Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And after considerations all of your examples and this cursory look at the definition, it is your contention that firstborn is merely a synonym for first in rank or preeminent one? You are missng another key element. Can you see it and just dismiss it in the application at Col 1:15? Or, do you again just to ignore it because of its condemnation of the false trinity doctrine?
What is the other characteristic in EVERY example of FIRSTBORN?
You have missed the ENTIRE CONTEXT OF THAT CHAPTER OF COL 1:15.
Because you use false information as the basis for your criticism. Disagreement about the truth is one thing, creating ficticious scenarios and then using them to criticize is prejudice.
Even when I explain the error in your characterizations you try to tell me what JWs are about. It apprears you are incapable of breaking free of your prejudices and discussing the truth.
Well I answered your question about what firstborn means, and then you tell me how it's false reasoning along the lines of the context of that verse in Col. 1:15, and what you aren't getting is that firstborn is also used to describe Jesus as firstborn among the dead. Are you saying that firstborn in that same context doesn't mean preeminent?
It appears you want to argue semantics. We are all in agreement that we will not be judged/evaluated based on our enrollment in a church. How you interpret that from what you read demonstrates your prejudicial tendency.
I agree 100% with the statements in the Bible and the application of them in the JWs publication. God does look at your "religion". The word "religion" is synonymous with "faith" not organization. If you base your faith on false doctrines then the "religion" based on those doctrines is FALSE. How can a FALSE religion be TRUE.
You do not need to join the "organization", you need to learn and follow the accurate knowledge taught by the Bible. However, where can you do this if you are not part of the "organization". With so many people like you making false and misleading statements about JWs, they will not learn in the public forum.
I have studied with and attended many different denominations and I know none of them teach the Bible accurately and are fraught with false doctrines and traditions. So, if you want to learn then what church, denomination, religion, etc... will you associate with? The one you think is teaching the TRUE faith/religion right?. Who would attend one they think is false?
You often say JWs are arrogant but i think it is confusion on your part. Confidence is often seen as arrogance. We see in modern christianity the trend is for inclusion, despite what the Bible says. The acceptance of homosexual behavior as no longer being a sin is one of those examples. If you believe that maintaining integrity in accordance to Bible teachings is arrogant then you are mistaken. Just because JWs are willing to stand out by not celebrating holidays with pagan religious origins does not make them arrogant. They are following what the Bible teaches. They are willing to put that FIRST; above the philosophies and traditions of men.
Wow, I want to argue semantics? I am simply quoting what the context of that passage means as written in the Forever publication. You can read just like me, and anyone reading that passage would think that it's literally saying that the JWs are the only ones who are truly worshiping God. That's the arrogance that I am talking about. How dare anyone tell me, you, or anyone that his or her religion is the only one who has God in their pockets and that they can only reveal God to us when they agree with their theology.
I find it quite interesting that you didn't challenge my position on firstborn as used in the ENTIRE BIBLE. I answered your question when you asked to Please Tell you my trinitarian definition of "firstborn" and provided my examples in post 103 and 104 respectively. So are you still thinking about them?
I agree 100% with the statements in the Bible and the application of them in the JWs publication. God does look at your "religion". The word "religion" is synonymous with "faith" not organization. If you base your faith on false doctrines then the "religion" based on those doctrines is FALSE. How can a FALSE religion be TRUE.
Now we can play on semantics. Christian organizations that have a President or leader that directly teach that they have a direct channel to God is not biblical. What the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has been arguing is that Jehovah has only a direct channel of communication to you even though sometimes that direct channel of communication has gotten you to make false prophecies. Now Jehovah is a God of order, and I don't understand how a God of order would allow your organization to miss the mark.
False doctrine is what Paul clearly warned early Christians about, and it's interesting that he warned us about people developing itching ears to hear a lie instead of holding on to the teachings that he had been teaching.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWW1962
You do not need to join the "organization", you need to learn and follow the accurate knowledge taught by the Bible. However, where can you do this if you are not part of the "organization". With so many people like you making false and misleading statements about JWs, they will not learn in the public forum.
What you are actually saying here is that we need to put our trust in a man's made religion instead of Jesus Christ, who thinks that they are taking in accurate knowledge taught by the bible. If I can't challenge what I am reading using Scripture, then that's not real bible study. That's your religion's way of getting me to think and believe the way you want me to interpret the bible verses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWW1962
I have studied with and attended many different denominations and I know none of them teach the Bible accurately and are fraught with false doctrines and traditions. So, if you want to learn then what church, denomination, religion, etc... will you associate with? The one you think is teaching the TRUE faith/religion right?. Who would attend one they think is false?
Again this is another classic JW bashing other religions as false because after you have supposedly studied with many other ones. So you have come to the final conclusion that the JWS are the only faith that is true because JWs are the only ones accurately teaching the bible? HUMMMMMMMMMMM? There are 7 million people in your organization think that they are in the truth right? So you are right in that people who attend their religious services won't be attending them if they think that they are false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWW1962
You often say JWs are arrogant but i think it is confusion on your part. Confidence is often seen as arrogance. We see in modern christianity the trend is for inclusion, despite what the Bible says. The acceptance of homosexual behavior as no longer being a sin is one of those examples. If you believe that maintaining integrity in accordance to Bible teachings is arrogant then you are mistaken. Just because JWs are willing to stand out by not celebrating holidays with pagan religious origins does not make them arrogant. They are following what the Bible teaches. They are willing to put that FIRST; above the philosophies and traditions of men.
I am confused about the fact that you keep stating how JWs are the only ones who have this accurate knowledge of the bible. You have made it clear after you have studied with many religions that the JWs are the way to go for you. Again, confidence is one thing, and it find it quite interesting that you would think that I am confused for basically sharing my faith and belief.
When its all said and done, Jehovah has the final say on who will enter or see his kingdom-- I don't, you don't and defintly not the JWS.
I appreciate your patience. No, I did not have to ponder your posts it was just that I have been busy. Thank you for the thorough answer it is indeed what I asked for and I knew you would deliver. Thank you.
You did not answer my follow-up question, however it is not important because anyone reading your post can clearly see you are trying to demonstrate that FIRSTBORN is a synonym for PREEMINENT. Your entire dissertation was a repeat of that assertion with many scriptural examples. However, the deception in your presentation is not that the "preeminent" characteristic of FIRSTBORN needs to be established but that all of its other characteristics are stripped.
It is tilting at windmills to try establishing that preeminence is a characteristic of FIRSTBORN, OF COURSE IT IS! BUT, is it the ONLY characteristic? NEVER!
Let’s look at a partial list of what you provided because it is quick look and great example. You point out the missing part of the trinitarian definition but fail to understand. I added the last two examples because you missed those.
There are other places in the bible where firstborn is used:
a. Firstborn of death - the most fatal, deadly disease (Job. 18:13).
b. Firstborn of the poor - pre-eminent in poverty (Isa. 14:30).
c. Israel my firstborn - pre-eminent in purpose (Exod. 4:22).
d. Make him the firstborn - highest, etc. (Psa. 89:27).
e. Firstborn ones - all the saved in the church of Christ (Heb. 12:23).
f. Jesus the firstborn among many brethren - brethren patterned after the image of the Son (Rom. 8:29).
g. Firstborn of the dead - The first of the dead raised under the Messianic Covenant, which Jesus' sacrifice made possible (Rev. 1:5).
Do you see the other ever-present characteristic of the definition of FIRSTBORN yet? Not just preeminence but also....
Here are some other examples to make it evident.
Labradors are the firstborn of domestic cat breeds.
Vanessa Williams is firstborn of Major League Baseball
Steve Jobs is firstborn of Pulitzer Prize winners
See it now? They fit in the application Trinitarians definition of FIRSTBORN. Each of these entities are known for their preeminence so why does it sound wrong?
You will find in almost all theologically based lexicons (Strong's Concordance was offered in the post) that the trinitarian bias has influenced the definition to exclude this ever-present characteristic. There’s is a definition of FIRSTBORN that makes it appear as if it is just a synonym for preeminent. How do we know this is a theologically bias definition? There are two reasons. One, there is no academically legitimate Koine Greek Lexicon that includes that limited theological definition. Second, there is not one example in the Bible or any Koine Greek literature where FIRSTBORN is used and the characteristic of the member group is not identified.
FIRSTBORN always denotes preeminence of the subject who is a member within the identified group. Sometimes this group is familial and sometimes not. However, the shared characteristic is always identified in the context.
Review every single scriptural reference provided in Antredd's posts 103 and 104 or any other in the Bible or Koine Greek literature and you can recognize the identified characteristic of membership for the group that the "firstborn" has preeminence of.
In reference to its use in Colossians 1:15 we see the characteristic of the identified member group in which Jesus has preeminence is creation. Jesus has the shared characteristic of being part of creation.
Why did Paul choose this word for Colossians 1:15? You could say he was inspired. He was highly educated Israelite and demonstrated expertise in Koine Greek. He used the word FIRSTBORN 7 times in his different writings and obviously knew the appropriate application of ALL the characteristics of the definition. (Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15, 18 Hebrews 1:6; 11:28; 12:16,23) He could have chosen a myriad of other words if he had wanted to express JUST preeminence as trinitarians assert it means. Knowing full well the meaning, Paul chose FIRSTBORN.
Paul was a highly educated Israelite Pharisee and was expert in the Hebrew Scriptures as well. In these verses to the Colossians Paul is identifying Jesus, and as is standard practice, he is also tying in the application of the knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures with the revealed Sacred Secret of the Messiah. Here Paul is using the word FIRSTBORN of creation specifically because he knows that is exactly what Jesus is.
This takes us to another set of scriptures that Paul certainly knew, Proverbs 8:12-36. You can see the parallels between this account and what Paul wrote in Colossians.
Last edited by BWW1962; 10-26-2011 at 08:58 PM..
Reason: formating
It is tilting at windmills to try establishing that preeminence is a characteristic of FIRSTBORN, OF COURSE IT IS! BUT, is it the ONLY characteristic? NEVER!
You are most welcome to have an intelligent dialogue about the word firstborn. I have attempted to break down firstborn since you fail to look at the context of how firstborn is used in Scripture. So I have tried to take an extra effort as I allow God to lead me in explaining why my interpretation of firstborn is biblical.
Under the law of Moses, the term "firstborn" was used literally and figuratively, expressing a relationship, an inheritance, preeminence, and privileges. Don't you agree with this statement?
The firstborn son's inheritance was a double portion. He had special privileges as the firstborn male of the family. Here are some scriptural references:
* "But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; to him belongs the right of the firstborn" (Deut. 21:17).
God called Israel His firstborn son. This communicates the relationship He had with Israel, and the preeminence, privileges, and inheritance He granted the nation.
* "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, "Israel is My son, My firstborn"'" (Ex. 4:22).
God calls David, who was a type of Christ, His firstborn. This communicates the relationship of David with God, looking forward to the relationship Jesus would have with God.
* "I also shall make him My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth" (Ps. 89:27).
In Scripture, God uses the term "firstborn" to communicate several things about Jesus and Christians, which we'll see throughout the remainder of this post.
Jesus as Firstborn, Preeminent
Jesus is the firstborn of all creation.
* "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1:15).
The phrase "firstborn over creation" does not mean Jesus was created by God, because He's divine and therefore eternal. John 1:1 proves Jesus eternity and divinity with His Father. However, looking at the context of Colassians chapter 1, one reading it can see that He's preeminent.
* "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything" (Col. 1:16-18).
* "And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church" (Eph. 1:22).
Jesus is also called Firstborn From The Dead
Jesus is firstborn from the dead. In other words, He was first to resurrect from the grave, having conquered death.
Going back to Col 1:15, Paul states that Jesus is the "firstborn of all creation." To the JW just reading this verse, it means that God created Jesus first and all other things, and that's the reason the NWT inserts other, when other is not in the orginal Greek translation. To me that should be a red flag, and it should cause every JW reading that verse question why other was inserted in the first place.
In addition, Paul may be referring to Jesus being the "first" eternal, divine being made flesh and born into the created order. Paul may also be referring to Jesus' rank as head of creation. Jesus is the preeminent one who entered into the created world. You can reference (Heb 1:6). The phrase "firstborn of the dead" occurs twice (Col 1:18; Rev 1:5), clearly demonstrating the significance of Jesus' resurrection, not the timing of the resurrection. Because of this event, Jesus is the "firstborn among many brothers" (Rom 8:29).
So now we have to let the context help us understand the meaning of the word. For you, myself or anyone to assume that our religion's interpretation of who Jesus is allows us to take one single word and ascribe our meaning to it is dangerous. However, the true indicator of Paul's intended meaning is how the word fits within the immediate context. When you read, Col 1:15-20 in its context, Paul's use of prōtotokos, firstborn translated in English, twice in this short section suggests clearly that the "firstborn" is an important concept for the passage as a whole. The wider context of other New Testament writers, like John, who affirm Jesus' pre-existence and eternality, also helps us understand what Paul is saying and not saying by this term. Again John 1:1 is an excellent reference.
Although Paul's first usage of prōtotokos demonstrates the idea of rank and chronology as one first born into a family, the second occurrence of "firstborn of the dead" refers to the idea of rank and not chronology. So I don't understand how you think my definition of firstborn has to always fit your definition of firstborn every time that it's used when clearly here, it's not used always as first one born into a family. Also, the fact that Lazarus was raised from the dead—making Col 1:18 about the "special status" of Jesus preemminent. Col 1:18 extends this priority from creation to re-creation in light of resurrection. As "the firstborn of the dead" Jesus is the resurrected one that guarantees new life for those who follow Him. This understanding is the basis for Paul's message of reconciliation that is fully dependent on Jesus' preeminence as prōtotokos (Col 1:17, 20). Whew! I'm tired now.
Yes there is only one religion and no Jehovah's witnessess are not the only one's that believe that, its just the truth, every religion cant be right and it's not. Some religions or teachings maybe similar but the only religion that is a hundred percent true is Jehovah witnesses.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
