tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.comments2024-01-19T12:25:09.941-08:00Jesus and Jehovah (Yahweh)Ronald Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comBlogger228125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-9541510978510869652024-01-19T12:25:09.941-08:002024-01-19T12:25:09.941-08:00In response to:
Quote: At Colossians 1:15, a dyna...In response to:<br /><br />Quote: At Colossians 1:15, a dynamic equivalence Bible translation can translate the text as "the Firstborn over the whole creation", since this is the natural meaning of the text. However, the NWT claims to be a "literal" translation, so it is not entitled to include "other" in the continuation. -- End quote.<br /><br />We are NOT with the JWs and rarely use their NWT. We believe that in English what Paul was saying in Colossians 1:16 is this: "For by means of him all in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible were created, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities. All have been created through him and for him." <br /><br /><br />Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-39815832626084445212024-01-19T12:21:56.426-08:002024-01-19T12:21:56.426-08:00In response to:
Quote: Since the whole context of...In response to:<br /><br />Quote: Since the whole context of Colossians chapter one is speaking about the supremacy of Christ as being the Creator rather than being of the creation, it is in this sense that Christ is called the “firstborn” or preeminent one in relation of the whole creation. -- Endquote.<br /><br />I have no scriptural reason to imagine and assume that whole context of Colossians 1 is speaking about the supremacy of Christ (God's anointed one) as being the Creator rather than being one of the creation. Throughout Colossians 1, God is presented as one person and Jesus is presented as Christ, that is, anointed one -- the one whom God anointed -- Psalm 2:26; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Ezekiel 34:23,24; John 10:29; 17:1,3; Acts 2:23,36; 4:27; 10:38; Hebrews 1:9.<br /><br />It is Jesus' God whose will was that Paul be an apostle of Jesus Christ. (Colossians 1:1) Grace and Peace is from the one person who is God and also from the one whom God anointed. (Colossians 1:2) God is one person who is the Father of Jesus whom God anointed. (Colossians 1:3) Faith is by means of (Instrumental en, Strong's #1722) the one whom the one person who is God anointed. (Colossians 1:4) Knowing God's -- one person -- grace is by means of (Instrumental en, Strong's #1722) truth (revealed by God's anointed -- Christ: Colossians 1:6). Colossians 1:10,11 speak of the power of Jesus' God -- as one person -- to provide strength. Jesus' God is the one person who is spoken of in Colossians 1:12 as the one person who qualifies one to share in the inheritance of the saints. It is one person -- Jesus' God -- who transfers the saints into the Kingdom that God has given to His Son. (Colossains 1:13) The redemption of the saints is from one person -- Jesus' God -- by means (instrumental EN, Strong's #1722) of the Son. (Colossians 1:13,14) In Colossians 1:15, Jesus is presented as being the "image" of the same one person who is God throughout Colossians 1:1-14. Verses 16 and 17, in harmony with verses 1-15, presents Jesus as the instrument of the creation of all dominions, visible and invisible, in heaven and on earth. This also harmonizes with 1 Corinthians 8:6 and the Textus Receptus of Ephesians 3:9.<br /><br /><br />Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-79462019676887278972024-01-19T12:19:16.014-08:002024-01-19T12:19:16.014-08:00In response to:
Quote: "Firstborn" does...In response to:<br /><br />Quote: "Firstborn" does not have any "temporal meaning" taken by itself, obviously if it refers to a human, etc. of course they are temporal beiing, but this does not follow from the saying or not saying of the Firstborn, since it does not refer to such a thing in itself at all. "Firstborn" means "preeminence", "supremacy", "distinguished heir", "ruler", nothing more, nothing less. Context determines whether the term “first-born” in a particular passage should be interpreted as referring to supremacy of position as the preeminent one or the first one physically born. -- Endquote<br /><br />The usual usage of firstborn is that of being the first to be brought forth of he group being spoken of. That is certainly referring to a time when the firstborn was brought forth. It also includes the firstborn in the group of which he is firstborn. Many trinitarian scholars, however, claim that in Colossians 1:16, firstborn cannot mean the first to be brought for every creature of God, since that would mean that Jesus was created. Since they imagine and assume that Jesus is God the Creator, they therefore try to make firstborn in Colossians 1:15 mean something else that the first one to be brought for every creature of God. However, the Bible can be seen to be fully in harmony with itself without all the trinitarian assumptions being added to and read into the scriptures. <br /><br />While in the Bible preeminence is given to the firstborn, the word "firstborn" itself does not mean preeminence, supremacy, or ruler. It simply means the first to be brought forth of the group being referring to. The firstborn of such a group is, however, always a member of the group of which he is firstborn. The group in Colossians 1:15 is "every creature" -- referring to the creation of living creatures that the one person who is "God" in Colossians 1:15 created, that is, all of God's creatures. Thus, by the fact that he is firstborn of this group shows that he is himself a member of God's creatures.<br /><br />See links to some of our other studies related to <a href="https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/firstborn.html" rel="nofollow">Jesus as God's Firstborn</a>.Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-34425238139160516062024-01-19T12:17:13.211-08:002024-01-19T12:17:13.211-08:00In response to: "Numbers 23:9, Israel was not...In response to: "Numbers 23:9, Israel was not counted among the nations. That is why the Jews called the other peoples, the gentiles "the nations" (goyim)."<br /><br />Numbers 23:9 - For from the top of the rocks I see him, And from the hills I behold him: Lo, it is a people that dwelleth alone, And shall not be reckoned among the nations.<br /><br />The above words are part of the words Balaam had received from Jehovah. -- Numbers 23:16-24.<br /><br />I am not sure why this is being cited, but God separated Israel as the only nation to be given the Law Covenant. In God's eyes they are not counted among the nations; they are God's separate people.<br /><br />"Goyim" is a transliteration of a plural form of Hebrew word often transliterated as "goy" (<a href="https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1471.htm" rel="nofollow">Strong's #1471</a>). God says to Israel: "You shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy (separated, set apart) nation [Strongs' #1471]." (Exodus 19:6) These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel." God's separating Israel from the other nations does not mean that the Hebrew word "goy" does not apply to Israel. <br /><br />Nevertheless, Israel, being the only nation that God "brought forth" as his covenant people, is God's firstborn child (figuratively) as a nation. God did not form a law covenant with any other nation at all. -- Exodus 4:22.<br /><br />Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-70702797361611070302023-12-07T18:21:57.766-08:002023-12-07T18:21:57.766-08:00The fact is that Russell did not worship Jesus as ...The fact is that Russell did not worship Jesus as being God, but as being the Son of God, the Messiah. He pointed out the Biblical usage of the words for worship, showing that the words are used of many people in the Bible. His study is similar to my own studies. -- Ronald R. Day, Sr.<br /><br />Russell's examination of the Biblical usage of the Hebrew and Greek words for "worship" may be found within the study at:<br /><a href="http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/volumes/E02.asp" rel="nofollow">http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/volumes/E02.asp</a><br />Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-32212576488476544212023-12-07T13:56:12.428-08:002023-12-07T13:56:12.428-08:00When I encountered Zech.12:10, allowed that the pi...When I encountered Zech.12:10, allowed that the piercing of Jesus was as if God's heart had been pierced. John 19:37 certainly corrects Zech.12:10 and relieves us of any struggle with understanding who is being prophesied about - our beloved redeemer, Jesus! tobewanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05485354828741653368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-70351917673679291402023-11-06T11:48:26.467-08:002023-11-06T11:48:26.467-08:00A fact about C T Russell is that he worshipped Jes...A fact about C T Russell is that he worshipped Jesus and the Bible says only God is to be worshipped. Why did Russell promote the worshipping of Jesus as God if he didn't believe Jesus was God? Was he promoting two equal Gods to be worshipped?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-27591647549477929162023-10-17T15:46:04.548-07:002023-10-17T15:46:04.548-07:00It is most evident that the Jews that wanted to ki...It is most evident that the Jews that wanted to kill Jesus simply because he called his God 'Father', were ignorant of the early writings found in Psalm 89:26-27 , concerning the Messiah who is to come, <br />"I will also place his hand on the sea,<br />And his right hand on the rivers.<br />He will call to Me, ‘You are my Father,My God, and the rock of my salvation.’<br />I will also make him My firstborn,<br />The highest of the kings of the earth"<br />and too, Jeremiah 3:19<br />"“Then I said, ‘How I would set you among My sons And give you a pleasant land, The most beautiful inheritance of the nations!’ And I said, ‘You shall call Me, My Father, And not turn away from following Me.’<br /> <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-37200427159635565182023-09-02T10:01:09.453-07:002023-09-02T10:01:09.453-07:00(Continued from earlier comments)
Of course, the G...(Continued from earlier comments)<br />Of course, the Greek word for "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 does not mean "first-created". We have made no such claim. The Greek word often transliterated as "prototokos" (Strong's Greek #4416) corresponds with the forms of the Hebrew word often transliterated as "bekor" (Strong's Hebrew #1060). The LXX usually renders forms of Hebrew "bekor" with forms of the Greek "prototokos." The meaning "preeminent one" is not inherit in either the Hebrew or Greek words, although the first one to be born of a group, or the one who is assigned the rights of the first one to be born of a group, is given the preeminence throughout the Bible.<br /><br />The Greek word for first-created is “protoktistos”. As far as I know, there is no evidence that such a word had been invented in the first century, nor can I think of any reason Paul would have had to use such a word in the context he was speaking of. Paul was not emphasizing that Jesus was the first created, but rather that Jesus held the preeminent right as the firstborn of every creature. <br /><br />Nevertheless, the word protoktistos was used by Clement later. He refers to Christ as both protoktistos and prototokos; both is true but the two words do not actually mean the same thing.<br /><br />Because Jesus is God's firstborn Son, God has made Jesus to be the "one Lord" through whom are all. (Ezekiel 34:23,24; Isaiah 61:1,2; Acts 2:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6) God Almighty does not need anyone to exalt Him to a higher position of glory, but God Almighty did exalt Jesus to the highest position in the universe, far above the angels, next only to God Almighty. Thus, because Jesus is God's firstborn Son, Jesus is given preeminence over all, of course, with the evident exception of God Almighty who has exalted Jesus. -- Acts 2:33,36; 5:31; Philippians 2:9; Ephesians 1:3,17-23; Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 15:27; Hebrews 1:4,6; 1 Peter 3:22.<br /><br />For links to studies related to Colossians 1:16:<br /><a href="https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/colossians.html#col1-16" rel="nofollow">https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/colossians.html#col1-16</a><br /><br />Regarding the default reasoning of Jesus' relationship with his God and Father.<br /><a href="https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/09/jesusnotjah.html" rel="nofollow">https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/09/jesusnotjah.html</a><br /><br />Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-7701945379254919662023-09-02T10:00:05.281-07:002023-09-02T10:00:05.281-07:00Responding to:
"The phrase something of some...Responding to:<br /><br />"The phrase something of something' does not at all mean 'belonging to a category' in any language (not even in English), in itself it just expresses a kind of relation. What that relation is, is expressed by the specific statement and the broader context."<br /><br />Response: I first wish to state that the idea of a non-specific "something of something" and "category" is irrelvant to the Biblical usage of "firstborn". Of course, it is true the genitive in Koine Greek is not always partitive; nevertheless, in the Bible, the firstborn of a living group is always a member of the group [not category] of which he is the firstborn (the first to be brought forth). There is no scriptural reason to think that firstborn in Colossians 1:15 is not a member of all of God's creation as spoken of in Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14. The only reason to seek to make the genitive in Colossians 1:15 is to make it appear to be in agreement with a doctrine that is nowhere found in the Bible.<br /><br />Responding to: "It is not difficult to understand what the 'Firstborn of the whole creation' means. It is enough to see what the title 'Firstborn' title means: preeminent, distinguished heir, ruler, etc., therefore it's a lordly title, is also related to the Davidic-Messianic title - even according to the Watchtower, cf. Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584."<br /><br />It is not difficult to see what "firstborn of every creature" means in Colossians 1:15. Firstborn means what it means, the first to be brought forth of the group being spoken of. The group in Colossians 1:15 is every creature, that is, every creature of God, in harmony with Revelation 3:14.<br /><br />For links to studies related to Colossians 1:15<br /><a href="https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/colossians.html#col1-15" rel="nofollow">https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/colossians.html#col1-15</a><br /><br />Nevertheless, the default reasoning is that since Jesus is not the "one God" from whom are all, then Jesus was at some point brought forth into being. Since Jesus is not God of whom he is the son, the default reasoning is that his being spoken of as the "son" of his God would mean that at some point his God and Father had given life to his Son, just as the default reasoning is that the sons of God who were present at the beginning of the world of mankind were also at some time given life. -- Job 38:4-7. The only reason I can see for denying that Jesus was ever brought forth into being as the only-begotten Son of God is to support a concept that is nowhere presented in the Bible.<br /><br />This site is not associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses. I am not a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but I do have a pdf of 1971 edition of their book Aid to Bible Understanding. I am sure what is being referred to in the article presented their book that would support the idea that the word "firstborn" itself, when applied to the firstborn of living group, would not mean that the first one to be brought forth of that group (not category), or in some cases, the one to whom right of firstborn is given. Even in the latter instances, however, the one to whom the right of firstborn is given is still a member of the group of which becomes firstborn. Of course, preemience is given to the one who is firstborn, either due to the fact that he was the actual first one to be brought forth of the group, or because he has been given the right due to the first one to be brought forth of the group.<br /><br />Thus, because Jesus is God's firstborn creature, by means of him all dominions, principalities, etc, visible and invisible, in heaven and on earth were created. -- Colossians 1:16. Indeed, the most natural reading of the genitive case in Colossians 1:15 is the partitive genitive; this means that Jesus is the first one to brought forth of every creature of God. the dead in a new, everlasting body. However that interpretation is rejected by Trinitarians, not because of grammar, but because they claim that Jesus was not in fact part of the creation at all, but is actually the eternal God. (Continued in next comments)Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-69959294455812485772023-08-05T15:43:34.907-07:002023-08-05T15:43:34.907-07:00More than likely, Psalm 89:27 speaks of David as b...More than likely, Psalm 89:27 speaks of David as being Jehovah's firstborn of the kings of the land. If so, the actual group would be Jehovah's kings of the land. Specifically, this is speaking of the land of Israel. Jehovah's actual firstborn king of Israel was Saul, who proved unfaithful; David, however, received the right of being firstborn due to his faithfulness.<br /><br />If, however, one assumes tht Psalm 89:27 is speaking of the sons of Jesse, we know that there were 3 other sons older than David. These three older sons followed into disobedience with Saul, thus, whichever of them was the actual firstborn could be considered as having lost the right of firstborn, which, if one applies Psalm 89:27 in this manner would mean that Jehovah took the right of firstborn from the actual firstborn and gave it to David.<br /><br />In neither application, however, does "firstborn" mean that David was never brought forth in to being; in both applications, there was one who was the real firstborn who lost the right of being firstborn. Nor does it in either application mean that the firstborn was not member of the group of which he is firstborn.<br /><br />However, how would the replacement of right of firstborn be applied to Colossians 1:15? Was there actually another who was the real firstborn of God's creatures who lost that right, and thus the right was given to another -- Jesus? <br /><br /><a href="https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2018/06/ps89-27.html" rel="nofollow">https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2018/06/ps89-27.html</a><br />Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-24325577674039955972023-08-05T12:05:39.066-07:002023-08-05T12:05:39.066-07:00Firstborn, when used of firstborn of any group of ...Firstborn, when used of firstborn of any group of living creatures, usually refers to the first one to be brought forth of that group. I am not sure who is being referred as my bosses; evidently it is referring to the Jehovah's Witnesses leadership. I am not with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and I do not consider the Jehovah's Witnesses governing body to be my bosses. <a href="https://ransomforall.blogspot.com/p/links.html" rel="nofollow">The Restoration Light sites</a> are not designed to defend the Jehovah's Witnesses or their organization.<br /><br />God willing I will return later to respond to more. For more of my studies related to firstborn, see: <a href="https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/firstborn.html" rel="nofollow">https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/p/firstborn.html</a><br />Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-37216141462862065672023-08-02T12:49:54.412-07:002023-08-02T12:49:54.412-07:00The above is not clearly presented. It appears to ...The above is not clearly presented. It appears to be presenting everything stated as being found in Jerome's Letter #140. I am not sure what the reference to Jerome's Letter #140 is about. I did some searches on the internet, but was unable to find who exactly is being quoted. At any rate, I decided to forget about the reference to Jerome's Letter 140 and address what is stated.<br /><br />Of course, the fact that the Hebrew word often transliterated as BARA does not appear in Proverbs 8:22 does not rule out that Solomon meant the form of the Hebrew word often transliterated as "qanah" in Proverbs 8:22 is meant in the sense of get, aquire, hence of creating. Indeed, that is sense that <a href="https://biblehub.com/hebrew/7069.htm" rel="nofollow">Brown-Driver-Briggs</a> gives the meaning in Proverbs 8:22 and several other verses.<br /><br />"1 get, acquire (all poetry) :<br /><br />a. of God as originating, creating, קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ Genesis 14:19,22; Deuteronomy 32:6 (Israel), Psalm 139:13 (כִּלְֹיתָ֑י); Proverbs 8:22 ( חכמה q. v.)."<br /><br />Many trinitarian scholars may agree with this, but they usally deny that it is referring to Jesus. <br /><br />Whoever wrote the above claims that the Hebrew text reads "ADONAI CANANI BRESITH DERCHO". Obviously, this is someone's transliteration being attributed to what is claimed is said in Proverbs 8:22. The truth is that no form of the Hebrew word ADON (Strong's #113,#136, etc.) appears in the Hebrew texts of Proverbs 8:22 at all. he Hebrew text of Proverbs 8:22 shows God by his <a href="https://nameofyah.blogspot.com/p/on-this-site.html" rel="nofollow">Holy Name</a>, often rendered into English as Jehovah or Yahweh. God's Holy Name is definitely not ADONAI, LORD, the LORD, GOD, etc. The following translations render present Proverbs 8:22 with a form of the Holy Name in English:<br /><br />Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way, from then, before His works. -- Green's Literal Translation.<br /><br />Jehovah possessed me -- the beginning of His way, Before His works since then. -- Young's Literal Translation.<br /><br />Yahweh possessed me in the beginning of his work, Before his deeds of old. -- World English.<br /><br />Yahweh possessed me, [the] first of his ways, before his acts {of old}. -- Lexham English Bible.<br /><br />Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. -- Darby Translation.<br /><br />Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. -- American Standard Version.<br /><br />While all of these translations properly do not present God's Holy Name as "the Lord" or "ADONAI", I do believe they err in presenting the Hebrew form transliterated as "qā-nā-nî" with the English word "possessed". But whether it is rendered as created or possessed, it really does not matter.<br /><br />It is asserted that "possession signifies that the Son has always been in the Father." Of course, if Jehovah possessed Jesus at the beginning of his way, this does not mean that we need to imagine, assume and read into the scripture that possession means that Jesus has always in all eternity past been with Jehovah, Jesus' God and Father. Applying this to Jesus would simply mean that Jesus' God had possessed Jesus at athe beginning of his work. Such would imply that Jesus was existence before Jehovah began his work of creation. The work spoken of could be referring to beginning of his work of bringing forth the sons of God spoken of in Job 38:4-7. Often, however, in the Bible, God's works are pertaining to his work toward mankind. Thus, while the sons of God of Job 38:4-7 were already in existence before the events of Genesis 1, the scripture speaks of that work as the beginning of the creation being spoken of. According to Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17, the "beginning" spoken of in Genesis 1:1 would include all the six days of creation being spoken of in Genesis 1. Thus, if Jehovah already possessed Jesus at that beginning, it would not signify that Jesus had aways existed, but simply that his God had brought him forth before the beginning of the creation of the world of mankind.<br /><br />Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-57152777104960969082023-07-21T19:08:33.730-07:002023-07-21T19:08:33.730-07:00I believe that God works through Jesus similar to ...I believe that God works through Jesus similar to the way He worked through Moses and many others in the Old Testament. Jehovah often spoke of doing things that were carried out by people such as Moses, etc. -- Exodus 3:8,10; 12:17; 18:10; Numbers 16:28; Deuteronomy 32:12; Judges 2:6,18; 3:9,10; 6:34; 11;29; 13:24,25; 14:6,19; 15:14,18; 16:20,28-30; 2 Kings 4:27; Psalm 77:20; 78:52; Isaiah 43:11; 45:1-6; Hosea 12:13; Acts 7:36.Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-45322305658091542632023-07-10T15:22:10.614-07:002023-07-10T15:22:10.614-07:00Firstborn" does not have any "temporal m...Firstborn" does not have any "temporal meaning" taken by itself, obviously if it refers to a human, etc. of course they are temporal beiing, but this does not follow from the saying or not saying of the Firstborn, since it does not refer to such a thing in itself at all. "Firstborn" means "preeminence", "supremacy", "distinguished heir", "ruler", nothing more, nothing less. Context determines whether the term “first-born” in a particular passage should be interpreted as referring to supremacy of position as the preeminent one or the first one physically born. Since the whole context of Colossians chapter one is speaking about the supremacy of Christ as being the Creator rather than being of the creation, it is in this sense that Christ is called the “firstborn” or preeminent one in relation of the whole creation.<br /><br />Numbers 23:9, Israel was not counted among the nations. That is why the Jews called the other peoples, the gentiles "the nations" (goyim).<br /><br />At Colossians 1:15, a dynamic equivalence Bible translation can translate the text as "the Firstborn over the whole creation", since this is the natural meaning of the text. However, the NWT claims to be a "literal" translation, so it is not entitled to include "other" in the continuation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-388781530663419592023-07-10T15:17:05.968-07:002023-07-10T15:17:05.968-07:00The phrase "something of something" does...The phrase "something of something" does not at all mean "belonging to a category" in any language (not even in English), in itself it just expresses a kind of relation. What that relation is, is expressed by the specific statement and the broader context.<br /><br />It is not difficult to understand what the "Firstborn of the whole creation" means. It is enough to see what the title "Firstborn" title means: preeminent, distinguished heir, ruler, etc., therefore it's a lordly title, is also related to the Davidic-Messianic title - even according to the Watchtower, cf. Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584.<br /><br />What kind of relationship this "Firstborn" has with "the whole creation" mentioned after it, well, that it is a part of it, does not follow at all from the linguistic meaning of this term, nor from a narrower or broader context. Once "Firstborn" is a lordly title, and "the whole creation" (which by definition is subject to this ruling Firstborn - also according to the WTS) mentioned mentioned after, then it is much more reasonable that this person enjoys the status of the "Firstborn" over "the whole creation" rather than being classified as a part of it. The whole context is a passage glorifying the Son, it is completely foreign if you rewrite the second half of Col 1:15 to say that he is "the first created being", then it would become completely meaningless. Is he "the first created being, BECAUSE all [other things was created in him"? What?<br /><br />The funniest thing is that this is the standard interpretation of these words ("the firstborn of all creation"), that this means that the Son is "the Firstborn", therefore the Lord, the Ruler of the whole creation, otherwise it is completely compatible with the theology of the Watchtower too, but they still cannot admit it, they have to stick to it until they break the nails, because they NEED this "one-liner" "proof" text, if the Scriptures do not declare the Son to be a creature anywhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-55291758223567245432023-07-10T15:13:25.945-07:002023-07-10T15:13:25.945-07:00The "firstborn" means distinguished, pre...The "firstborn" means distinguished, preeminent heir in biblical context. This is even supported by what your bosses wrote, open it up:<br /><br />https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011483<br /><br />"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.—Compare Psalm 2:2, 7 with 1 Samuel 10:1; Hebrews 1:5. Jesus Christ is shown to be “the first-born of all creation” as well as “the first-born from the dead.” (Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5; 3:14)"<br />So even on the basis of their publication (Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584) it can be supported that the statement in Colossians 1:15 that Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation" does not mean that he is the "first created being", but that he enjoys the status of the "firstborn", being in preeminent position as distinguished heir in relation to the whole creation.<br /><br />So the standard interpretation of this verse just seems fine for the Watchtower as well, if it is not to be abused as a "one-liner" "proof text".<br /><br />The genitive does not at all mean that he is included, that "the firstborn of the whole creation" does not mean that the Son is among the creatures, any more than "Lord of worlds" means that the Lord is also a world himself, or "the king of the country" means that the king is also a country himself. The genitive in itself expresses a relation, not "belonging" to a group. If you think he always belongs to that respective group, then it doesn't really mean anything good for you if the Son is also the firstborn of the Father, with this logic this just justifies the "homoousios" doctrine, that the Son "belongs" to the same category as the Father, thus God. Or what about Exodus 4:22? If Israel is "the firstborn of the God", then Israel is also God?<br /><br />"Firstborn" is a title of preeminence or of unique relationship with the Father, rather than suggesting that Jesus was a created being. The Son is eternally begotten, not made or created. I point to the rest of Colossians 1, particularly verses 16-17, which suggest that Jesus, the Son, is not part of creation but is instead the agent through whom all things were created.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-91243775042868019122023-07-01T13:32:13.003-07:002023-07-01T13:32:13.003-07:00My question about this is, in exactly what way is ...My question about this is, in exactly what way is Jesus the "instrument" that God uses to create all things?Cory Hafflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-41394685271720389662023-05-09T17:18:29.737-07:002023-05-09T17:18:29.737-07:00“Something similar is also read in Proverbs, of th...“Something similar is also read in Proverbs, of the personification of the Wisdom, who is the Christ: »The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works. He established me before time was in the beginning, before he made the earth: even before he made the depths; before the fountains of water came forth: before the mountains were settled and before all hills, he begets me.« Here, the word »created« should not confuse us, since in the Hebrew text, there is no »created«, which is expressed with BARA, but »possessed«. For it is written: »ADONAI CANANI BRESITH DERCHO«, which in our language means: »The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his ways«. However, there is a great difference between »possession« and »creation«. Possession signifies that the Son has always been in the Father, and the Father in the Son. But creation is the beginning of a new state of that, which did not exist before.”<br />(Jerome - Letter 140)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-38047813041842183452023-05-07T05:31:40.386-07:002023-05-07T05:31:40.386-07:00AmenAmenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-72512726228511739402023-05-07T05:31:27.442-07:002023-05-07T05:31:27.442-07:00AmenAmenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-30612940347784307162023-04-02T13:00:42.893-07:002023-04-02T13:00:42.893-07:00Jews changed it removing Jah .Jews changed it removing Jah .Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-17164051095757858902023-01-11T08:18:20.112-08:002023-01-11T08:18:20.112-08:00The default is that it is partitive. Going against...The default is that it is partitive. Going against that default in Colossians 1:15 has to be done because of the preconceived idea that Jesus is God Almighty and thus had no beginning.<br />https://jesusnotyhwh.blogspot.com/2016/12/col1-15.html<br />Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-71160242514596515562023-01-09T21:17:21.466-08:002023-01-09T21:17:21.466-08:00When a trinitarian says that the partitive genitiv...When a trinitarian says that the partitive genitive in Colossians is an assumption and that it is a Genitive subordination. How do you refute that?<br /><br />Many scholars are in favor of the comparative genitive view. Dr. Grillmeier writes concerning the passage saying: "It is used to describe the preeminent position of Christ in the whole world, therefore prōtotokos should not be read as a temporal definition"JLMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00488203763548637753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2081748873678351197.post-62762794866521293572022-11-11T13:51:59.777-08:002022-11-11T13:51:59.777-08:00All of the Greek New Testament originals were writ...All of the Greek New Testament originals were written in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS with no spaces and probably no punctuation, and all of the earlier manuscripts are in this style, whether on parchment or papyrus. This is because the Greek alphabet did not have punctuation until at least the II century, and there were no minuscule (lower case) letters until much later. The surviving manuscripts on papyrus are classed by themselves: papyri. The parchment manuscripts written in all capitals are called uncials, and those written later (IX century on) using upper and lower case letters are called Minuscules. Various commonly written words were often abbreviated. This are mistakenly called nomina sacra, "sacred names," but it is not only special names and titled which were abbreviated this way..<a href="https://www.licoc.org/bible-studies/the-transmission-of-the-greek-new-testament" rel="nofollow">https://www.licoc.org/bible-studies/the-transmission-of-the-greek-new-testament</a>Ronald Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428695352830083280noreply@blogger.com