Colossians 1:15

SteveB

Well-known member
man was made in eden and not in a flesh body. the woes natural in eden is not the same as here. different world, different physicality, different realm and nature altogether.
The bible is quite clear that Adam and Eve were in fact created flesh and blood.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
not the flesh of this realm... they had the type of flesh of eden realm.
Do you have evidence of that?

Because according to Genesis 5, Seth had the same attributes as Adam, and he wasn't born until long after access to Eden had been cut off.
 

The Prophet

Active member
I'm agreeing with you. Firstborn in the greek does not mean first created.
y3FWqTo.jpg


the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.

Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my fatherï's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)

Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn (NASB)."
 

Nondenom40

Super Member
y3FWqTo.jpg


the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.

Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my fatherï's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)

Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn (NASB)."
I agree. All good verses.
 

e v e

Super Member
Do you have evidence of that?

Because according to Genesis 5, Seth had the same attributes as Adam, and he wasn't born until long after access to Eden had been cut off.
Yes seth did, but after the fall, for a time, people were still in the area near eden and upon the earth He created. After the flood we were somewhere else. One piece of evidence is the change of lifespan, which was reduced dramatically.

I can show all this but it's takes a long time and requires someone to care and have patience Steve. No one cares. The quotes around here are as sound bites...cliff notes and given without even mention of who the translator was and what translation was used... making all the quotes meaningless in my estimation. the bible scholars section often contains scholars who are not even christian! And these non christian scholars telling Christians what He means and what he wants to convey us! That's insane.

I've posted things, on the previous forums here at carm, about the nature of Eden versus this earth. God explains that sin was death, and then describes the difference of the two situations... that one will have painful childbirth, sweat, death, toil....things foreign to eden. That seems to be anecdotal but still has a bearing because something in the nature of things was twisted by the fall, and not just as a system. the term Kosmos means Cosmos. the fall affected cosmology, even our bodies. Also in Genesis 1 is described the nature of Adam in His Image, which is not at all of an animal, since the animals Adam was given dominion OF. Adam was not at all a creature. the nature described is the nature of elohim, His Image, male and female. I went through it word by word, and posted it in hebrew, with etymology, explaining what it says, transliterated. No one here cares or replied or else but scoffed at it. I am hesitant to spend so much time on that Steve. I'm older, I have chronic fatigue and the fact no one cares, and doesn't take it seriously makes it impossible to spend hours on that. Plus right now there are no images that can be uploaded, so I could post the hebrew line with its transliteration and discuss it. I use scripture4all.org btw. I believe that if a soul cares, then even if the things I say sound as if they could be wrong, one would be enough caring of Him to go check, to go find out, and translate it again, check word by word in Hebrew, investigate. But that is not what happens. Instead what happens is that other translations are trusted, even if they were translated by esau types (such as the non-christian translators of hebrew often found on this forum who are not christian yet tell Us what it says! As pharisee experts!).... and then are the constant posts using translations whose writer and version are not given as well. this creates much work and a false situation where any side of a question can argue with anyone else using competing quotes with nothing going anywhere because the translations are off, creating a sorcery situation!

I also posted in biblical languages a link to the dissertation of a christian from the 1950s at Boston University, who went through scripture and was able to distinguish on the point of your question every single usage of npsh (the term flesh in Genesis and all through scripture for the type of soul and being and body made by God). and all the uses of the same also in the NT, clarifying that the Self and the Soul are not the same. Because Npsh refers to an entire being, both soul and body, not a mixture of disparate things such as a soul and body, but one entire eden being, of one nature, which is the image of God. Whereas that is not the case today..for our bodies and souls are not a whole but a mixed thing. I can send you the link to that text. I posted it on carm several times and no one cared to even look. This matters because in the old testament there was no body of a different nature than the soul... Adam was npsh. The soul was npsh, the body npsh, meaning one entire being, in His image. Not the chimera we have now of a material flesh glued onto the soul. That is the result of the fall. So npsh was one undivided soul of Him, that is how Adam was made... and all of eden was of the nature that He created. So the term basar for flesh in the OT must be looked at carefully to see what flesh is meant. Because after the fall, changes began to happen. I'm not claiming this link is perfect okay, but it has interesting details...about basar as flesh... https://dorshav.typepad.com/hebrewwisdom/2007/08/basar-part-one-.html and asks the question that since His angels were made with a flesh that is basar, that cannot be the body as we think of it at all. Tne article insists that the use of the term is not synonymous with the idea of a carnal flesh at all. Which makes sense!

I mentioned life span changed, later than seth. These bodies we have now are post-flood and not of the same earth as Eden was. BTW, some of the non-christian bible scholar poo pooed the text from BU. I don't know that I bothered to post to biblical languages the link above... simply because once one is closed in their mindset, no effort will cause them to even try to listen. They criticized the BU text because it was written so long ago. Now why would trying to understand scripture, which is His words to us, ever be dated? And why would an honest listing of every instance of the term npsh in scripture, and discussion of the soul as NOT being the SELF and not related to carnality be ignored just because the scholar, a christian, found it in the 50s? It matters, because many here think the Self IS the Soul..and then that plays into the depravity issue and other questions. So if it's true that there are terms that were misused or mistranslated, then the entire meanings got corrupted and many themes get skewed! And especially given the medieval Roman situation, of the RCC, which by its councils and dogmas corrupted Christianity which the reformation TRIED to reform. But the problem is that many of the corruptions Remained and were not resolved by that reformation, meaning that in some crucial ways it failed because it continued to accept basic theological assumptions made by Rome.

Again, I know I cannot on a forum, where sound bytes exist and the tone is argumentative, prove much. And that is why I have not tried to and never quote. it will do no good, since there is too much to cover, word by word, and a forum does not lend itself to that. So that is why I can't reply to you in a succinct way.
 

e v e

Super Member
Btw, the structure of the soul and body that Rome adopted and that many view as true, is entirely platonic - given by the Greek pagan Plato. Most theology and philosophy today do not understand what I wrote in the previous post.
 

The Prophet

Active member
Btw, the structure of the soul and body that Rome adopted and that many view as true, is entirely platonic - given by the Greek pagan Plato. Most theology and philosophy today do not understand what I wrote in the previous post.
What the Bible teaches about Soul and body and how we are made in God's image

5ON3i5c.jpg
 

e v e

Super Member
Yes, the above quote/graphic is all Aristotelian and Platonic construction overlaid upon Christianity.

Horrible.
 

e v e

Super Member
Is/Is Not logic is derived from aquinas...lover of aristotle, who in conversation with the islamicist averroes, wrote the summa, a platonic / aristotelian text disguised as christianity.
 

e v e

Super Member
aquinas got his aristotle and plato via averroes. All the structure of questions, of what questions are important, of how to argue such questions using syllogistic logic, were given by plato and aristotle and adopted by Roman Christianity in the medieval period. It's not Christian.

The pagan "unmoved mover" is NOT God.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Ok. May as well get this started.

According to Colossians 1:15, Jesus is the firstborn

Col 1:15 WEB He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

From the nwt

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

In the Greek the word used for firstborn is prototokos.

My question is

Since when does firstborn mean first created?

David Reed, in his book Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, tells us the Witnesses will point to the term “first-born” of creation as “proof” that Jesus is a created being, not the Eternal God. (p. 97) Reed rightly points out, however, that “first-born” does not necessarily refer to the one born first in a family. Referencing Psalm 89:27, he discloses the fact that King David, the last-born son of Jesse, was established by God to be his “first-born” when the Lord said, “Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn, The (sic) most high of the kings of the earth.” (NWT) (Ibid) David was not the first to be born in his family, nor was he even the first to be King of Israel, but God made him to be the preeminent member “of the kings of the earth.” He was the highest of all rulers, the first in terms of importance and status. Thus, Paul writes in Colossians 1:15 that Christ is “the firstborn over all creation” (NIV), the ruler over all he has made. (Revelation 3:14) -The Watchtower Jesus, D. Allen Jenkins, pg 34

Doug
 
Last edited:
Please understand that the term "firstborn" connotes preeminence (since it is the firstborn who receives the double portion from his father and becomes head of the household). However, it also(--in a genitive phrase) refers to a member of the group that the person/thing is "firstborn" of.

Exodus 12:29: "And in the middle of the night, Yahweh struck all of the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the prison house, and every firstborn of beasts." The "firstborn of Pharaoh" was still one of the children of Pharaoh, the "firstborn of the capitve" was still one of the children of the captive, the "firstborn of beasts" was still one of the beasts.

Psalm 89:27--(although this is not a genitive use) David--as "firstborn" of the kings of the earth--is still one of the kings of the earth.

Therefore, regardless of whether the usage of firstborn is literal or figurative, the firstborn--while "preeminent", is still a member of the group that he is the "firstborn of"(. Colossians 1:15 is no different).

(FYI, this is one of the reasons πρωτόκτιστος couldn't have been used in this text.)
 
Last edited:

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Nature is a part of a being. For intance, your nature (according to Scripture) is ADHAM. However, you are not (the being) hA ADHAM.

You are equivocating the definition being! The meaning being as opposed to "the being" is different. Being, as I am intending it, is the aspect of our nature that we are personal/relational. Strictly speaking, being is related to existence, it expresses that "we are". Nature speaks to what we are specifically as compared to other things. God is God because his nature is different from anything else, and specifically these distinctives include being uncreated, eternal, and all the omni qualities.

We are human beings, that is our nature, our natural state of existence. We are personal, relational, rational, etc, etc, as a race or type of being. So being is not about being a specific individual, not about being the person of Adam, but of being the type of Adam, being human. God is God because he is by nature a different type of being, he has a different type of existence than all other types of being. It is the nature of the personal being that makes them what they are, i.e., human, animal, mineral, God!


Doug
 

SteveB

Well-known member
David Reed, in his book Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse, tells us the Witnesses will point to the term “first-born” of creation as “proof” that Jesus is a created being, not the Eternal God. (p. 97) Reed rightly points out, however, that “first-born” does not necessarily refer to the one born first in a family. Referencing Psalm 89:27, he discloses the fact that King David, the last-born son of Jesse, was established by God to be his “first-born” when the Lord said, “Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn, The (sic) most high of the kings of the earth.” (NWT) (Ibid) David was not the first to be born in his family, nor was he even the first to be King of Israel, but God made him to be the preeminent member “of the kings of the earth.” He was the highest of all rulers, the first in terms of importance and status. Thus, Paul writes in Colossians 1:15 that Christ is “the firstborn over all creation” (NIV), the ruler over all he has made. (Revelation 3:14) -The Watchtower Jesus, D. Allen Jenkins, pg 34

Doug
Thank you Doug.
I've located, and ordered a copy off amazon.
 
Top