Firstborn as part of a group?

Zoro777

New Member
Hi all, I'm just wondering how Christians here would answer the jw objection that "firstborn of..." is connected with a group? So when Colossians 1 states Jesus is firstborn of all creation, they say Jesus is part of that creation He is "of"?

As an example I found this elsewhere in the group posted by a jw presumably?:

"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."
 

Fred

Well-known member

Their faulty view would mean that since Jesus is the firstborn of creation then creation is the parent of Jesus. The creation gave birth to Jesus. This is absurd.

1. prōtotokos in Colossians 1:15 does not teach the Lord Jesus was created.
a. Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words: The description of Christ as the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15 ; cf. Heb. 1:6) refers not to his temporal beginnings but to his supremacy and honor (firstborn, page 255).
b. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains: The figurative meaning of prōtotokos in the messianic title prōtotokos pases ktiseos 'firstborn of all creation' (Col 1.15) may be interpreted as 'existing before all creation' (see 13.79) or 'existing superior to all creation' (see 87.47) (10.43, prōtotokos, page 117).

2. Colossians 1:16-17 teaches that the Lord Jesus is the Creator.
Since the Bible teaches that God alone is the Creator (Job 9:8; Isaiah 44:24) demonstrates the Lord Jesus is God.

3. In Hebrews 1:6 'firstborn' is used in reference to the Lord Jesus in association in which He is the proper recipient of worship - and since God alone is to be worshiped proves the Lord Jesus is God.
a. BDAG (3rd Edition): Citing Hebrews 1:6 it reads "of deity in monotheistic cult" (proskyneō, page 882).
b. See also what the JW's affirmed in the past:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/did-jesus-create-the-angels.940/page-24#post-647340
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Hi all, I'm just wondering how Christians here would answer the jw objection that "firstborn of..." is connected with a group?

You shouldn't go knee jerk hunting for an objection to a claim but see if it is true first.

So when Colossians 1 states Jesus is firstborn of all creation, they say Jesus is part of that creation He is "of"?

Scripture says he is the "firstborn of many brothers." That's a group.

As an example I found this elsewhere in the group posted by a jw presumably?:

"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."
 

101G

Well-known member
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
find out who make all thing new, (the one who sits on the throned). then one will know if he's of his new creation.

PICJAG, 101G
 

Dant01

Well-known member
.
Col 1:15 . . He is the firstborn of all creation

God has other firstborn besides Christ

The people of Israel (Ex 4:22)

David (Ps 89:20-27)

The Greek word translated "firstborn" above is prototokos, which never means
created first; no, it always means born first. The correct Greek word for created
first is protoktistos.

The average JW probably doesn't know the difference between prototokos and
protoktistos; and no doubt would care little about it anyway. To some; born first
and created first are one and the same.

The thing to note is that "firstborn" doesn't always refer to birth order. The term
also refers to superiority, and as such is transferrable, viz: it's possible to
circumvent the eldest son and give his advantages to a younger, e.g. Esau to Jacob
(Gen 25:23) Manasseh to Ephraim (Gen 48:13-14) and Reuben to Joseph (Gen
49:3-4, 1Chr 5:1).

In the beginning, Adam was the ranking man over all Earth (Gen 1:26-28) but he
has since been superseded by one of his descendants. (Dan 7:13-14, John 3:35,
1Cor 15:27, Phil 2:8-11, Heb 1:2)
_
 

Dant01

Well-known member
Their faulty view would mean that since Jesus is the firstborn of creation then
creation is the parent of Jesus. The creation gave birth to Jesus. This is absurd.

It's actually not all that difficult to trace Jesus' origin to David, and from thence to
Adam, and from thence to dust.

In other words: The Word spoken of by John 1:1-3 created the cosmos; but the
flesh that The Word became in John 1:14 was himself created.

Christ is a very mysterious person in that he exists as a spirit being and a material
being simultaneously. (1Cor 15:45-47)
_
 

keiw

Well-known member
Hi all, I'm just wondering how Christians here would answer the jw objection that "firstborn of..." is connected with a group? So when Colossians 1 states Jesus is firstborn of all creation, they say Jesus is part of that creation He is "of"?

As an example I found this elsewhere in the group posted by a jw presumably?:

"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."
Jesus was created direct first and last, then all other things created through him, but God created all of it. Jesus is Gods master worker of Prov 8, he tells all he was created there.-Coll 1:15- the FIRSTBORN of all creation-Fact-All creation occurred at the beginning.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
Nope. Christ wasn't created. Your claim that He was is not the witness of Scripture, and is a falsehood. As for the term "firstborn", the word "firstborn" as used to refer to Christ in Col. 1:15 has to do with supremacy. The contextual theme of Colossians 1:15-19 is that of the Supremacy of Christ. "Firstborn" is a Hebrew word having to do with rank, primacy, pre-eminence, and supremacy. Vs. 15 is saying that Christ is the Supreme One over all Creation. That makes Him God. There is a different rendering of the Greek word "prototokos" for "first created", and that is the word Paul would have used if he wanted to convey the idea that Christ is a creation. He DOESN'T. Case closed.

And here is something REALLY BIG: Even the JW masters admit that "firstborn" has to do with supremacy. “David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the “firstborn,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation” (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584; emphasis added). The JW masters also admit that Israel is called "firstborn" by God in Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9. Israel is the special one, the ranking one, the pre-eminent one, the supreme one among all the nations of the earth - It's certainly NOT the first nation created - ANYONE who has even a small amount of real, actual knowledge knows that.
 

keiw

Well-known member
Nope. Christ wasn't created. Your claim that He was is not the witness of Scripture, and is a falsehood. As for the term "firstborn", the word "firstborn" as used to refer to Christ in Col. 1:15 has to do with supremacy. The contextual theme of Colossians 1:15-19 is that of the Supremacy of Christ. "Firstborn" is a Hebrew word having to do with rank, primacy, pre-eminence, and supremacy. Vs. 15 is saying that Christ is the Supreme One over all Creation. That makes Him God. There is a different rendering of the Greek word "prototokos" for "first created", and that is the word Paul would have used if he wanted to convey the idea that Christ is a creation. He DOESN'T. Case closed.

And here is something REALLY BIG: Even the JW masters admit that "firstborn" has to do with supremacy. “David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the “firstborn,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation” (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584; emphasis added). The JW masters also admit that Israel is called "firstborn" by God in Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9. Israel is the special one, the ranking one, the pre-eminent one, the supreme one among all the nations of the earth - It's certainly NOT the first nation created - ANYONE who has even a small amount of real, actual knowledge knows that.

The term all creation proves 100% it was speaking about the beginning creation. Its when creation occurred.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
You're wrong - Again - as usual. The words "all creation" is in direct relationship to the declaration of Christ being the Supreme One over all creation.
There is NOTHING in the verse that speaks about "the beginning of creation - when creation occurred" as you write.
In order to come to that conclusion, you have to first have that conclusion as a preconceived conclusion and then read that into the text in order to intentionally and dishonestly pervert the text to your already preconceived conclusion.
That is flat out NOT honest treatment of Scripture.
And it is NO surprise at all that your post does that.
 

keiw

Well-known member
You're wrong - Again - as usual. The words "all creation" is in direct relationship to the declaration of Christ being the Supreme One over all creation.
There is NOTHING in the verse that speaks about "the beginning of creation - when creation occurred" as you write.
In order to come to that conclusion, you have to first have that conclusion as a preconceived conclusion and then read that into the text in order to intentionally and dishonestly pervert the text to your already preconceived conclusion.
That is flat out NOT honest treatment of Scripture.
And it is NO surprise at all that your post does that.
You will find out different.
If Jesus was the supreme one over all creation, then why did all authority have to be given to him? Why did he have to be appointed king when God was already king? Why does he have to hand the kingdom back to his God and Father and subject himself?1Cor 15:24-28)--The answer = The Father is greater than i.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
LOL! Your first line is nothing but mere A-S=EW. No surprise.

As for the rest of your post, it merely runs away from what I posted. No surprise there either.
 

keiw

Well-known member
LOL! Your first line is nothing but mere A-S=EW. No surprise.

As for the rest of your post, it merely runs away from what I posted. No surprise there either.

And yet you have 0 answer to the rest of my post. Because facts prove trinity religions do not belong to Jesus.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
LOL! "The rest of your post" is nothing but cravenly running away from things that have already been presented to you which you have NEVER dealt with in any way that can be called HONEST.

In other words, "the usual" for your posts.
 
Last edited:

keiw

Well-known member
LOL! "The rest of your post" is nothing but cravenly running away from things that have already been presented to you which you have NEVER dealt with in any way that can be called HONEST.

In other words, "the usual" for your posts.

Actually what i showed in return you wouldnt believe because you believe errors over truths.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
LOL! Your post is nothing but MORE craven running away from HONESTLY engaging with what has already been presented to you, and A-S=EW.

Just more of "the usual".
 

keiw

Well-known member
LOL! Your post is nothing but MORE craven running away from HONESTLY engaging with what has already been presented to you, and A-S=EW.

Just more of "the usual".
Your best path would be to study Jesus carefully and apply what he teaches. Then maybe you could see clearly.

I already know. You outright refuse. You have rejected all i showed you he teaches. John 3:36--Those not obeying Jesus remain in Gods wrath.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
LOL! Your post is just MORE running away from what has already been presented to you regarding what Christ says and more A-S=EW.

So, in terms of "refusing" and "rejecting" - Physician, heal THYSELF first!
 

keiw

Well-known member
LOL! Your post is just MORE running away from what has already been presented to you regarding what Christ says and more A-S=EW.

So, in terms of "refusing" and "rejecting" - Physician, heal THYSELF first!
Not wise to reject Jesus' truth. Like this important one -- Matt 5:5--Blessed are the meek for they( great crowd) will inherit the earth-- Strange why trinity religions throw this truth in the garbage and tell everyone they are going to heaven. Only the little flock( Luke 12:32) and the great crowd( Rev 7:9) are being saved--The ones promised heaven are numbered= 144,000--that means Matt 5:5 is to the great crowd that no man can number= bible reality. Even the psalmist knew that fact-Psalm 37:29--and prov 2:21-22 assures they are going nowhere. Matt 24:22 assures they will be brought through the trib and Armageddon on earth.
 

imJRR

Well-known member
LOL! Your post above is just MORE TOTAL, craven running away from what's already been presented to you.

No surprise AT ALL - "the usual" from you.
 
Top