- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,21:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,12:15) Seriously, I honestly just wish they would answer the points I make once in a while.
When people do not answer, it is often because they cannot. Be encouraged by that because if they were true, they would show you the truth that would set you straight. But if they have nothing, it doesn't prove that you are true, but it does prove that they can't disprove you.
I know. And it's a shame because if they were honest, they would either refute what I say or admit that they can't. I do it all the time with John 20:28. I can't refute what it plainly says, and God has not given me insight to dispute what they think it implies yet. I know He will eventually. But for now, at least I'm honest enough to admit that I can't refute it.peace and love,
mikeQuote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2010,16:21) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,20:15) Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,12:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,11:49) t8, I don't believe the devil is in the details of scripture. The Bible is the exception to that rule, right?
What I mean by that statement is that our yes is yes and our no is no.Some people here have to justify their doctrine with other details.
e.g., scripture says that for us, there is one God the Father. Instead of taking that at face value, they build details around it one step at a time, and before you know it, they have changed that truth to, “there is one God the Father, Son, and Spirit”, or “there are 3 that are God”.
Beware their details. Their yes is not yes and their no is not no. It is “Yes but…”, or “no but…”.
Also, when they can't find fault in the truth you teach, they will then turn and try and find fault in you as a person to defame you. This is what happened to Jesus, so it will happen to you too.
Just be prepared for it and don't let them get you down. Remember, you will suffer as Jesus suffered and that is a privileged because you will also be rewarded too.
Suffer now with your vision on the glory that God has waiting for you.
Amen to that!I know who God is. My God is the same person as Jesus' God.
And they only get me down when they bring up a point or some great scholar that we should all believe, and then when I use that same scholars own words against them, all of a sudden he is a loser and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Seriously, I honestly just wish they would answer the points I make once in a while.
peace and love,
mike
Hi WJ,Because you “laughed” so hard at my wish to have my questions answered, I thought I'd give you ample opportunity. I've pasted your previous post (the big one) to a new thread. There is one question waiting for you there.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,16:05) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 19 2010,16:21) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 18 2010,20:15) Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,12:08) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,11:49) t8, I don't believe the devil is in the details of scripture. The Bible is the exception to that rule, right?
What I mean by that statement is that our yes is yes and our no is no.Some people here have to justify their doctrine with other details.
e.g., scripture says that for us, there is one God the Father. Instead of taking that at face value, they build details around it one step at a time, and before you know it, they have changed that truth to, “there is one God the Father, Son, and Spirit”, or “there are 3 that are God”.
Beware their details. Their yes is not yes and their no is not no. It is “Yes but…”, or “no but…”.
Also, when they can't find fault in the truth you teach, they will then turn and try and find fault in you as a person to defame you. This is what happened to Jesus, so it will happen to you too.
Just be prepared for it and don't let them get you down. Remember, you will suffer as Jesus suffered and that is a privileged because you will also be rewarded too.
Suffer now with your vision on the glory that God has waiting for you.
Amen to that!I know who God is. My God is the same person as Jesus' God.
And they only get me down when they bring up a point or some great scholar that we should all believe, and then when I use that same scholars own words against them, all of a sudden he is a loser and doesn't know what he's talking about.
Seriously, I honestly just wish they would answer the points I make once in a while.
peace and love,
mike
Hi WJ,Because you “laughed” so hard at my wish to have my questions answered, I thought I'd give you ample opportunity. I've pasted your previous post (the big one) to a new thread. There is one question waiting for you there.
mike
MikeYou mean your botched up post that is totally unintelligible and can hardly be understood who said what?
WJ
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 19 2010,10:52) Hi Is1.18,
You mock while espousing a god not found in scripture?
Not found in Scripture? What Bible are you reading?KJ
Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,21:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,12:15) Seriously, I honestly just wish they would answer the points I make once in a while.
When people do not answer, it is often because they cannot. Be encouraged by that because if they were true, they would show you the truth that would set you straight. But if they have nothing, it doesn't prove that you are true, but it does prove that they can't disprove you.
t8,Mike has been answered just not to his liking.
Kangaroo Jack
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 21 2010,13:24) Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,21:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,12:15) Seriously, I honestly just wish they would answer the points I make once in a while.
When people do not answer, it is often because they cannot. Be encouraged by that because if they were true, they would show you the truth that would set you straight. But if they have nothing, it doesn't prove that you are true, but it does prove that they can't disprove you.
t8,Mike has been answered just not to his liking.
Kangaroo Jack
Exactly!
WJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 22 2010,05:24) Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,21:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,12:15) Seriously, I honestly just wish they would answer the points I make once in a while.
When people do not answer, it is often because they cannot. Be encouraged by that because if they were true, they would show you the truth that would set you straight. But if they have nothing, it doesn't prove that you are true, but it does prove that they can't disprove you.
t8,Mike has been answered just not to his liking.
Kangaroo Jack
You three (Jack, Keith and Paul) run thread to thread making this claim. In fact you did it in the cf debate thread recently. Remember? So I asked each one of you a simply straightforward question that I've been asking over and over to all three of you to no avail.
Did ANY of you answer the question I asked? I got smoke screens and the old “I already answered that” crap again, but no answers to my questions.
So, I DIRECTLY showed each one of you how what you said was not an answer to the question you had been asked, and DIRECTLY asked it again.
Hmmmmm……..I wonder if ANY of you three has posted an answer today? Nope. Two of you ignored my “redirect” and bailed out of sight, and the other one of you made a statement about wanting to do a formal debate as long as we were not discussing that topic anymore.
You guys crack me up! THEN……I break down one of WJ's long posts and make a new thread so we can discuss HIS points one by one, and instead of answering my rebuttal of his first point, he slams my “cut and paste” techniques. I fixed it to his liking – we'll see if he has a serious answer tomorrow.
Btw Roo, I've sent my “neg” for plural god to Dennison to see if I did it right. He will let me know if I need to make changes in the formatting of it. Anyway, you should probably get started on your “aff” for plural god.
mike
Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 22 2010,13:26) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 22 2010,05:24) Quote (t8 @ June 19 2010,21:01) Quote (mikeboll64 @ June 19 2010,12:15) Seriously, I honestly just wish they would answer the points I make once in a while.
When people do not answer, it is often because they cannot. Be encouraged by that because if they were true, they would show you the truth that would set you straight. But if they have nothing, it doesn't prove that you are true, but it does prove that they can't disprove you.
t8,Mike has been answered just not to his liking.
Kangaroo Jack
You three (Jack, Keith and Paul) run thread to thread making this claim. In fact you did it in the cf debate thread recently. Remember? So I asked each one of you a simply straightforward question that I've been asking over and over to all three of you to no avail.
Did ANY of you answer the question I asked? I got smoke screens and the old “I already answered that” crap again, but no answers to my questions.
So, I DIRECTLY showed each one of you how what you said was not an answer to the question you had been asked, and DIRECTLY asked it again.
Hmmmmm……..I wonder if ANY of you three has posted an answer today? Nope. Two of you ignored my “redirect” and bailed out of sight, and the other one of you made a statement about wanting to do a formal debate as long as we were not discussing that topic anymore.
You guys crack me up! THEN……I break down one of WJ's long posts and make a new thread so we can discuss HIS points one by one, and instead of answering my rebuttal of his first point, he slams my “cut and paste” techniques. I fixed it to his liking – we'll see if he has a serious answer tomorrow.
Btw Roo, I've sent my “neg” for plural god to Dennison to see if I did it right. He will let me know if I need to make changes in the formatting of it. Anyway, you should probably get started on your “aff” for plural god.
mike
Gee Mike,If I was to reread our debate (which I won't) I wonder how many points you did not answer. I can think of one though.
You said:
Quote For God, even the things in Rev and beyond have already happened. You can not put a time line on this Psalm. I replied:
Quote Nonsense! Paul said that God calls into being things that are not yet as though they were (Rom. 4:15-17). Note that he said “as though” they exist. The prophecies still had to be fulfilled. Jesus was begotten (“gennao”) at His resurrection. If I can't put a time line on His being begotten, then I can't put a time line on his resurrection. Again, your argument is nonsense! Prophecy must be fulfilled Mike! When God decrees something it is as though it has happened. But the Scripture “must needs be fulfilled” (Acts 1:16). “MUST-NEEDS-BE-FULFILLED!”
I repeat, if I can't put a time line on His being begotten, then I can't put a time line on His resurrection for He was begotten at His resurrection. Your argument is totally absurd!
You did not answer this Mike! The funny thing is that your view that I can't put a timeline on His being begotten is similar to what I had been saying that before His resurrection Christ was the [begotten] Son of God by decree.
I knew for sure that you were one confused dude when you said that.
the Roo
Is. 1:18 on another thread said to Mikeboll:
Quote Look at it like this Mike. All discussions have to have a terminus, right? Since you're the type of person who always has to have the last say you'll probably experience others ending discussions with you a lot of the time. No one wants to go around the theological merry-go-round ad infinitum, at some point we get off and move onto something else. Better get used to it. the Roo
Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 23 2010,06:22) Hi KJ,
So you say.
But few agree with your rants.
Can't answer eh Nick?KJ
Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ June 23 2010,02:46) Gee Mike, If I was to reread our debate (which I won't) I wonder how many points you did not answer. I can think of one though.
You said:Quote
For God, even the things in Rev and beyond have already happened. You can not put a time line on this Psalm.I replied:Quote
Nonsense! Paul said that God calls into being things that are not yet as though they were (Rom. 4:15-17). Note that he said “as though” they exist. The prophecies still had to be fulfilled. Jesus was begotten (“gennao”) at His resurrection. If I can't put a time line on His being begotten, then I can't put a time line on his resurrection. Again, your argument is nonsense!Prophecy must be fulfilled Mike! When God decrees something it is as though it has happened. But the Scripture “must needs be fulfilled” (Acts 1:16). “MUST-NEEDS-BE-FULFILLED!”
I repeat, if I can't put a time line on His being begotten, then I can't put a time line on His resurrection for He was begotten at His resurrection. Your argument is totally absurd!
You did not answer this Mike! The funny thing is that your view that I can't put a timeline on His being begotten is similar to what I had been saying that before His resurrection Christ was the [begotten] Son of God by decree.
I knew for sure that you were one confused dude when you said that.
the Roo
First, I see no question that was asked of me.Second, I guess you're right – I MUST be confused. I don't even know what your last paragraph is supposed to mean.
Ask a question, Roo. If it is topical, I will always answer it – even if my answer is “I don't know”. But if you have questions for me about begotten, ask them in our debate thread…….AFTER you answer the two that have been waiting there for you for quite some time now.
mike
The Latest JW Argument from Col. 1:15
Ray Goldsmith
Some JWs have argued from the word “prototokos” in Col. 1:15, that this establishes two points favoring the WT’s view that Christ was the first of God’s creations. They argue that the word is “partitive” thereby requiring the conclusion that Christ be a member of creation, and secondly that the term means “first in time” thus establishing Him as the first creature in the category.
However it need only be pointed out that the Trinitarian view can accommodate taking “prototokos” as partitive with no problems at all. Actually the JW assumption here is a strawman. Why? Because establishing Christ as a member of creation provides no more support for the JW position than Trinitarianism. It is a fundamental tenet of the Trinity that at a certain point in history the Logos “became flesh”, both sides agreeing that He possessed a truly human nature (creature). So the fact that Christ can be shown to be a member of creation tells us nothing whatsoever about His pre-existence before he “became flesh”, or his ultimate identity (John 1:14 cf. Phil. 2:1-6). But what about the second JW claim, that the term “prototokos” also requires the “first in time—first in series” meaning. Is that true? No it is not.
Although certain witnesses like Wes Williams and Greg Stafford have quoted extensively from the LXX to demonstrate that the term HAD the “first in time…first in the series” meaning, they also make the point that this meaning constitutes the overwhelming majority of uses, thereby providing them with an argument based on Scriptural precedence. However, as I am about to show, they have grossly overstated their case. These “overwhelming examples” from the bible do not give them the precedence they really need. Since the witnesses have appealed to Colossians 1:15 to prove THEIR case, all we would really need is a single example where “prototokos” was applied without a numerical significance (first in time or series), and they would lose the argument. For such would show that there is no necessity for the term to bear that sense. Yet, as I am about to show, the Scripture provides much more than a just single example, it actually shows a pattern on Jehovah’s part of not being “bound” by men’s customs in the making of His choices. We must keep in mind at this point that if the Witnesses cannot prove from Col. 1:15 that Christ was the first of God’s creations, they must come to verses 16 and 17 empty-handed as far as having established their premise (from the context) for the logic used to justify the NWT’s rendering “ta panta” as “all OTHER things” in these verses.
So the question is, does “prototokos” always carry the “first in time and series” connotation? No it does not, for we can show examples where the term was applied when numerical significance was NOT the issue, status or rank was. In addition we can show a figurative use of the term in Hebrew culture, a usage that did NOT require the first in time or series meaning. In fact the Scripture starts early to show a pattern on Jehovah’s part of not relying on numerical order in the making of his choices of individuals for certain uses.
What saith the Scripture?
Abraham’s actual firstborn was Ishmael and Isaac came later. Yet we read in Hebrews 11:17 that Isaac was Abraham’s “monogenes”. This is sometimes rendered “only begotten”, but Issac was not Abraham’s only begotten, but he was Jehovah’s choice, the unique one, the one of a kind son of promise through whom Abraham’s “seed” was to come. Although the term “prototokos” is not used here, it does show an early illustration that God could not be held hostage to numerical order in the making of His choices. Another example that does apply “prototokos” is found by comparing Genesis 41:51 with Jeremiah 31:9, for here, Joseph had two sons, Manasseh was the first and Ephraim the second. Yet we read in Jeremiah 31:9, “I have become to Israel a Father, and as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn.” Here we find another example of Jehovah making His choices without regard for numerical order, first in time etc. Yet we see the term “prototokos” being applied.Another example appears in Job 18:13 where the phrase “firstborn of death” is applied, NOT to the first disease, but to the deadliest of diseases. Once again we see that numerical order was not the emphasis, status was.
Consider Jacob and Esau. Esau was actually the first numerically, yet the promised “seed” was to come through Jacob, and so he acquired the right (status) of the firstborn and did so within the permissive will of God, in perfect accord with God’s plan of salvation. It had been predicted that “the older will serve the younger” (Gen. 25:23). We could not ask for a better example to show that Jehovah was not bound by men’s customs in the making of his choices.
In fact I am not alone in recognizing this pattern set by Jehovah. It may surprise the rank & file witnesses but the WT Society actually agrees with me on this point. In the same context with the gaining of the birthright by Jacob, the WT says the following:
“…By this means Jehovah God made clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses is not bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming to men’s expectations”. (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. #1, page 856)
So the numerous examples cited by the witnesses of human customs or “men’s expectations” with the term “prototokos” cannot be accepted as showing the proper precedence to prove their claims from Col. 1:15. Instead, as the WT agrees, Jehovah made it clear that he was NOT bound by such traditions and customs of men. So when Trinitarians give greater weight to what “Jehovah made clear”, if the witnesses want to complain, they should take up their complaint with the WT Society. After all, do they think they know better than the Organization? Do they consider themselves right and the Organization wrong?
As if the above weren’t enough, another example which illustrates that Jehovah was not bound by men’s traditions of numerical order in the making of his decisions can be seen with King David. He was neither Jesse’s first child nor Israel’s first king, yet we read that Jehovah called him “firstborn” in Psalms 89:27, thus “…I myself shall place him as firstborn, The most high of the kings of the earth”. Once again we have the WT’s agreement that this term can have the emphasis of “preeminence”. Did they say “preeminent”? Yes they sure did. In the Aid to Bible Understanding book, page 584, they had said: ((although they must have thought better of it later when writing the Insight Volumes, for there under the same entry they strangely “lose” the term preeminent;-)). hmm…nevertheless in the Aid book they had said:
“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 (here it is) 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.—-Compare Psalm 2:2, 7 with 1 Samuel 10:1; Hebrews 1:5.
Now let’s put our thinking caps on for a moment. Notice above how even the WT appealed to Psalms 2:2 and 7 when discussing Jehovah’s placement of David as “firstborn”, David whom the WT says, “prophetically represented the Messiah”. So what does Psalms 2:2 and 7 refer to? Note….
“…The kings of earth take their stand And high officials themselves have massed together as one Against Jehovah and against his anointed one,
“……He has said to me: ‘You are my son; I, today, I have become your father.
But let’s not stop here in verse 7, as the WT did. Let’s go one more verse to see what it say
s:“…Ask of me, that I may give nations as your inheritance And the ends of the earth as your own possession”
Yes indeed, the WT Society made the above associations with David’s being called “firstborn” by Jehovah. Please look at them again. First they said David “prophetically represents” the Messiah from this preeminent position “firstborn”, then they reference to Psalms 2:7 which is cited in Hebrews 1:5. Does this refer to Christ’s creation according to the witnesses? In context after the statement “Today I have begotten you, it says immediately “Ask of me, that I may give nations as your inheritance” (italics mine). Now consider, folks, does this remind us of Christ’s being “appointed” heir of all things? You bet it does! The WT Society says that Jesus Christ was “spiritually begotten at the time of his baptism…” (Insight, Vol.#1, page 837), and in the WT’s big reference bible, under Psalms 2:7 they reference Matt. 3:17 (Christ’s baptism) along with Heb. 1:5. So according to even the WT Organization, David’s being placed as “firstborn” prophetically represented Christ’s baptism which constituted a spiritual begetting, also referenced in Heb. 1:5 and 5:5. I invite the witnesses to look this up in their own reference bible under Psalms 2:7-8….
Thus the application of “prototokos” to Christ in Col. 1:15 merely shows his preeminent position, and He deserved such because in reality all creation came into existence through him…without even a single exception (cf. John 1:3). Paul agrees by saying “He is before all things (pantwn)”. If the Witnesses STILL try to save the argument by claiming the partitive genitive in verse 15, as mentioned earlier this poses no problem for the Trinity, for Christ entered the creature category at Bethlehem. So we see how the witnesses have been huffing and puffing at a straw man. It’s not enough to argue that Christ was “among” creation, or even belonged to the category, but they must prove that He was the first creation, and Col. 1:15 fails to get the job done for them.
Some witnesses, seemingly frustrated by the above argumentation, have in the last resort attempted to save face by portraying the figurative usage of terms in a somewhat negative light. Thus they choose their words carefully, they say “but YOU have to adopt the figurative use of the term”…etc. Indeed one gets the impression that if it were possible they would even throw in a little body English with it. The truth is that the examples cited above show that God did it… and it’s a beautiful thing! There are plenty of examples in Scripture where various titles are applied figuratively to Christ, some of them even seemingly self-contradictory. Would we say, for example, that Christ was not the Shepherd because he was the Lamb? Was he not the Priest because he was the Sacrifice? We soon discover that Christ was both Shepherd and Lamb, Priest and sacrifice, King and slave, Son of God and Son of man. So we should not be surprised to find that the One who was “appointed heir of all things” is also called “firstborn of all creation”, not because he was numerically the first creature, but because all things came into existence through him and for him, and are held together by him (synestiken). And naturally because as Paul said “he is before all things”.
Paul says the same thing here as John does in John 1:1-3, as we might expect. Right after applying “theos” to the Logos, John then immediately portrays him as the one through whom all things came into existence. He says there were no exceptions to this, not even one! This means that even the first thing that ever came into existence did so through the Logos. And due to the generic language and the explicit denial of even a single exception, the burden is on any who would claim that “all” doesn’t mean “all” here. Pointing to other places where “all” didn’t mean “all” will not satisfy the burden, for they must show that it doesn’t mean “all” here in John 1:3, especially since this passage states no exceptions (oude hen…not even one thing!). This is a hard thing for the average witness. Not that he doesn’t see the obvious, but that he doesn’t want to accept it.
In response to the “literal and figurative uses of ‘firstborn”, Greg Stafford says on page 217 of JWD, “The notion of temporal priority in the OT (LXX) use of prototokos is not in dispute, neither is the notion of primacy of status, which was accorded to the firstborn.” However, as shown above, the notion of temporal priority with the use of “prototokos” in the OT was rejected by Jehovah God Himself in the making of his choices of individuals, as even agreed to by the WT Organization. Does Stafford know better than God’s “Authority” on these matters? Does he consider himself superior to the Organization at recognizing Jehovah’s pattern? I make my appeal here to the average JW who may be considering these things. When Stafford says it’s not in dispute, how does that jive with the WT’s statement that, “By this means Jehovah God made clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses is not bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming to men’s expectations” (Insight.., Vol. 1, page 856…Italics mine). Now stop to think: Jehovah was either “bound” to the customs and expectations of men, or He wasn’t. What did the WT Organization say about this? And is it not amazing that, after having said that the notion of temporal priority “is not in dispute” in the OT, he then goes on to actually cite the very examples that caused the WT to recognize that Jehovah God was not “bound” by men’s customs and expectations?
Seemingly sensing the weakness in his position at this point, Stafford goes on to acknowledge the application of “firstborn” to David…that it did not intend temporal priority. He therefore admits a figurative application as a possible fulfillment of Psalms 89:27, but tries to retrieve himself at the last minute by asserting that Christ is “not said to have been ‘placed as’ or ‘given’ the position of ‘firstborn’. However, the Scripture reveals that Christ was appointed heir of all things (Heb. 1:2), and Psalms 2:7-8 is actually cited in the Hebrews context, but what did we read at Psalms 2:7-8? We read as plain as day that “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father. Ask of me, that I may give nations as your inheritance And the ends of the earth as your own possession.” (WT references Psalms 89:27 at this point) So how much difference is there between being “placed”… and being “appointed”? Can the reader not see that Stafford is grasping at straws here? He tries to distinguish on the basis of “political figures” (as per the kings in Ps. 89:27), yet the WT still references Ps. 89:27 with Ps. 2:7 where the inheritance is expanded to include “nations as your inheritance”, and recall Christ’s being “appointed heir of all things” (Heb 1:2). So with the WT’s referencing Ps. 89:27 with Ps. 2:7, we cannot miss the easy connection with Col. 1:15-17 where Paul likewise includes the phraseology “…the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities” (italics mine).
The Witness of the Early Church
Now that we have shown Jehovah’s pattern as set forth in the Scripture of not being “bound” by human customs or “the expectations of men” in the making of his choices of individuals for certain uses, and now that we have seen how even the WT Society acknowledged this pattern and said so, it is appropriate at this juncture to consider the beliefs of the early Christians who lived just after the apostolic generation. Did they approach their terms with pedantic literalism?On page 7, under the heading, “What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught” the “Should You believe in the Trinity” Booklet (a booklet produced by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) had this t
o say about the credentials of these great men:“The Ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest.” (bold and underline mine)
So in light of the WT’S own comments it would be of interest to see how the early Christians might shed some light on our subject. Apparently in NT times, as well as the generations immediately following, the expression “firstborn of….” became stereotyped.
POLYCARP studied at the feet of St. John, and of course John was contemporary with the Apostle Paul and inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Polycarp died in the year 155. But he wrote an epistle to the Phillipians recorded in Vol. 1, page 34 of the Ante-nicene Fathers by Roberts and Donaldson:
Chapter VII–…”For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist, and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, if of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan. “(bold and underline mine)
Note that the subject of the idiom here is left hypothetical (whosoever) by Polycarp. Well then, what’s happened to the time-element with the meaning of this title? It has dropped off, and is no longer the emphasis of the idiom. But what has remained is the status or rank. Polycarp’s meaning is exceedingly obvious to the most casual observer, Satan would be proud of whoever would do this…like his firstborn son.
What about the authenticity of Polycarp’s epistle? Let me read from Vol. 1, pages 31-32 of Roberts and Donaldson’s, “Ante-Nicene Fathers” concerning this epistle:
“The authenticity of the following Epistle can on no fair grounds be questioned. It is abundantly established by external testimony, and is also supported by the internal evidence. Irenaeus says (Adv. Haer., iii. 3): ‘There is extant an Epistle of Polycarp written to the Phillipians, most satisfactory, from which those that have a mind to do so may learn the character of his faith,’..etc. This passage is embodied by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History (iv.14); and in another place the same writer refers to the Epistle before us as an undoubted production of Polycarp (Hist. Eccl., iii. 36). (bold and underline mine)
Other ancient testimonies might easily be added, but are superfluous, inasmuch as there is a general consent among scholars at the present day that we have in this letter an authentic production of the renowned Bishop of Smyrna”.
The bottom line here is that as long as any of the above uses is even possible, the witnesses have failed to establish their case. They must therefore come to Col. 1:16-17 empty-handed as far as having established their premise (which is also their conclusion…Christ was the first creature). After all is said and done the witnesses find themselves in the same predicament here as in John 1:1-3. Like it or lump it, they must take their premise for granted (Christ was the first creature), a premise which also happens to be their ultimate conclusion. They must ASSUME it, then reason as if it were so in order to explain the context in both places. Either that or they must bring in disputed passages from outside with their own conclusion assumed correct. But such reasoning begs the question by making what they would prove the presupposition of their exegesis. The Orthodox position is superior at every turn. We can reach our conclusion that Christ was not the first creation by the actual wording in the context in both places, and we don’t have to assume it at the outset. Therefore the Orthodox position has a vastly superior claim to comporting with the natural meaning of the context in both places.
The witnesses’ complaints notwithstanding, there are in fact many titles and metaphors applied figuratively to Christ throughout Scripture, so another one at Col. 1:15 would add only to the JW burden. They can’t handle it because they need the argument . But again, recall the WT’s cross referencing Ps. 89:27 through Ps. 2 to Christ’s baptism as per Matt. 3:17, and also recall the WT’s pointing to Christ’s baptism as a “spiritual begetting” on page 837, Vol. #1 of Insight. So my JW friends, let’s put it all together. Psalms 89:27 calls David “firstborn” in prophetic anticipation of Christ, this goes back to Psalms 2:7-8 wherein is mentioned Christ’s “inheritance”…this is then crossed to Matt. 3:17 which is Christ’s baptism, which the WT admits was a “spiritual” begetting. And to top it all off, the “inheritance” mentioned at Ps 2:8 crosses also to Heb. 1:2 (appointed heir of all things). Let me requote the WT’s statement about Christ’s baptism to make it easier for the reader: Again, this is found in Vol. #1, page 837: “Figurative and Symbolic Use. ((did they say figurative?)) Jesus Christ was spiritually begotten at the time of his baptism…” Very well, then, so much for this latest attempt by JWs to supposedly prove that Christ was the first of God’s creations.
Closing thoughts…
In times past I have accepted the partitive interpretation of the genitive in Col. 1:15 only for the sake of the argument and to show JWs that the argument is in reality a strawman, because the inclusion of Christ in the category of creation no more supports the JW view than the Trinity view, as some JWs have been assuming. We also believe that Christ entered the category as per John 1:14. Therefore the witnesses have been boxing the air with this one when their REAL burden is to prove that Christ was the first of God’s creations. I adopted the partitive interpretation also in my debate with Wrench, and the ensuing discussion demonstrates that he was unable to make any headway by showing an advantage for his view over mine. But in reality I’m more inclined to interpret the genitive in Col. 1:15 as a genitive of subordination (firstborn over all creation). This interpretation fits well with the immediate context showing that from start to finish Christ was hand’s on responsible for all creation in the first place, and also responsible for its reconciliation in the last place.Yet He deserves the designation “firstborn” because as Paul said, “He is before all things” thus harmonizing with John 1:3. This is even more clear when understood against the background of the Colossian heresy that there were many “aions” or mediators. Only Christ could be the true Mediator because only He could identify with both sides of the spectrum. Only He could be a truly sympathetic Mediator because only He knows firsthand what it’s like to actually BE both… truly human and truly God. I respectfully urge my JW friends to open their minds to the plain sense of God’s Word and be willing, against any earthly religious organization, to honor/value the Son “just as” they honor/value the Father (John 5:23). Our JW friends explain that the reason they use God’s name is to honor Him, yet the bible tells us that if we do not honor/value the Son “just as” we do the Father, we aren’t honoring the Father either. The reason we are told that all judgment has been committed to the Son is so that (hina w/subj. timwsi) we may recognize His true and ultimate identity. Who but the Creator, Jehovah, could be the judge of all creation? So if all judgment has been committed to the Son, who must He be? Think about it. I’m NOT saying here that the Son is the Father, but only that Jehovah ultimately includes the Son and the Holy Spirit. They are that single Authority in whose name believers were to be baptized (Matt. 28:19).
I will close for now, but in closing let me echo the sentiments of Dr. Robert Gundry in “The Church and the Tribulation”… it is hoped that these pages will contribute to an understanding and appreciation of the Trinitarian position, and that they will do so in a manner characterized by “the wisdom from above…first pure, then peace
able, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, and without hypocrisy” (James 3:17).Ray Goldsmith
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Goldsmith.Col1_15.htmthe Roo
When my child was about four years old he tried to put a “Thomas the Tank Engine” track together trying to copy one that I had done before.
He didn't have the 'vision' of what he was doing because children of that age are egocentric and shorttermists. he could not see that his layout would not result in a complete uniform track without “FORCING” the pieces to fit.
I tried to guide him but he insisted on doing it his way. …eventually, I left him in the care of his mother … who didn't understand … and went out to buy a tube of Superglue for the track and some tissue for his tears.
He learnt, shortly.
ONE of You guys will never learn.
At the end of the day…ask this question: “Why does Scriptures not say more about the 'origin' of Jesus – pre-Man”?
But yet it does. But not that it should be of such purpose that it overshadows his epic human odyssey that led to his triumph over Sin and Death.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ May 31 2010,15:27) Quote (Kangaroo Jack @ May 30 2010,15:35) Mikeboll said: Quote They also believe that the phrase “prototokos pasa ktisis” does not really mean “firstborn of every creature” even though the Greek words mean exactly that. They argue that “firstborn” really means “preeminence” and “of every creature” really means “just mankind”, therefore when Paul called Jesus the “firstborn of all creation”, he really meant that Jesus is “preeminent over all mankind”.
To ALL:In my debate with Mike I demonstrated that the word “protokos” or “firstborn” means that Christ is the Son of honor and not literally “firstborn”. It means that He is the firstborn or HEAD of all mankind. But Mike denies that “protokos” may mean “preeminent” and his denial goes against the scriptural evidence. Mike's denial that “protokos” may mean “preeminent” is solely based in his Arain presuppositions.
Though the word “firstborn” literally refers to a child not preceded by another child in birth; it is also applied to a child of honor who is APPOINTED to be the firstborn in a family.
Note the scriptural examples below:
Simri was APPOINTED the “chief” son though he was not the literal firstborn:
Quote “Also Hosah, of the children of Merari, had sons; Simri the chief, (for though he was not the firstborn, yet his father made him the chief;)” 1 Chronicles 16:10 Ephraim was the second born of Joseph but was APPOINTED to be to be God's firstborn:
Quote “And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him. And Joseph called the name of the firstborn Manasseh: For God, said he, hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father's house.
And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath caused me to be fruitful in the land of my affliction” Genesis 41:50-52).
“They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn” (Jeremiah 31:9).
David was the youngest of many brothers but was APPOINTED God's firstborn:
Quote “And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep” (1 Samuel 16:20) ” 20I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him…
27Also I will appoint him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:20, 27).[/i]
There you have it! These scriptures clearly indicate that the word “firstborn” has nothing to do with being the literal firsborn but with being APPOINTED the “supreme” son in the family.
Mike batantly contradicts Paul who said that Christ is the firstborn in the sense that He is the “head” of the church and “preeminent” in all things:
Quote ]15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: 16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18And he is the HEAD of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the PREEMINENCE.
It's clear! The word “firstborn” in reference to Christ means that He is the CHIEF Son. It means that He is PREEMINENT. Paul said so!
Mike erroneously concludes that the phrase “fisrtborn of all creation” means that He is the first creature. But the Greek “pasa ktisis” in the context means “all mankind” which I proved to Mike beyond all doubt.
In reply Mike was not able to give a consistent explanation of Colossians 1. Verse 6 says that the gosel had produced fruit in “ALL the world.” According to Mike this is not to be taken literally. He says it is an “exaggeration.” Verse 23 says that the gospel was preached to “ALL creation.” Mike says that this also is an “exaggeration.” But He flip flops on verse 15 and says that the word “all” in “all creation” is literal.
Note how Mike flip flops:
vs. 6 is exaggeration: “The gospel produced fruit in ALL the world.”
vs. 15 is literal: “He is the firstborn of ALL creation.”
vs. 23 is exaggeration: “The gospel was preached to ALL creation.”
We are not obligated to take Mike's arguments seriously because he cannot maintain his definitionns consistently. If the word “ALL” is exaggeration in verses 6 & 23, then it is also exaggeration in verse 15.
Mike can't have it both ways! Consistency must rule!
vs. 6 is literal: “The gospel produced fruit in ALL creation” (mankind).
vs. 15 is literal: “He is the firstborn of ALL creation” (mankind).
vs. 23 is literal: “The gospel which was preached to ALL creation” (mankind).
Hebrews 1 says that Christ was “APPOINTED” heir of all things. If Jesus was literally the firstborn then He would have been the heir by birth and not by appointment. Christ was APPOINTED the heir. This means that He was APPOINTED the firstborn JUST AS His father David.
Mike has not been able to refute these things! His recent assertions that Jesus does not reign now but is “waiting”; and that He is a god in the “same sense” as satan prove that he is losing!. He has also said that satan is a “true god” while Jesus is not. Need I say more?
I'll be back after the holiday.
Kangaroo Jack
JackGood post and very well put. Col 1:15 contextually is about the “Preeminence” of Jesus without a doubt!
The NET completed by more than 25 scholars – experts in the original biblical languages – who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, has this to say about the verse…
The Greek term πρωτότοκος (prwtotokos) could refer either to first in order of time, such as a first born child, or it could refer to one who is preeminent in rank. M. J. Harris, Colossians and Philemon (EGGNT), 43, expresses the meaning of the word well: “The ‘firstborn’ was either the eldest child in a family or a pers
on of preeminent rank. The use of this term to describe the Davidic king in Ps 88:28 LXX (=Ps 89:27 EVV), ‘I will also appoint him my firstborn (πρωτότοκον), the most exalted of the kings of the earth,’ indicates that it can denote supremacy in rank as well as priority in time. But whether the πρωτό- element in the word denotes time, rank, or both, the significance of the -τοκος element as indicating birth or origin (from τίκτω, give birth to) has been virtually lost except in ref. to lit. birth.” In Col 1:15 the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus’ rank as over and above creation (cf. 1:16 and the “for” clause referring to Jesus as Creator).The problem that the ATs have is there is no “unambiguous” scripture anywhere in the Bible that proves Jesus had a beginning!
In the beginning before time, matter and space, Jesus who is the Word who was God always existed with the Father!
Have a good Holiday! Blessings Keith
Matthew 1:18, “Now the birth, the genessis, the beginning point, of Jesus Christ was on this wise,Jesus Christ had a beginning point. It began with his conception in the womb of Mary, and his birth about nine months later.
Barley,
I knew it was too good to last.
Why did you let me down.
Ok, I asked this of others and they could not answer…:
What did Jesus mean when he said, “What if you see the son of man ascending to where he once was?” (No rude answers please!)
And also, “Father, glorify me now, with the glory I had with you before the day was?”
And also, Jesus showed his Disciple the things written of Him.
And again, “Before Abraham, “JA………….And yet not one scripture where Jesus or the disciples ever said He existed as a real (Being) of some kind before His Birth here on earth. Don't you find that kinda odd. And are you saying Jesus was saying “a son of man” existed some where else before, Because Jesus said He was a son of Man going to where (he as a son of man) was before, So did he exist as a MAN before his berth on earth. Or was there another meaning He was driving at. Like His origins were from above in the plan and will of GOD, that a “son of man” (JESUS) would ascend up into the heaven Where He was (FOREORDAINED) as Peter Said.
As far as the glory He had it also was a foreordained Glory and Jesus full well understood it from his berth on. As you say Jesus showed the things written about him to his disciples, meaning Jesus full well know his destiny and how he came into existence and where he was going after he was resurected from the grave , Just as we will rise and meet him in the air also and we also have been foreordained for glory and foreknown in the same way as Jesus was , bu God the Father. Did not Jesus say Father these who were (past tense) yours hast you given me. Jesus did not say before Abraham “I WAS” showing a preexistence being, But said Before Abraham I AM, showing Showing a Position or status. JA read what martian has posted and think abut it brother. IMO
peace and love to you and yours………………..gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
