He was subsequently used to bring about God’s ‘new creation’ as well, which seems most appropriate to me. This is biblical ‘high Christology,’ and I can’t help but smile as I look up at it and bask in the warmth of its radiant glow.
https://www.academia.edu/32760378/Colossians_1_Greek_Exegetical_Method_Paper_by_Charles_Jennings_pdf
I will also mention cause I know Ninc will deny with or without ek they mean the same, that there are 3 textual variants of Rev 1:5 where “ek” is added listed on biblehub ( I know of one other)
Question: why would a scribe remove or add “ek” in both versions of the phrase - intentionally alter the meaning so significantly to what the original writer meant?
Ninc burden of proof is on you to linguistically prove they do not mean the same
When even the very people you refer to justify your position basically admit they mean the same.. and use them interchangeably.. and together to justify just one point
& I will only accept a linguistically justified answer not theologically motivated rubbish..
In my view firstborn from Mary and firstborn of Mary mean basically the same thing ( one denotes origin the other focuses on descent) but the point is it ends with Mary
Jesus is not a descendant of creation but he was not a descendant of the dead either
Firstborn of Israel - this person was not a descendant of the nation of Israel, but an Israelite
Firstborn of death - this disease is not a descendant of death itself
But these all have one thing in common they are are part of their groups and are first in some sense.
(firstborn of the world is relevant unless you want to rely on someone who relied on Jewish mysticism pretty much a form of magic from my understanding)
There is ex at colossians ch.1:15 either so this just more scurrilous pleading. One nonsequitir after another With or without "ex" the prototokos is always a member of the implied group and you are yet to provide a single scripture where that is not the case. You must provide a SCRIPTURAL Precedent for your claim that the lack of "ex" removes the prototokos from the group. I wait patiently for your example.
JEHOVAH is the Father and the God of Israel this Clearly explained in the O.T Malachi ch.2:10NIV"Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?"
N.T Does not deviate.
Ephesians ch 4:6 NIV"one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."
The God and Father of Jesus is plainly declared to be the MOST High God see Luke ch.1:32 thus he is clearly identified as JEHOVAH see psalm ch.83:18.
Jesus himself identifies his God and Father as the one God to whom Israel owed exclusive devotion see John ch.8:54.
Acts ch.3:13NKJV"The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob(JEHOVAH), the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go. "
I am saying that prototokos is part of the implied group whether or not reference is to the literal or figurative parent of the group or to the group directly. If you are contending with that you must produce an example from SCRIPTURE where this is not the case. That is my challenge.
@Anonymous
The semantic range of "qanah" in Hebrew indeed includes "to acquire," "to possess," and "to create." However, in the context of Proverbs 8:22, "qanah" is used poetically to express the relationship between God and Wisdom. Wisdom, personified, is not necessarily a newly created being but can signify an inherent and eternal attribute of God. The term can imply possession and origination from God’s own nature, reflecting His inherent wisdom. Even if "qanah" were interpreted as "created," the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs is seen by many early Church Fathers only as typological and not a direct reference to Christ's ontological status.
While apposition can clarify meaning, in this context, it is not simply equating two synonymous terms. Proverbs 8:22's structure emphasizes Wisdom’s origin and intimate association with God. The phrase "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works" (NIV) highlights the preexistence and foundational role of Wisdom in creation, which aligns more with being possessed by God rather than a mere created entity. By the way, all ancient Greek OT translations, including the LXX, interpreted the text as a double accusative and not as a tense, cf. "ἀρχὴν" (archēn) instead of "ἐν ἀρχῇ" (en archē).
The Greek "ektise" (from ktizo, "to create") can mean to establish or ordain. In Proverbs 8:22 LXX, it reflects Wisdom's role in God's creative order without necessarily implying Wisdom itself was created. Wisdom can be seen as an eternal attribute manifesting in creation, not as a separate created being. This aligns with the New Testament depiction of Christ as the embodiment of divine wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:24, Colossians 2:3).
saiah 44:24 declares YHWH as the sole Creator, emphasizing His unique and unshared role in creation. However, this does not preclude the involvement of the Son, as Christian theology posits the consubstantial Son as sharing in the divine essence and creative work of the Father (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). The Son is not a separate agent but an integral part of the triune Godhead, fully participating in the act of creation. However, these antihenotheistic statements of the prophets do exclude the participation of demiurge-like secondary deities in creation, such as the Michael Jesus of WTS.
Regarding the Christology of Tertullian:
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2022/03/02/did-tertullian-deny-the-eternal-nature-of-christ/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332256750_Tertullian_on_the_Trinity
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The Hebrew word "qanah" can mean "possessed," "acquired," or "created," depending on the context. In Proverbs 8:22, the context of Wisdom being with God from the beginning suggests "possessed" or "acquired" in a non-temporal sense. The LXX translates this as "ektise," which can mean "created" but also "established" or "ordained." The broader semantic range of "qanah" supports the interpretation of Wisdom being an inherent, eternal attribute of God.
The Hebrew apposition "reshit" in Proverbs 8:22 can denote a title or role, not a temporal priority, so it means "AS the beginning", not "AT/IN the beginning, which would be B'reshit. This is seen in its use in other scriptures like Genesis 1:1 ("B'reshit" meaning "In the beginning") and its LXX counterpart "archēn," signifying a foundational or principal aspect, not a created one.
The Hebrew "reshit" and the LXX "archēn" emphasize a role of primacy or preeminence rather than a temporal starting point. In Genesis 1:1, "B'reshit" means "In the beginning," but in Proverbs 8:22, "reshit" in the context of Wisdom being with God indicates a status of being the first and foremost, not implying creation. Thus the use of "archēn" in LXX and "reshit" in Hebrew highlights roles of primacy and preeminence, not temporal origins.
"Apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 does not imply a created beginning but indicates the Logos's existence from the beginning of time as understood in a temporal context. "Apo archē" indicates that Christ existed from all eternity, similar to "en archē" in John 1:1. It emphasizes Christ's pre-existence before the creation of the world, stressing that the Logos was with the Father before time began, not merely at the beginning of His public ministry or creation. The term emphasizes the eternal pre-existence of the Logos, not a point of creation. This aligns with John 1:1, where the Logos is identified as God and with God from the beginning. The term "apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 emphasizes Christ's eternal pre-existence, not a created beginning. Commentaries consistently interpret it as signifying existence before time, aligning with "en archē" in John 1:1.
@Sean Kasabuske
It's a pity that you don't answer me directly on the merits of my answer written specifically for you. I thought you were a challenging discussion partner, but I found the blog from which you mainly work. I like thought-provoking arguments, although I don't know if you edit that blog, it could be less sarcastic, without triumphalist, sharp, snide comments, considering: Proverbs 15:1, 2Tim. 2:25, Tit. 3:2. This will not make your argument stronger or more convincing, it will just make it more annoying and tiring to read the text.
While the passive verb ἐκτίσθη (was created) is used in Col. 1:16, it does not diminish Christ’s role in creation. The distinction between “through” (διὰ) and “by” (ὑπo) indicates the means by which creation occurred, affirming Christ's mediating role in creation, which does not imply a lesser status but rather a unique and divine function within the Godhead.
Comparing God to Mozart and Christ to an orchestra oversimplifies the divine relationship. Scriptural references emphasize unity and co-equality within the Godhead rather than a hierarchical creator-instrument relationship (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). The Greek preposition "δῐᾰ́" (dia) with the genitive case indeed means "through" or "by means of," indicating causality or agency. This use of "dia" emphasizes that the action is carried out through an agent or instrument that actively participates in the action. In contrast, "dia" with the accusative case means "thanks to", "by aid of", "because of" or "on account of," which often denotes a more passive role or reason. Christ is consistently presented as integral to creation, sustaining all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3). And of course, the Son's creative contribution is not only described with a passive formula, but also with an active one: Hebrews 1:10 explicitly attributes creation to the Son, "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." This reinforces the co-creative role of Christ.
The use of "διά" (through) with the genitive case indicates agency, not a mere passive instrumentality. Christ is described as the agent through whom all things were made, not merely a tool. Wallace and other scholars affirm that this construction does not imply a mere intermediary role but denotes the Word's active participation in creation. DIA does not simply denote a passive instrument; it does not exclude active participation, especially when Heb. 1:10 specifically declares it. The Father working "through" the Son (dia + genitive) in no way implies that the Son is a mere instrument or secondary being. Instead, it affirms the Son's integral and divine role in creation.
Sean
Origen makes this distinction aswell between dia + passive and upo
In his reasoning… Justin calls Logos a Second god ( or God)
Ninc ignores this distinction, see previous threads - he also ignores the other evidence..
The witnesses win, Ninc simply can’t admit it
Quick fire response:
“in the context of Proverbs 8:22, "qanah" is used poetically to express the relationship between God and Wisdom” - wouldn’t proverbs 8:30 be more that style?
“The Greek "ektise" (from ktizo, "to create") can mean to establish or ordain” - yes “can” however it’s “highly unlikely” ( NET) with the verbs used in 8:23-25, which are all verbs for “something someone did not possess before”
Cite an instance where it has this meaning in the NT or lxx ( I am unaware of there is one)
“the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs is seen by many early Church Fathers only as typological and not a direct reference to Christ's ontological status.” - again even Atha did not deny Wisdom in proverbs was Christ he only disputed the meaning of the passage…
And Justin and Origen explicitly IDENTIFY Wisdom as Christ… As does Paul and Matthew and Clement
Origen goes as far as stating Wisdom Is not by nature a different person from Christ
The NET ( in a footnote) agrees.. most bibles cross reference prov 8:22 -25 with jn 1:1
“By the way, all ancient Greek OT translations, including the LXX, interpreted the text as a double accusative and not as a tense” - yes I know, I have done the study -
Are you going to mention that it is common for creation clauses to have double accusatives?
“these antihenotheistic statements of the prophets do exclude the participation of demiurge-like secondary deities in creation, such as the Michael Jesus of WTS.” - Tettulian himself explicitly states it only omits false gods..
Passive instrumentality does not make Christ inferior… it puts him in a relative position ( proverbs 8:30)
Matt 1:16 illustrates this where God spoke via the prophets - the prophets are passive in their actions but are equally important as God because they are giving his word.. ( shiliach)
And again switching a couple of things around like the verb from passive to active and the subject to an object we get the one mentioned in 1:12 as the creator, not Christ…
Origen agrees with this. As does Justin..
for the papers you cited I have read shamounian and disagree with him for multiple reasons.
The other I may read when I can be bothered..
@Anonymous
The inclusion of "ἐκ" in Revelation 1:5 is a minor variant found in a single later (7th century) manuscripts and not supported by none of the early manuscripts. This indicates it was not original. If you don't believe me, check out the NA28 footnote. A scribes could have added or omitted "ἐκ" for simple copying error, or clarification or due to misunderstanding, but the primary manuscripts do not support these changes as original. The changes likely reflect attempts to harmonize or clarify the text, not to convey equivalent meanings.
"πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν" (Col 1:18) emphasizes Jesus' origin from the dead, highlighting His resurrection. "πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν" (Rev 1:5) emphasizes His preeminence over the dead without focusing on the resurrection origin. The presence or absence of "ἐκ" affects the nuance and emphasis. In Colossians, "ἐκ" specifies the origin ("from among the dead"), which is crucial for theological emphasis on resurrection. Greek prepositions and cases are precise, and their inclusion or exclusion can change the meaning significantly. Assuming they mean the same disregards these nuances. Linguistic analysis shows that "ἐκ" (from) and its absence in the Greek text provide different emphases. "ἐκ" specifies origin or source, while its absence broadens the scope to general preeminence. Scholars agree that prepositions in Greek (e.g., "ἐκ") serve distinct functions and should not be disregarded. The presence of "ἐκ" in Col 1:18 is intentional and context-specific.
"Firstborn from Mary" (implying origin) and "firstborn of Mary" (implying relationship) can be contextually distinct. By the way, your example is also lame because it is not possible to be Mary's firstborn without being born of Mary. The firstborn of Israel was indeed not born from all of Israel, but "only" from one Israelite, but the Son was not born from "the whole creation", nor from a specific creature, but from the Father. Your disease example is also absurd, since it is not possible to be the deadliest disease without being a disease (which is not a theological context, but figurative language), but it is possible to be the distinguished, preeminent heir (=Lord) of creatures without being a creature, so "firstborn" here denotes preeminence and authority rather than literal membership in the group e.g., Col 1:15 emphasizes Christ's supremacy over creation.
"on someone who relied on Jewish mysticism" - Genetic fallacy again, this is a broad rabbinical tradition, not some bogeyman witchcraft.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
Even though you are waiting for such a precedent, you are after all waiting for a conceptual impossibility, because the Son is not only the first-born (prototokos) of the Father, but also his only-begotten (monogenes), why should the Bible declare similar titles about others to mean that? I'd rather throw the ball back to you, so show me precedents when the term "firstborn" is used in the Bible in such a way, where membership is not a conceptual necessity (for example being born into the category), but the "firstborn of X" formula itself performs the classification. Because all your examples show that it's not the "firstborn of X" formula what implies category membership.
Malachi 2:10 and Ephesians 4:6: These passages affirm that God is the Creator and Father of all, but they do not exclude the Trinitarian understanding of God. The New Testament reveals the distinct persons within the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), each fully and equally God.
John 8:54 and Acts 3:13: Jesus acknowledges the Father as His God, aligning with His incarnate role. However, John 1:1, 1:14, and Colossians 1:15-17 affirm Christ’s divine nature and active role in creation, which aligns with the concept of the Trinity.
The argument that "πρωτότοκος" implies group membership overlooks the contextual usage of the term to denote preeminence and authority. Scriptural examples show that "πρωτότοκος" can signify supremacy without implying that the subject is part of the group. In Colossians 1:15, the context clearly indicates Christ’s authority over creation, affirming His divine nature and role as Creator.
@Anonymous
Instead of abusing Origen's Christology (which is like 85% orthodox), read more:
* https://t.ly/HeIRb
* https://t.ly/z-fv4
* https://justpaste.it/f2gf7
Origen emphasized the eternity of the Son and His preexistence. He did not view the Son as a mere instrument but as a divine agent of creation. Origen explains that "διά" with the genitive indicates agency, not mere instrumentality, supporting the Son's full divinity and active role in creation. The distinction of "διά" (through) and "ὑπό" (by) is to clarify relational aspects within the Trinity, which does not diminish the Son's role or divinity but emphasizes a different aspect of their unified divine work. The Son, as "διά," is an active participant, fully divine, working in harmony with the Father.
The Greek preposition "διά" with the genitive case indeed means "through" or "by means of," indicating causality or agency. In the context of creation, this affirms the Son's integral and divine role, not a mere instrumental role. Hebrews 1:10 explicitly states that Christ laid the foundation of the earth, affirming His active involvement in creation. This aligns with the understanding of "διά" as indicating agency and involvement, not subordination, and especially not ontological inferiority.
Justin Martyr did not actually use the exact phrase “second God” (Gr. deuteros theos) in reference to Jesus. However, he did use a couple of equivalents: “another God and Lord” (Gr. theos kai kurios eteros), and “second place” (Gr. deutera chōra).
“I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things — above whom there is no other God — wishes to announce to them.” (Dialogue With Trypho, ch. 56)
"God begot before all creatures a Beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son, . . . sometimes Lord and Word ... We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was" (Dialogue with Trypho, ch 61).
"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed." (First Apology, ch. 13; see also ch. 60.)
While Justin Martyr used phrases like "another God and Lord" (Gr. theos kai kurios eteros) and "second place" (Gr. deutera chōra), he did so within the context of subordination in order, not in nature or essence. This does not mean a lesser deity but indicates the relational roles within the Godhead. Justin maintained the divinity of the Logos while distinguishing the Father and the Son's relational role.
@Anonymous
The entire wisdom literature uses this literary poetic style in Ketuvim, especially the Proverbs. While "ktizo" generally means "to create," it can contextually mean "to establish" or "ordain." Examples include Ephesians 2:15 ("create" in the sense of establishing peace) and 1 Corinthians 11:9 (creation of man and woman establishing roles). Proverbs 8:23-25 uses poetic language, emphasizing Wisdom's unique role in creation rather than literal creation.
Early Church Fathers saw Proverbs 8 as *typologically* referring to Christ. However, they viewed it as an *allegory* illustrating Christ's eternal relationship with God, not a statement on Christ’s ontological status. Athanasius, in particular, used Proverbs 8:22 to argue for the eternal generation of the Son, not His creation.
It doesn't work if you take "ektise" out of context from the LXX translation and then ignore the accusative "arkhen", which just changes the meaning of the text. The LXX rendering of Proverbs 8:22, "κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχήν," does reflect a double accusative, indicating "the Lord 'created' me AS the beginning," emphasizing the role of Wisdom in creation rather than a literal creation event.
Tertullian may distinguish between true and false gods, but the antihenotheistic statements in Isaiah (44:24) and other prophetic writings exclude any secondary deities from participation in creation, affirming monotheism. This counters the Watchtower Society’s view of Michael-Jesus as a demiurge-like being. Hint: a demiurge is also a "false god".
The passive role of prophets in delivering God's message (Matthew 1:16) is different from Christ’s active role in creation. Christ being the Logos (John 1:1-3) involves Him as an active agent, not a passive tool. Hebrews 1:10 attributes creation directly to Christ, affirming His divine nature and active participation in creation.
Both Origen and Justin Martyr emphasized Christ's preexistence and divinity, they emphasized Wisdom's preexistence and eternal nature, not as a created being. Origen specifically argues that Wisdom proceeds from God and shares His substance, aligning with the orthodox view of Christ's divinity and eternal generation. Justin explicitly identifies Christ as God and eternal (First Apology, ch. 63), rejecting the notion of Christ as a mere created being.
Some quotes from Origen:
"The Father of the universe has a Son... the Saviour is also God." (De Principis, On Christ, Book 1, Ch 2)
Origen explicitly states that Christ shares in the omnipotence and divinity of the Father, contradicting the idea of Christ as a created being.
"Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 7)
Origen's assertion of equality within the Trinity emphasizes the co-equal status of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, rejecting any notion of ontological subordination or creation of the Son.
Here are some relevant quotes from Origen to counter the JW's points:
Omnipotence of Father and Son: "And that you may understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father..." (De Principis, On Christ, Book 1, Ch 2)
Co-eternality: "The holy Apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, treated with the utmost clarity of certain matters... Secondly, that Jesus Christ himself was born of the Father before all creatures... Although He was God, He took flesh, and having been made man, He remained what He was, God" (De Principis, Preface, sections 3 - 4).
These quotes highlight Origen’s view of Christ’s divine nature and eternal relationship with the Father, opposing the JW's interpretation of subordination and creation.
Tertullian used terms like "substance" and "person" to describe the Trinity, affirming the full deity of the Son while maintaining functional subordination in the economy of salvation. His views reflect early theological development and do not equate to Arian subordinationism.
Although some early Fathers saw Proverbs 8 typologically, they did not see it as diminishing Christ's divine nature. They emphasized Christ's role as eternally begotten, not made, aligning with the creedal affirmations of Nicaea. The double accusative structure is a common syntactical feature in creation clauses, emphasizing the relationship between subject and object in a profound way. It doesn't inherently suggest a literal creation but often a functional role.
The term "Son" in a Trinitarian context doesn't imply biological offspring but signifies a unique and eternal relationship within the Godhead. In the Greek New Testament, the term "υἱός" (huios) carries connotations of relationship and representation rather than mere biological descent. Jesus referred to himself with two specific expressions: he is the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man." The "son of ...." structure, like in other languages, mostly expresses a genealogical relationship in Hebrew (e.g., Jonah's son, Simon), but it is also a unique grammatical phenomenon in Hebrew that does not relate but qualifies, for example, the "sons of disobedience" (Eph 2:2) are those who are disobedient, as the "son of death" is dead.
We should consider what "sonship" meant in the context of ancient Eastern patriarchal conditions, where in the son, the entire household could see the father's alter ego, the heir to all his possessions, a sharer in all his authority. In Roman culture, the title "Son of God" indeed conveyed the idea of divinity or divine incarnation, often associated with emperors like Caesar. This context influenced how early Christians understood and proclaimed Jesus' divine status.
The Greek term "λόγος" (logos), translated as "Word" in John 1:1, connotes reason, speech, and divine communication. It implies Jesus as the ultimate revelation and representative of God, embodying divine wisdom and presence.
The expression "Son of Man" (Aramaic: בַּר אֲנָשׁ, bar 'enash) is a Semitic idiom meaning "a human being." It emphasizes Jesus' humanity and is often used in the Gospels to denote His identification with humanity.
The title "Son of David" denotes messianic lineage, affirming Jesus as the promised Messiah from David's royal line. It emphasizes fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah.
The title "Son of God" signifies divinity and is a direct claim to Jesus' divine nature, which is why it was controversial and led to rejection by some Jewish authorities. It signifies more than just an anointed representative but an intrinsic divine status within the Godhead.
The titles and descriptions in the Gospels highlight Jesus' unique nature as both fully divine and fully human. This dual identity is foundational to Christian doctrine, affirming His ability to bridge the gap between God and humanity.
There is no such thing as a non temporal emergence/ occurrence/beginning
Even your Jerusalem Bible admits that create is the better fit.
1John ch.1:1 indicates that the Logos emergence was from a definite beginning.
I thought the Logos preceded time,you people need to make up your mind, and if time is not infinite then neither is the Logos,
The commentaries are wrong.
Arkhe here is clearly the beginning of creation revelation ch.3:14KJV"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the BEGINNING(Arkhe) of the creation of God;"
The prophet cannot be equal to God JEHOVAH is the source,JEHOVAH Can replace his prophet or any of his instruments. He alone is absolutely necessary autotheos and thus of supreme worth.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The assertion that "there is no such thing" (?!) as a non-temporal emergence is nothing more than proof by assertion, and a misunderstanding of metaphysical concepts. In Christian theology, specifically Nicene Christology, the Son's begetting by the Father is understood as an eternal generation, not a temporal event. This means it is a logical, not temporal, subalternation and relationship, affirming the co-eternity of the Son with the Father. "Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." (Council of Florence) Orthodox Christology affirms the eternal, non-temporal begetting of the Son.
Origen explains this as an eternal act within the Godhead:
"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood."
"Now this expression which we employ — that there never was a time when He did not exist — is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words when or never have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages. "
This affirms that the Logos (Word) existed eternally with the Father, beyond the confines of time.
1 John 1:1 uses "apo archē" (from the beginning) to indicate the Logos’ existence before creation, aligning with John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word." This indicates a pre-temporal existence, not a temporal beginning. The claim that "apo archē" refers to a temporal beginning is refuted by the context of John 1:1-3, which clearly states that the Logos was with God and was God, emphasizing the eternal nature of the Word.
The phrase "archē tēs ktiseōs" in Revelation 3:14 is often mistranslated in the NWT as "the beginning of the creation BY God." The correct translation, "the 'archē' of the creation OF God," indicates Christ as the source or origin of creation, not the first created being. The NWT's use of "by" instead of "of" is misleading. The Greek text does not support "hupo" (by), but rather "archē" denotes the origin or source, aligning with John 1:3 where all things were made through Him. It is also no coincidence that no one referred to Rev. 3:14 in the 4th century Arian debates, why? Because a native Greek speaker would never think of such nonsense, since all educated Greeks knew that the archē is the first principle from which creation flows, not the first piece of created things. Read this: https://justpaste.it/bv4ep
Your claim that a prophet cannot be equal to God and can be replaced overlooks the unique nature of Christ. Jesus is not just a prophet but the incarnate Word of God (John 1:14), fully divine and human.
Hebrews 1:3 states, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being," affirming the full deity of Christ. Unlike prophets, Jesus shares the same nature as the Father, making Him indispensable and uniquely qualified as the Redeemer.
Anon,
You said:
"Origen makes this distinction aswell between dia + passive and upo
In his reasoning… Justin calls Logos a Second god ( or God)
Ninc ignores this distinction, see previous threads - he also ignores the other evidence..
The witnesses win, Ninc simply can’t admit it"
In my experience, Trinitarians don't seem to like Justin's reference to the LOGOS as "a second god." Many is the time when I've encountered someone offering uninformed and misinformed criticisms of the "a god" rendering at John 1:1c, and I've posed the following question:
"Justin Martyr referred to the LOGOS as 'a second god.' Where do you think he got the idea to do that?"
The responses have come in three forms:
1. They ignore the question or move on to other subjects, revealing that they don't want to talk about it.
2. They present their favorite cherry-picked quotes form JM in an effort to prove that, despite the "second god" reference, he was "orthodox" in his Christology.
3. One Trinitarian went so far as to argue that what JM *meant* in calling the LOGOS "a second god" is in harmony with an "orthodox" understanding of Jesus, because by "second god" JM really meant something like "second divine person of God."
Personally, I don't care one way or the other what JM believed, but what I find funny about responses 2 and 3 is that, if it is the case that referring to Jesus as a "second god" is perfectly compatible with "orthodox" Christology, then Trinitarians are left with no basis for denying that the "a god" rendering of John 1:1c is correct:-) I think they should just throw in the towel, admit that the "a god" rendering is what the author of GJohn clearly meant, and proceed as they will from there. Let's see if they can convince people that "a god" really means "a divine person of God";-)
About "Ninc," that person seems oblivious to the fact that Edgar, I, and others here have seen the sorts of flawed arguments that he or she tries to drown this blog in many, many times over, and we haven't found them to be compelling. Repeating them over and over isn't going to make them seem more compelling to people who have done their homework.
In my younger days I was willing to spend quite a lot of time conversing with folks of Ninc's disposition, but those days are behind me. After spending too much of my valuable time in such discussions, I came to realize that Trinitarianism, once one has embraced it, is both presuppositional in a sort of transcendental sense, and non-falsifiable in the Popperian sense. Suddenly the frustration I had experienced over the years made perfect sense to me. This is why discussions with Trinitarians never go anywhere but back to where they started. Ever notice that?
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/06/against-nincsneven-ad-pluribus-ix.html
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/06/against-nincsnevem-x.html
Let's delve into the "partitive" issue. Scripture frequently states in the NT that the Son is begotten (eɡénnese) or born (eteke) of the Father. However, nowhere in the NT do we read that He was "created" (ektise), "made" (epoise), or "came into being" (egeneto).
First, consider why, if it is such a fundamental teaching that the Son is a creature, this isn't explicitly stated anywhere? If you took the principle of 'sola Scriptura' seriously, which according to the standard Protestant interpretation of 1 Cor. 4:6 means “do not go beyond what is written,” then the fact that Scripture uses the terminology of begotten/born should suffice, and you should simply state that the Son is begotten/born of the Father, period.
But no, you insist that He was created/made, and since such a statement does not exist, you cling to three verses whose context isn't even about this. Of these, Prov. 8:22 and Col. 1:15 were already cited by the 4th-century Arians, but not Rev. 3:14, as no ancient Greek speaker interpreted it that way, even though they had the Revelation.
Now, let's focus on Col. 1:15 and its alleged "partitive" nature.
The genitive structure (“something of something”) inherently expresses a relationship, and what kind of relationship depends on the narrower or broader context and the meanings of the words. Moreover, Greek allows for nuances to be fine-tuned with word order, which you can't reverse in English. "The house of the dog" is different from "the dog of the house," etc.
The standard interpretation of Col. 1:15 is that the Son holds the position of "preeminent one," "distinguished heir," "supreme one" concerning "all creation." According to Matt. 28:18, this is trivial. The relationship is therefore one of supremacy. Whether He is a creature or not, it does not declare Him a creature nor declare that He isn't. You claim that besides confessing His supremacy, this statement also declares that the Son is one of the creatures.
On what basis do you claim this? You assert that since the Scripture generally portrays firstborns as members of the category to which their "firstbornness" is stated, it follows that the "firstborn of X" inherently and automatically means partitive—so it is impossible to declare someone the firstborn of a category without simultaneously acknowledging their inclusion in that category. What a bold claim! But let's see!
This kind of “rule”-setting is a foolish method. There are no strict "rules," only tendencies. Interestingly, in Luke 23:43, the comma is after "to you," as in all other introductory phrases (even in the NWT, 73 out of 74 times!). Still, they do not follow the logic that it should always be the same.
Indeed, there are inherently partitive expressions. For example, if someone is "the best student of the university," it not only means that they are the best but also that they are a student of that university. This follows because conceptually, one cannot be the "best student" without being a student.
But can one be the "firstborn" of something without being part of that category? It depends on the meaning of "firstborn" in the given expression. If we take the standard, everyday literal meaning, i.e., "the person who was born first," then no, because one cannot be the firstborn of a family or a person without being born from them, thus conceptually belonging to that category. But here, it is not the "firstborn of X" formula that establishes inclusion but the applied meaning of "firstborn."
The situation is different if "firstborn" refers not to "being born first" but to the biblical concept of birthright, which has conceptually diverged from being born into something and declares supremacy. In Col. 1:15, "firstborn" clearly means preeminent status, possession of the birthright, and then we only need to ask: Can someone hold a preeminent status concerning a category without being part of that category? If the answer is yes, as it evidently is, then it is not true that the expression used there is inherently partitive. The key is the required conceptual necessity.
You can interpret it this way, but a "maybe" is not evidence, just as a prosecutor cannot cite something as "evidence" that only shows "it may prove the defendant's guilt."
Nics,
Is the singular used in the same way as the plural?
https://biblehub.com/greek/uiois_5207.htm
Read my response again - I never said equal
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/06/against-nincsnevem-x.html
“The inclusion of "ἐκ" in Revelation 1:5 is a minor variant found in a single later (7th century) manuscripts and not supported by none of the early manuscripts. This indicates it was not original. If you don't believe me, check out the NA28 footnote.” - why are there 3 listed on Biblehub? You claim there is only 1 I have already found 3.
Why would I believe you? I have caught you out over 100 times blatantly lieing in public forums.. you are not a credible source - Shamounian is a better source of information..
Okay none are “early” manuscripts but they cannot be rejected outright just because they are later… the variants still support that they mean similar ( and scholars and commentators alike agree, you are the exception- if Robertson never made bones about this I’m sure you are wrong )
Have you noticed all of the mentions of Jesus’ resurrection involve “ek”?
Even so you still have to get out from under Clement and his use of “first created” and “first begotten” as synonyms along with the lxx in prov 8:22,25 and Deut
It should be noted the distinction between firstborn and firstcreated didn’t exist in the time of the apostles or Clement..
you can’t be firstborn of something without being that thing yourself… (Prove the Jewish mysticism thing then.. go on - there’s a reason no credible scholar cites this as an argument, it’s not a credible or solid argument but a “fanciful interpretation” according to the 2 comments I have read - only one person used this argument)
Even David who was MADE firstborn of all the kings is still a king himself and not a descendant of those kings
“Of creation” - well wouldn’t it be implied creation is from the father? (Mark 10:6)
Your argument is wrongheaded anyway
I also said linguistical, your response was theological - I don’t care for most of that garbage
“Tertullian may distinguish between true and false gods, but the antihenotheistic statements in Isaiah (44:24) and other prophetic writings exclude any secondary deities from participation in creation” - not according to Tetullian
Again he makes the point and I will quote him if I have too ( in its context) he says this specific statement omits the false gods that were in focus at the time… not the angels ( job 38:7, see tetullian on this subject ) and not Wisdom/ Logos
You are omitting elements to suit your argument, exactly what you accuse WTS of doing… 0 credibility
“The Son, as "διά," is an active participant, fully divine, working in harmony with the Father.” - Origen clearly says the “maker” is the father.. not Logos
proverbs 8:30 would indicate similar
Again the role is relative and passive rather than Logos being the actual creator ( he is never called creator)
As Wallace states: the father is thought of as the creator Logos is thought to have a more “hands on” role.. ( 1 Corin 8:6) “One God the father” and one Lord which I have a working theory on what Paul means by that… not hard when you read Hebrews 1:2,3
Heb 1:10 can be applied to both however creation is only ever credited to the Father - take note of the last part of Hebrews 2:7 ( which concerns Christ so the “your” could not possibly include him) also proverbs 8:31 “ rejoicing before HIS” - not the Creator
YHWH is the father in the OT, I can prove that.
“Father” is never used of the Holy Spirit and is never used of Christ outside of prophetic means ( and has a different meaning in prophetic means) - I’ll use your excuse: it wouldn’t hurt for a simple mention..
“It doesn't work if you take "ektise" out of context from the LXX translation and then ignore the accusative "arkhen", which just changes the meaning of the text” - your amusing, your trying every trick in the book to get around the inevitable meaning to the text.
When I first mentioned this you tried the whole “it is only translated once as “created” in proverbs and no where else ( NWT)” to which I respond the lxx does the same thing.. only once is ektisen or any of its relations used..
I then cited Clement, which has literally what trinitarians want.. you then say something along the lines of it can mean first over creation..
Dude you have been proven wrong stop making excuses and just admit it, your finished
How do you know that 8:22 is actually a double accusative? A lot of bibles disagree with you… with me you have no credibility left..
Verses 23 - 25 make it highly it unlikely you are correct, I agree with the NET here
“The LXX rendering of Proverbs 8:22, "κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχήν," does reflect a double accusative, indicating "the Lord 'created' me AS the beginning," emphasizing the role of Wisdom in creation rather than a literal creation event.” - really? Thought you said there was no such thing as the word “as” in the Hebrew text?
Does it considering the next 8 verses I would say otherwise and sources like Baruch and Sirach which catholic bibles cross reference, most definitely you are wrong.
Bdag lists the meaning to beginning as first-created as “probable” ( relating to 3:14, but I would consider this a paraphrase) infact prov 8:22 seems to be where John got his inspiration for Rev 3:14.. ( which wouldn’t surprise me considering most writers associate him as Wisdom)
John never used arkhe to mean anything other than “beginning” - if you think I am making up rules - cite the exception! ( there is one, but that has a linguistical reason)
John follows the OT messianic prophecy structure quite strictly( regarding usage of arkhe and arkhon) = Micah 5:2 LXX
Check out Barnes on the subject ( Rev 3:14 Biblehub) he has some relevant observations
“Christ being the Logos (John 1:1-3) involves Him as an active agent, not a passive tool.” - All verbs for christs role in creation are passive.. not active even in proverbs 8:22 the antesedent to “ἔκτισέν” is YHWH and the verb is active not passive.( relating to Wisdom, keep in mind)
the only active verb is Heb 1:10 and is simply because it’s a reapplication - the only one from memory ( on the subject of creation). ( see also the reasoning book)
One function of the passive is to keep the previous subject in view…
Still an agent so not the creator.. he is the channel of the action not the action
Did you not know that all ( most) church father writings have been tampered with..
Most scholars ( I know of maybe one, but I do not quite understand those comments atm) conclude Origen and Justin were “subordinates” ( autocorrect doesn’t like the other word, sorry)
Justin still doesn’t consider Christ the “Maker” ( or “creator”) as is put into another category.. the words “beside(s)” should make that self- evident.
“Both Origen and Justin Martyr emphasized Christ's preexistence and divinity,” - as does the WTS
“Origen specifically argues that Wisdom proceeds from God and shares His substance” - the word for eternity simply means indefinite period of time.. and Origen uses substance ( roughly) 4 different ways, one being union in purpose
You have changed your argument yet again..
"Justin explicitly identifies Christ as God and eternal (First Apology, ch. 63), rejecting the notion of Christ as a mere created being. “ - or is this like the verse in Romans ( “the son” being the “action”of the verb) where the father is the antesedent and your just cheating?
Justin implies different else where. How do you know Justin calling Jesus "God" (apparently) is not typology
- Paul came close to equating Jesus with God but never actaully did it (same with John)
“"Nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less." (De Principis, Book I, ch. 3, section 7)” - did he mean the modern day trinity or the same one as Augustine ( not the modern day trinity)? Also Origen contradicts this a lot..
If this quote is even in its context
“Here are some relevant quotes from Origen to counter the JW's points” - I’ll counter this later
And I’ll response to your “son” comment later when I find the article I want
But you are misleading others again..
Sean
"have seen the sorts of flawed arguments that he or she tries to drown this blog in many, many times over, and we haven't found them to be compelling." - the only one that has some weight is his descendant argument... but even that can be dealt with in a few seconds when we look at NT usages of words..
" I think they should just throw in the towel, admit that the "a god" rendering is what the author of GJohn clearly meant" - Origen implicitly admits this, no one is autotheos except the Father... The Father is the creator.. Proverbs 8:30 proves some sort of agency was involved that was outside this so called "Godhead"
"Let's see if they can convince people that "a god" really means "a divine person of God";-)" - thats what I thought they would try.. but a god could also refer to a false god, When do the CF or Bible writers ever use terms like "person"
still waiting on the Bible writers to explicitly state certain things as Ninc expects from Jehovahs Witnesses (I find the hypocrisy quite amusing and feel no sympathy for catholics - mostly thanks to Ninc - been thinking about becoming a Witness and these conversations have thrown alot of what I disagree with the Witnesses out teh window)
like with Johns quotation of psalms 82:6, im suprised Ninc hasnt tried to say Jesus is "God" because he literally quoted God verbatum and played the "role" of GOd in the context of that quotation the "gods" (according to Augustine etc) were Jesus' opposers.
"This is why discussions with Trinitarians never go anywhere but back to where they started. Ever notice that?" - oh I know and I notice it all the time - Ninc just amuses me because he (she?) cant just do a linguistical debate and has to sound theologically motivated.
I love the quote mining accusations aswell - what are they doing now? exactly the same thing...
ignorance (intentional) is bliss isnt it?
I have reversed google searched some of the just paste links I can find them on a few other forums under different names.
I love this one: " you cling to three verses whose context isn't even about this. Of these, Prov. 8:22 and Col. 1:15 were already cited by the 4th-century Arians, but not Rev. 3:14" - They wouldnt need to cite Rev 3:14 as scholars I have read conclude that the inspiration for this was from Prov 8:22... done. or "but to the biblical concept of birthright, which has conceptually diverged from being born into something and declares supremacy" - which is only used in the OT, all occurences in the NT mean First in some sense of the word in a temporal priority
"This kind of “rule”-setting is a foolish method. There are no strict "rules," only tendencies. " - Do I need to cite the scholars that disagree
And Im pretty sure most Witnesses say Johns rule was self imposed so not really a rule - but clearly Ninc is copying and pasting otherwise they would acknowledge this..
right ill stop now...
From thayer's:tropically Christ is called πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (partitive genitive (see below), as in τά πρωτότοκα τῶν προβάτων, Genesis 4:4; τῶν βοῶν, Deuteronomy 12:17; τῶν υἱῶν σου, Exodus 22:29), "
Genesis ch.4:4NKJV"Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering,"
Deuteronomy ch.12:17NKJV"You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine or your oil, of the firstborn of your herd or your flock, of any of your offerings which you vow, of your freewill offerings, or of the [f]heave offering of your hand. "
Exodus ch.22:29NKJV"“You shall not delay to offer the first of your ripe produce and your juices. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me."
In the scriptures whether the prototokos is literal or figurative he is ALWAYS a member of the implicit or explicit set. It's not a rule its uniformity. If this is not the case why can't you and your confederates come up with a single example of the reverse,there must be hundreds right. And this is not a translation issue so why the red herring,both NWT and most catholic translations render prototokos the same way. This is an interpretation issue.
@Sean Kasabuske
Let me make a few comments on the ethics of debate. Firstly, I am not the one jumping between topics. The original topic here was the interpretation of Colossians 1:15, which might extend to 1:16, but if you read the debate thread honestly, it wasn't me who introduced new threads, new Bible verses, and patristic references. And I have tried my best to respond to each of them. And after all this, you bash me for allegedly not wanting to debate about Justin? You are being somewhat unfair here.
Regarding patristics, it also has its own hermeneutics, which JWs understand even less than Biblical hermeneutics. What you and @Anonymous have been doing here is a method I call the "dung beetle method," where you collect "yummy" quotes (cf. cherry picking) to shove in the faces of those dirty Trinitarians. What's the problem with this?
First, it's not fair that on the one hand, you theoretically stand on the ground of 'sola Scriptura,' starting from the premise that the proto-orthodox and pre-Nicene Church Fathers were the proponents of the so-called "great apostasy," who supposedly eradicated the "original" (= JW-like) Christianity, so let's rely on the Bible alone. Naturally, the question arises, where are your Church Fathers? But it doesn't work that if the Church Fathers are taken as authorities, sources, or evidence, then they were "apostates" (cf. "no true Scotsman" fallacy), and thus cannot serve as evidence against you that the original Christians did not have a JW-like theology, yet with the "dung beetle" method, you still "diligently" search the patristic sources as busy bees, hoping to find some "useful," "yummy" little quote. This doesn't work; we must decide whether we argue on the basis of 'sola Scriptura' and thus neither I nor you argue with patristics, or the entire discourse falls apart.
One can of course argue over patristic sources, but it is a much broader corpus of texts than the Bible, and as I said, it has its own hermeneutics, which you and your comrades here completely ignore: you do not want to understand the theology of the given Church Father as a whole (and then compare it to see which it ultimately aligns more closely with, yours or mine), but you only need a sentence, a half-sentence, or even a phrase to brandish like some victory trophy. In contrast, I can tell you sight unseen that the Christology of all these Church Fathers is 80-90% orthodox, which is what you should face. Because neither Justin, Clement, nor anyone ever said things like "ho pater epoise ton huion" or "en arkhe egeneto ho huios," nor did they speak of "Jehovah," nor did they say that Jesus is Michael. I could continue the list endlessly. And do you have anything to say to this? Of course not.
And now, what is our answer to the quotes, half-sentences you brandish, which might even sound heretical? Well, it is not that we fall over and admit that before 325, everyone was a JW, calling the Son Michael, the Father Jehovah, and eagerly calculating how many years were left until 1914.
Instead of the "let's hack at patristics with an axe" approach, let's first examine the sources on the matter of trinitology with the appropriate hermeneutical-citatological attitude. There is a difference between the simple confession of faith by the believer and its speculative elaboration in the workshop of theological knowledge. The former only requires a pious mindset. The latter, however, is severely complicated by the greatness and uniqueness of the mystery of the Trinity, the fluctuation of terminology, and various unrefined religious and philosophical currents of the time: the Stoics' doctrine of the Logos (λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and προφορικός); the Platonic theory of ideas, which tempted them to identify the entire world of Platonic ideas with the Logos; and finally, the belief, fed equally by the Jews' doctrine of transcendence (God's absolute transcendence above the world, making the world as such unreachable) and the Gnostics' theories of emanation, that God needed a mediator for creation and the governance of the world. Therefore, it is true of many fathers, as Athanasius wisely states about Origen (Athanas. Decret. Nic. 27.): We must sharply distinguish between what he asserted as a simple witness of tradition (θετικῶς) and what he speculated about concerning the persons of the Trinity and their relations (γυμναστικῶς); as a witness, he spoke rightly; as a speculative theologian, he sometimes overshot the mark.
The Church Fathers were often prompted to speak by heretical one-sidedness, and thus it could easily happen that while they represented the anti-heretical element with full force, they unwittingly veered towards the opposite extreme; not in doctrine, but in expression; not in content, but in presentation. We must not overlook that given the rich content of the mystery of the Trinity, our limited minds cannot adopt a standpoint that adequately and proportionately appreciates all its aspects: If we start from the persons (the Greeks), we might drift towards tritheism; if from the divine reality (Augustine), the danger of Sabellianism threatens. However, the great Church Fathers and theologians avoided the reefs of heretical excesses.
There are expressions in the aforementioned authors that simply aim to convey the order of the Trinitarian origins and missions, but do so with terms that can be misunderstood and misinterpreted. For example: "The Father is the God above all, the Son is in the second place, the Holy Spirit in the third place"; the Father is "the God" (ho Theos), the Son "God" (Theos); the Father is God from Himself (Autotheos), the Son is God from God (Theos ek Theu). It also happens that they do not yet distinguish between the internal life of the Trinity and its manifestations in salvation history, thus attributing invisibility to the Father, visibility to the Son at the creation of the world, and appearance to the Holy Spirit at the sanctification of the world. When we read such things, we should consider that the Son embodies the Father's creative plans (Col 1:17; Heb 1:2) and as such became perceptible at creation, while the Holy Spirit became most apparent to people at the peak of His activity, at the first Pentecost.
However, not every expression that has a heretical flavor immediately contains heresy. Namely, the frequent subordinationist expressions often allow for a perfectly correct orthodox interpretation:
a) From the perspective of origin, the Father is first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. This sequence within the Trinity itself does not imply rank, essence, or temporal succession; in our time-bound perspective and expression, however, it takes on a form of subordination; anyone who, for any reason, falls further back in the order, our discursive thinking and evaluation are also inclined to rank lower; but one who speaks thus does not necessarily want to deny the actual equality of essence and rank or to teach heretical subordination.
b) During visible missions, the Son appeared at a later stage of salvation history, and the Holy Spirit even later; the Father, on the other hand, is the eternal sender who is not sent; thus, from this perspective, it can be said that the Father is invisible, the Son became visible; similarly the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if the early fathers, when shedding intellectual light on the mysteries, did not yet precisely distinguish between mission and manifestation, property and attribution (proprium et appropriatum), their teaching was not yet heretical.
Hence Justin Martyr’s terminology must be understood within the context of second-century philosophical and theological language, and he affirms the Logos’ divine nature, pre-existence, and essential unity with the Father. This reflects a nuanced understanding rather than a simplistic (ontological) hierarchy, he simply indicates distinction in personhood, not inequality in essence or divinity, since Justin worshiped Jesus as God, and he clearly saw Jesus as fully divine and co-eternal with the Father. Justin Martyr’s writings, when accurately interpreted, basically align with the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. He consistently affirmed Jesus as God, worshipped alongside the Father and the Holy Spirit. Misinterpretations by JWs arise from selective quoting and misunderstanding the context and theological implications of Justin's works.
Since the early Christians weren't henotheists and in the positive, affirmative and proper sense, God is a monadic concept, next to which there is no place for a demiurge, therefore the translation "a god", especially its JW sense, is completely foreign to any pre-Nicene source. Trinitarianism on the other hand is based on the comprehensive interpretation of Scripture, affirming the full divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within a monotheistic framework. The doctrine arises from the need to reconcile the divine nature of all three persons as revealed in the Bible, forming a coherent theological system.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The context of Proverbs 8, where Wisdom is described as existing before creation, supports the idea of Wisdom being inherent to God rather than created. The translations using "created" reflect interpretative choices, not a definitive rendering of the original Hebrew. Do you even know the renderings of Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus? "Qanah" is used in Genesis 4:1 to mean "acquired" or "gotten." Similarly, in Deuteronomy 32:6, it refers to God "creating" or "fathering" Israel, indicating the flexibility of the term.
"Ektise" in the LXX can indeed mean "established" or "ordained." Proverbs 8:22 in the LXX does not solely imply creation but can indicate an eternal, foundational role of Wisdom in God's plans. The verb "ktizo" changes the meaning of the text with a double accusative, and it will not be about creation, but about making someone something, e.g. to make him a king, here to make him "arkhe" or "reshit", which can best be translated as "first principle". In Genesis 1:1, "B'reshit" means "in the beginning." In Proverbs 8:22, "reshit" as apposition indicates a principal role rather than temporal priority. This aligns with Wisdom being foundational and eternal. The semantic range of "qanah" includes "acquired" and "possessed," fitting the description of Wisdom as an eternal aspect of God's nature. Translators' choices reflect interpretive decisions rather than definitive meanings.
In context, "reshit" and "archēn" emphasize the primacy and preeminence of Wisdom, not its creation. "Reshit" in Proverbs 8:22 denotes a foundational aspect of Wisdom being the foremost, similar to how "archē" is used in John 1:1 to indicate eternal pre-existence rather than a created beginning.
While some translations interpret "qanah" as "created," the broader context and semantic range of "qanah" support interpretations like "possessed" or "acquired," which align with Wisdom being an eternal attribute of God. The use of "qanah" can imply an eternal aspect of Wisdom rather than a temporal creation.
"Apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 is contextually understood to signify Christ's pre-existence from eternity, consistent with John 1:1's "en archē." It emphasizes the eternal nature of the Logos, not a created origin. The use of "apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 is not about a temporal beginning but highlights the Logos's existence before creation. The usage of "apo archē" in 1 John 1:1 and other contexts does not necessitate a created beginning. Instead, it points to a state of existence that predates all creation, aligning with the concept of the eternal Logos in John 1:1.
"Archē" in Revelation 3:14 can also mean "origin", "first principle" or "source," indicating that Christ is the foundational principle through which all creation came into being. This aligns with Colossians 1:16, which states that all things were created through Him.
Your interpretation of "reshit," "qanah," and "apo archē" as implying created beginnings is not consistent with the broader semantic and contextual analysis of these terms in Scripture. Actually Proverbs 8:22, 1 John 1:1, and Revelation 3:14 emphasize the eternal pre-existence and primacy of Wisdom and the Logos, aligning with traditional Nicene doctrine.
Please look for this thread to close on Monday night at 12:00 am EST. Thank you.
@aservantofJEHOVAH
The term "prototokos" (firstborn) in Greek does not inherently mean "first created." It often signifies rank, preeminence, or priority in status rather than origin. Paul's use of "prototokos" in Colossians 1:15 emphasizes Jesus' supremacy and authority over all creation, indicating His preeminent status rather than suggesting He is part of the created order. The surrounding verses in Colossians 1:16-17 clarify that Jesus is the agent of creation: "For by Him all things were created... all things have been created through Him and for Him." This shows Jesus' active role as Creator, not as a part of creation. The term "prototokos" aligns with this context by highlighting Jesus' supreme authority over all creation, reinforcing His divine nature and role as Creator.
Hebrews 1:6 refers to Jesus as the "firstborn" and clearly positions Him above all angels, emphasizing His superiority rather than His inclusion in the category of angels. The term "monogenes" means "only-begotten" or "unique," highlighting Jesus' unique relationship with the Father. This does not imply creation but signifies a unique and eternal relationship. In the New Testament, "monogenes" is used to emphasize the uniqueness and special status of Jesus as the Son of God (John 1:14, 3:16).
The argument that Jehovah creates through preceding creations fails to address the specific role of Jesus as described in the New Testament. John 1:3 explicitly states that "all things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being," affirming Jesus as the Creator, not a created being. Colossians 1:16-17 reiterates this by stating that "by Him all things were created" and "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together," emphasizing His pre-existence and sustaining power over creation.
The JW argument incorrectly conflates "prototokos" with creation. While "prototokos" can denote priority, it does not necessarily imply that the one referred to is part of the created order. In biblical usage, it often signifies preeminence and authority. The use of "prototokos" in Colossians 1:15 highlights Jesus' supreme position over creation, in line with the overall biblical portrayal of His divine nature and role as Creator.
John 8:54 and Acts 3:13 highlight Jesus' relationship with the Father during His earthly ministry. These passages do not contradict His divine nature but emphasize His incarnate role and submission to the Father as part of the salvific plan. You completely unfoundedly confuse the Old Testament use of the word "the Father" with the way "the Father" is used in the context of the NT, when it speaks of him in opposition to the Son.
@Anonymous
Biblehub is a useful tool for quick reference, but serious textual criticism relies on more authoritative sources like the Nestle-Aland (NA28) apparatus. This scholarly resource compiles critical textual variants and provides a comprehensive and accurate representation of the earliest manuscripts. The inclusion of "ἐκ" in a later manuscript does not outweigh the earlier, more reliable manuscripts that do not include it.
"...always a member of..." - You can only repeat this like a parrot or a stuck record player, read what I wrote about the partitive above. I'd rather throw the ball back to you, so show me precedents when the term "firstborn" is used in the Bible in such a way, where membership is not a conceptual necessity (for example being born into the category), but the "firstborn of X" formula itself performs the classification. Because all your examples show that it's not the "firstborn of X" formula what implies category membership.
Your assertion relies on an oversimplified interpretation of the term "firstborn." While "firstborn" often implies a preeminent position within a group, it does not universally necessitate membership within that group. The use of "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 highlights Christ's supremacy and authority over creation, not His inclusion as a part of creation. While some instances of "firstborn" imply membership within a group, this is not universally applicable. For example, Hebrews 1:6 refers to Christ as the "firstborn" in a manner emphasizing His supremacy over angels, not His inclusion within the category of angels, but on the contrary.
Tertullian often differentiated between true and false gods, emphasizing the unique divine nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He did not support the notion of secondary deities participating in creation alongside Jehovah. Tertullian's writings consistently uphold the monotheistic view of God as the sole creator, without attributing creative power to any other beings, whether they be angels or demiurges. Isaiah 44:24 explicitly states that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth, excluding any secondary entities from this creative role. This aligns with Tertullian's broader theological framework, which does not attribute creative power to any being other than God.
While Origen often speaks of the Father as the Creator, he does not deny the Son's divine role in creation. The unity in the Trinity means that the Son is an active participant, not merely a passive instrument. Origen also said: "For indeed Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Lord and Creator of the soul..."
The verb "ktizo" can change the meaning of the text when combined with a double accusative. In Proverbs 8:22, "ktizo" does not imply creation 'ex nihilo' but making someone into something, such as making the Logos the "arkhe" (beginning or first principle) of God's ways. This can best be translated as "first principle," aligning with the Son’s eternal role.
"How do you know that 8:22 is actually a double accusative?" - Because after "ektise", the "me" and "arkhen" are also in accusative? So it's not about creating 'ex nihilo' the speaker (the lady Wisdom), it's about making her (into be) the "arché".
Clement explicitly states that the Son is uncreated: "There was then, a Word importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and uncreated." (Fragments, Part I, section III).
I have provided you with robust materials, links, on Origen and Tertullian, have you looked at either of them?
@Anonymous
Origen did distinguish between the Father as "autotheos" and the Son, but he did not deny the full divinity of the Son. Origen acknowledged that the Son is fully divine and eternally begotten from the Father. By the way, not only Origen, but also the Nicene theology, claims that only the Father of the Trinity is 'autotheos', since he is unbegotten, "principle without principle", as the Council of Florence declares:
"Because of this unity the Father is entirely in the Son, entirely in the Holy Spirit; the Son is entirely in the Father, entirely in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entirely in the Father, entirely in the Son. No one either excels another in eternity, or exceeds in magnitude, or is superior in power. For the fact that the Son is of the Father is eternal and without beginning; and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is eternal and without beginning. Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle."
[Arians] "wouldnt need to cite Rev 3:14" - I think they should have referred to it, if this text should sound as you claim even to a native speaker of ancient Greek. I think that the phrase "arkhe of creation" in Rev. 3:14 means exactly the same as Colossians 1:16, since it Jesus the "arkhe", certainly because through him all things were created.
The ironic thing is that none of my proposed interpretations of these three Bible verses would contradict JW theology at all, but you can't admit that, because then you're left with nothing :)
"which is only used in the OT" - Not according to the quotes above from jw.org.
The Greek phrase "κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχήν" does not imply a literal creation event. The double accusative construction emphasizes the role or status (arkhe/reshit/principle) of Wisdom in the creation narrative. While the Hebrew text of Proverbs 8:22 uses "qanah," which can mean "possess" or "acquire," the LXX translators chose "ktizo," which commonly means "create." However, this translation choice reflects the broader semantic range of "qanah," which includes establishing or ordaining, not just creating.
Baruch and Sirach, while supportive of a wisdom literature context, do not definitively argue against the interpretation of "Wisdom" as an eternal attribute of God. In Revelation 3:14, the term "arkhe" can mean "beginning," but it can also denote "ruler" or "principle." Given the Johannine context of emphasizing Christ's preeminence and authority, "arkhe" likely refers to Christ as the "first principle" or "originator" of creation, not a created being. The broader context of John’s writings, including Revelation, consistently emphasizes Christ’s divine authority and role in creation, supporting an interpretation of "arkhe" that aligns with Christ's preeminence rather than suggesting He is a created being.
While some verbs describing Christ's role in creation may appear passive, passages like John 1:3 ("All things were made through Him") and Colossians 1:16 ("by Him all things were created") indicate active participation. The preposition "dia" (through) underscores the Logos as the means by which creation occurs, not a mere passive instrument. Hebrews 1:10 explicitly states, "You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning," directly attributing creation to the Son. This aligns with the broader New Testament portrayal of Christ as the active agent in creation, affirming His full divinity and creative power.
BEKHOR is not a name of the Divine, but a title. Talmudic sources are Second Temple Era writings, and some are as late as the Middle Ages. This doesn't mean that in passing there has been a phrase like this attributed to God. But there's countless phrases used that Maimonides, Spinoza and then later Kaplan caused most Jews to view as improper.
You wouldn't find anything like this used in reference to the divine today as it goes against the views of Maimonides in teaching against attributing anthropomorphic qualities to God, thus tantamount to idolatry. Since the Middle Ages such references in Judaism stopped.
I have asked two scholars friends of mine, specialists who deal with the Trinity, one a Jew who studies Christianity and the other a Catholic who specializes in Trinitarian dogma to make sure I had this right and they both agree.
It generally refers to both legal status and a term of being favored, and after this it means just what it says, order in which someone or something (like an animal is born).
The "legal" and "favored" status is what is meant in the New Testament about Jesus in which Christ is called the "firstborn" of God and "firstborn" of creation because Christians do not believe Jesus was ever literally born. Jesus, being God, had no temporal beginning and thus was never "born," even though he experienced "birth" as a human, his life has always been eternal.
Paul's use of the "firstborn of all creation" means that Jesus is the most "favored" and has the "legal" right to inherit it all.
There terminology, however, is not a divine name.
“But it doesn't work that if the Church Fathers are taken as authorities, sources, or evidence, then they were "apostates"” - please cite evidence for this claim, they weee philosophers that is a fact… Origen was heavily into neo- platonism
And do they just search for quotes that agree? - you do the same thing… how is it fair that you call what I do quite mining ( citing dictionaries and academic sources ( in their entirety most of the time) but you are the only one allowed to cite others? And you are the only one allowed to change the meaning to words and mislead others? ( you omit to mention quite abit)
Witnesses and scholars alike use more than just the NT to get a better / bigger pool for the usage of certain words… how could you not realise this…
Limiting debates to just the NT is actually stupid and pointless, why is the OT not included? ( church fathers did it constantly) why not other sources, at least they prove a lot of what the witnesses are saying is true..
As I have stated it is WELL KNOWN the church fathers writings have been tampered with.. the care just wasn’t there
Also the church fathers are cited mainly to those in opposition to the Wisdom/Logos connection which some claim was invented by the witnesses - well it quite obviously wasn’t..
some of Origens writings also reflect witness teachings aswell
Augustine agrees with what I have been saying in multiple places.
Please cite evidence that the witnesses quote out of context, an actual credible source..
It’s also not fair that you come into a Witnesses blog and start spouting stuff that is not as straight forward as you would like it to be.. you have made out a lot of things are straight forward and easy to solve to suit your doctrine, when we all know ( except you apparently) that that’s not 100% true.
quoting ones who agree is a common practise among academics in the academic field, it’s called citing evidence… and not spouting unfounded rubbish.. all quotes are out of context to some extent.. but really if you don’t go and read the original source then in my personal opinion you deserve to be mislead. ( if the quotation is out of context)
if I’m not mistaken you have said you are a lawyer/ attorney - well in your profession do you not do this all the time aswell? Find quotes that agree with you? I’m sure you do..
You ever considered you might be wrong? I have hence I’m not a witness or catholic- never seen you once admit you might be wrong, I have seen Edgar countless times do so
How is what you cited in our previous conversations not quote mining? Trinitarian opinion is dominant so of course you can find it more easily that agree with you..
Quick fire:
“but serious textual criticism relies on more authoritative sources like the Nestle-Aland (NA28) apparatus.” - and what is Biblehub source for these variants?
https://biblehub.com/texts/revelation/1-5.htm
Take a look yourself…
“I think they should have referred to it, if this text should sound as you claim even to a native speaker of ancient Greek.” - doesn’t really matter what you think does it? Again it is acknowledged in the academic field that Rev 3:14,s inspiration is likely proverbs 8:22
There is no need to cite 2 verses that mean the same thing..
Bdag is the authoritative lexicon…
“Because after "ektise", the "me" and "arkhen" are also in accusative” - yep sure, that can also be apposition
And 8:23 - 25 would indicate otherwise..
“Clement explicitly states that the Son is uncreated:” - considering that’s in a fragment and not in the stromata “family “ ( that I am aware) we can probably assume it was altered..
“Isaiah 44:24 explicitly states that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth, excluding any secondary entities from this creative role.” - shall I quote the portion? You are 110% wrong. Tetullian only knots false gods from this
Even angels he includes.
“In Revelation 3:14, the term "arkhe" can mean "beginning," but it can also denote "ruler" or "principle." Given the Johannine context of emphasizing Christ's preeminence and authority, "arkhe" likely refers to Christ as the "first principle" or "originator" of creation” - cite the exception to John’s self imposed rule, it shouldn’t be hard if there is an example..
where does John use arkhe to mean anything other than “beginning” ( passive sense)?
“none of my proposed interpretations of these three Bible verses would contradict JW theology at all” - One would, the other 2 kinda do but not really and I still would have a leg to stand on.. just not going to reveal what that is.
You mean like your resistance to “other”? Which excludes God from creation Or changing your argument to suit?
“"which is only used in the OT" - Not according to the quotes above from jw.org.”
Cite please - and again having pre- eminence doesn’t negate that they come from the catergory
You can be the head of the church and still be part of it.
Wouldn’t surprise me if you are doing your normal
@Ninc
You said:
"Let me make a few comments on the ethics of debate."
I'm not in a debate with anyone. You seem to think that this is your personal debate forum, and that anyone who makes a comment has joined a debate with you. However, this isn't a debate forum, it's Edgar's blog.
Your obsession with JWs and Trinity seems rather unhealthy, frankly. You swamp this blog, you swamp Roman's blog, and I'm guessing you tried to begin swamping my blog, as someone who refused to post his/her name attempted to submit a post on my blog that appeared to be virtually identical to one you posted here. Edgar and Roman are free to run their blogs as they see fit, but I'm not going to let mine become a debate forum. Not only do I not have time for that, but I have no interest in it. As I said above, I've been there, done that, moved on, and intent to keep moving on, as Trinitarianism appears to be both presuppositional in character, and non-falsifiable.
BTW, the Greek at Prov. 8:22 in the LXX appears to be what's known as a fake double accusative. You can read about that, here:
https://tinyurl.com/4x7zjujw
It seems pretty clear that the translators of Proverbs for both NETS LXX and the NET Bible both understand the Greek that way. No, I'm not interested in debating this point with you, so you're free to agree or disagree as you please. I bring it up only because some may not be aware of the fake double accusative, and I think you failed to mention it.
@Anonymous
I have no problem with heated intellectual debates, as long as they are regulated by appropriate methodological standards, it was not by chance that I told your "colleague" that his sarcastic remarks would not make his position seem stronger in my eyes, and if the goal on his part is not self-satisfaction, but make me reconsider things, then skip it. Likewise, it doesn't hurt to clarify the basis of the debate, because it doesn't work either to jump around on various threads within the NT, and within Paristics.
While it is true that many Church Fathers, including Origen, were influenced by contemporary philosophical ideas, this does not automatically disqualify their theological insights. The integration of philosophy was often used to articulate and defend Christian doctrine against heresies and misunderstandings. The claim that early Church Fathers were "apostates" because they used philosophical concepts is unfounded. The early Church used the philosophical language available to them to explain and defend the faith, not to introduce heretical ideas.
I am not quoting the Church Fathers out of context, but the parts that reflect the writer's actual view, while you are quoting half-sentences that can be misinterpreted, their speculations.
Quote mining involves selectively citing passages out of context to support a particular argument while ignoring other relevant passages that may contradict it. The accusation here is that JW apologists often use selective quotes from early Church Fathers without considering the broader context of their writings. Proper scholarly work involves considering the entirety of a source's context. Many criticisms of JW interpretations highlight how selective quoting from Church Fathers misrepresents their overall theological positions.
Using both the Old and New Testaments, as well as other historical writings, is important for comprehensive theological study. However, JW interpretations often selectively use these sources to support their preexisting views rather than letting the full scope of biblical and historical evidence inform their theology. True exegesis involves understanding the original languages, historical context, and the entirety of scripture. Many mainstream scholars argue that JW interpretations often lack this comprehensive approach, leading to skewed theological conclusions.
While some texts have undoubtedly undergone variations and interpolations over centuries, the broad consistency of core theological doctrines in the extant writings of the Church Fathers undermines the claim that significant tampering has occurred to the extent suggested. Modern textual criticism has worked extensively to identify and correct these variations, providing a reliable understanding of what the early Church Fathers taught.
You cannot assume 'a priori' that a text is falsified, and if Clement wrote that the Son is uncreated and Wisdom is "firstcreated", then the solution is that, according to this, Clement did not identify Wisdom one-to-one, literally with the Son, but simply made a *typological* application that does not affect the ontological status of the Son. By the way, Augustine also wrote about Created Wisdom, it is an existing concept.
The concept of the Logos as divine and preexistent is well attested in the writings of early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr and Origen. The JW interpretation that reduces the Logos to a created being is inconsistent with these early theological views.
Examples of JW misquotations and selective quoting from academic sources and early Church Fathers are documented by numerous scholars. For example, references to Origen’s work often omit his clear assertions of Christ's divinity and eternal nature. Scholars frequently criticize the New World Translation and JW literature for their selective use of sources and context manipulation. This is a well-documented critique in academic circles.
John ch.8:54 and Acts 3:13 speak of the God and Father of Jesus' relationship to the nation of Israel he is the one and only God of Israel if the trinity is true their would supposedly be an unincarnated spirit who is also God of Israel ,even if we go along with the idea that the almighty could become lower than the angels which is an unscriptural violation of his immutability and thus the father could not be the one and only God of Israel, furthermore acts ch.3:13 speaks regarding the state of affairs after Jesus' glorification.
@Anonymous
Use Google and you'll find many reviews such as "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" how misleadingly the brochure quoted ancient and modern authors.
It's essential to respect the context and rules of any forum, but discussing and debating theological points, especially those of substantial importance, should be approached with respect and rigor. Theological discussions should be based on evidence, context, and scholarly interpretation, not just on the preferences of any particular group.
While quoting supportive sources is a common academic practice, it is crucial to ensure these quotes are not taken out of context or misrepresented. A thorough reading of the original sources is necessary to understand the full intent and meaning behind quotes.
Admitting the possibility of being wrong is a sign of intellectual honesty. The goal of these discussions should be to seek the truth, even if it challenges our preconceptions. Open-mindedness and humility are crucial in theological debates.
On Biblehub, there are three not from the manuscript, but from the modern text edition, Nestle-Aland would clarify for you how many ancient or early medieval manuscripts this appeared. While Biblehub can provide useful resources, serious textual criticism relies on comprehensive and authoritative sources like the NA28 apparatus, which rigorously evaluates manuscript evidence. The NA28 apparatus is widely respected in scholarly circles for its detailed critical analysis of New Testament texts, ensuring that the most accurate and historically supported readings are available. The inclusion of "ἐκ" in later manuscripts does not undermine the consensus among early and reliable manuscripts that omit it. The NA28 apparatus supports this.
@Anonymous
In Revelation 3:14, "arkhe" can indeed mean "beginning," but it should not be understood in the modern English way, but as "principle", hint: the English "principle" is a Latin loanword, Latin principium, which is how the Vulgate translates it in Rev. 3:14, as well as John 1:1a tc. The NT's usage in other contexts emphasizes a role of preeminence and authority, aligning with the interpretation of Christ as the "first principle" or "originator" of creation. By the way, according to the modern consensus, the author of Revelation is not the same John as the one who wrote the Gospel or the three Johannine epistles.
The verb "ktizo" indeed allows for a double accusative construction, changing the emphasis from a mere creation to a designation of role, i.e., to make someone something (e.g., make him "arkhe" or "reshit"). This nuanced understanding supports the interpretation of Wisdom’s foundational role rather than a literal creation event. This is a critical distinction often overlooked in simpler translations.
Isaiah 44:24 explicitly states that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth, which inherently excludes any secondary deities or entities from this creative role. This monotheistic assertion aligns with the broader scriptural narrative, emphasizing Yahweh's sole sovereignty in creation.
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Isaiah%2044:24
Look at what the church fathers write, there is no sign that they exclude "only" pagan gods, not alleged demiurges, angels, etc.
Tertullian argues against Hermogenes' view that matter is eternal and co-existent with God. He emphasizes that God alone is the Creator who "stretched out the heavens alone" (Isaiah 44:24), countering any notion that matter or any other entity shares this creative power. Tertullian addresses the unity of God and the distinction between the Father and the Son. He affirms that while God says He stretched out the heavens alone, this does not exclude the Son but rather includes Him in the divine act of creation, emphasizing the Son's unity with the Father.
Athanasius explains that when Scripture says God created alone, it implicitly includes the Son. He stresses that the Son, being the Word of God, was present and active in creation, thus maintaining the unity and co-eternity of the Son with the Father. He argues against Arianism by highlighting that God declaring "I alone" in creation includes the Son as the Word through whom all things were made. This assertion upholds the Son’s divinity and eternal nature, countering the Arian view of the Son as a created being.
Ambrose discusses the concept of God working alone in creation. He states that this "alone" includes the Son, who is described in Proverbs 8:30 as being with the Father during creation. This interpretation aligns with the understanding of the Trinity, where the Son is co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father.
@Anonymous
The term "firstborn" (πρωτότοκος, prototokos) in Colossians 1:15 refers to rank and preeminence, not temporal order. The Watchtower's own publication, "Aid to Bible Understanding," states:
"David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the “first-born,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89:27) In this position David prophetically represented the Messiah."
"Jesus Christ, as the “first-born of all creation,” always faithful to his Father Jehovah God, has the birthright through which he has been appointed “heir of all things.”—Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:2"
So they admit that "firstborn" in Col. 1:15 is understood precisely in the Old Testament sense, which indicates a position of supremacy, not simply being the first created. Biblical precedent for this usage includes Psalm 89:27, where David, though not the firstborn son of Jesse, is called "firstborn" because of his preeminence and chosen status by God. This reinforces that "firstborn" indicates a status of preeminence rather than chronological birth order. Just as David was not the firstborn but was given the title due to his preeminence, Jesus is referred to as "firstborn of all creation" to indicate his supreme status over creation, not that he was the first created being.
Thus in Colossians 1:15, Paul uses "firstborn" in a context that emphasizes Christ's authority and supremacy over all creation, which aligns with the biblical concept of birthright denoting rank and preeminence. The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prototokos) in this context reflects Christ’s sovereignty and role as the heir and ruler of all things, not a temporal creation
Not all uses of "firstborn" in the NT imply temporal priority. For instance, in Hebrews 1:6, the term "firstborn" refers to Christ being brought into the world with a status that requires worship from the angels, indicating a position of honor and authority. Revelation 1:5 refers to Jesus as "the firstborn of the dead," which signifies his preeminence in resurrection, not that he was the first to be resurrected chronologically.
The term "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 aligns with the Old Testament usage to denote rank, preeminence, and authority rather than chronological birth order. This interpretation is consistent with both biblical context and the Watchtower’s own publications. The New Testament usage of "firstborn" emphasizes Christ’s supremacy and divine role, refuting the claim that it always indicates temporal priority.
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/06/against-nincsnevem-ad-pluribus-xiii.html
@ anonymous please accept my apology if our earlier interaction left an impression of hostility
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/06/again-nincsnevem-ad-pluribus-xiv.html
@Sean Kasabuske
Of course, you have the right to sulk and not talk to me, but you made an observation about me, and I responded to it— I believe in a respectful manner— that's all. Naturally, the blogger has the right to ban certain discussions altogether; Mr. Foster has not indicated to me so far that my presence is undesirable. He has made a few requests, such as not referring to confidential WT documents or ex-JW sources, and I have respected that.
Regarding you or others, if you respond to someone’s comment, it means you are engaging in communication or discourse with them. For example, in my country’s criminal code, there is an offense of harassment, which is realized if someone "regularly or continuously disturbs" another person, for example, by repeatedly contacting them by phone or DM unsolicited. However, as soon as the person responds or reacts to these contacts, it immediately disproves the offense. By analogy, as long as you respond substantively to what I have written, you are participating in a discourse with me; this is evident.
Regarding Proverbs 8:22 and the "fake double accusative," it's important to recognize that interpretations of ancient texts can vary. The concept of a "fake double accusative" is a modern grammatical analysis that helps clarify the function of certain Greek constructions. However, it is one among several ways to understand the Greek text. Scholars might use different linguistic frameworks to interpret the same passage, and these interpretations are open to discussion and debate within the academic community.
Anyway, both the NETS LXX and the NET Bible renders it as "The Lord created me *AS* the beginning" rather than "created me AT/IN the beginning," and the latter's footnote explicitly states:
"Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (“appointed,” “given birth”) argue for the translation of “create” or “establish.” Verbs of creation often involve double accusatives; here the double accusative involves the person (i.e., wisdom) and an abstract noun in construct."
By the way, why don't you address the fact that apart from the LXX, every single ancient Greek translator and interpreter of the OT who knew Hebrew (Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and Eusebius) preferred the rendering ἐκτήσατο με?
You cannot assume 'a priori' that a text is falsified” - why? If it was the reverse you would do exactly the same…
An academic study shows Clement uses Wisdom and Logos interchangeably and firstbegotten and firstcreated interchangeably
“Admitting the possibility of being wrong is a sign of intellectual honesty. “ - you have just proven my point you are theologically motivated and misleading because you have never admitted you may be wrong..
And you are no better at quoting because one of your recent quotes was out of its context…
“Use Google and you'll find many reviews such as "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" how misleadingly the brochure quoted ancient and modern authors.” - I have, when looked at critically they are as misleading as you… they omit information and the quotes really aren’t out of context else you would address Justin’s claim and Origens ( who viewed the Father as the creator)
“In Revelation 3:14, "arkhe" can indeed mean "beginning," but it should not be understood in the modern English way, but as "principle"”- you just spoke about authoritative NA28 trying to refute my examples ( which don’t really matter) but are now doing the exact same and ignoring an authoritative lexicon which literally agrees with the witnesses
Dishonesty at its finest
“there is no sign that they exclude "only" pagan gods, not alleged demiurges, angels, etc.” - sure… why did I literally read just that - Tettulian reasons the context indicates it’s directed solely at false gods
You just cited modern scholarship on Revelations author - consider it with Job 38:7
“Jesus Christ, as the “first-born of all creation,” always faithful to his Father Jehovah God, has the birthright through which he has been appointed “heir of all things.”—Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:2" - this doesn’t negate the first one created ( or begotten ) aspect, it simply states what one scholar said that both meanings should apply as they do to firstborn of the dead - Jesus was part of the dead and was the first raised and has pre- eminence over them.
“Biblical precedent for this usage includes Psalm 89:27, where David, though not the firstborn son of Jesse, is called "firstborn" because of his preeminence and chosen status by God. “ - David is still a king, and is temporarily first in another aspect..
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2024/06/against-nincsnevem-xv.html
@Ninc
"Of course, you have the right to sulk and not talk to me..."
The fact that I'm not interested in your arguments doesn't mean that I'm sulking. It just means that I'm not interested in your arguments. I explained why in previous posts and see no need to repeat myself.
People who hide their identities and troll the internet looking for people to argue with are as common raindrops in April, which is why I keep an umbrella at the ready on my blog.
From Nincsnevem. This is the absolute last post in this thread. Best.
Dear Mr. Foster,
please let me answer to Anon in short.
* * *
Why should we dismiss a priori the authenticity of Clement's explicit assertion that the Son is uncreated? If the situation were reversed, and Clement's writings suggested the Son was created, JWs would undoubtedly consider it valid without hesitation.
This admission indeed signifies intellectual honesty, yet your argument remains theologically biased and misleading. Your stance rarely, if ever, concedes the potential validity of mainstream Christian interpretations. Furthermore, quoting out of context, as you have accused others, undermines your credibility.
A critical analysis of such reviews reveals similar biases and omissions. These sources often selectively quote, ignoring broader contexts that might contradict their stance. For instance, they fail to fully address Justin Martyr's or Origen’s views when they support the mainstream Christian understanding.
According to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon ἀρχή (arkhe) can mean "beginning," "origin," "active cause," or "principle." The specific usage depends on the context, and in Revelation 3:14, it refers to Christ as the divine Logos, indicating He is the active cause or origin of creation, not a created being. The term "arkhe" in Revelation 3:14 should be understood in the context of Christ’s role as the origin and active cause of all creation (John 1:3, Col. 1:16). This interpretation aligns with the overall biblical narrative that portrays Jesus as divine and preexistent.
If it were not stated in the NT that Christ really died, and it were not in it that the Son was "the firstborn from/among the dead" (with 'ek'), then it would certainly be reasonable to argue that he never died and "the the firstborn OF the dead" (without 'ek') would not prove the opposite. The term "firstborn" (prototokos) in contexts such as "firstborn from the dead" implies both participation and preeminence. Christ was part of the dead and the first to be raised, underscoring His supremacy. But the notion that Christ would be created, or that He would be a creature, or that He would be connected to creation with "ek" is *nowhere* in the NT.
Your example about David also does not refute my position, according to which "firstborn of X" is not an inherently partitive structure, but whether the classification has taken place or whether the given concept conceptually requires membership is what decides it. It is not possible to be a pre-eminent king without being a king, but it is indeed possible to be a pre-eminent, distinguished heir being in a supreme position in relation to the whole creation, without being a creature.
Post a Comment