JW's - Proving to JW's that Jesus is God

[BibleSteve]

Besides, the Bible itself does NOT teach Bible Alone.

Interesting point. I think you are agreeing…if you consistently followed what the Bible itself says about the usage of “firstborn of…”, you would have to conclude that Jesus, as “firstborn of creation”, would be part of the “creation”.

It’s by going outside the Bible to see what other people say, you make a conclusion that is contrary to the patterned usage of “firstborn of…”

 

[mikeledes]

mikeledes;2335481:

And you know this because?

He came to a conclusion you don’t like?

No. Apparently the Bible came to a conclusion you didn’t like.

The question is “Why is Jesus referred to as the firstborn of creation?” JWs interpret this as meaning that Jesus is of creation and the first to be created. Regardless of what you say how the Bible uses “firstborn” in other occasions, Colossians 1 explains how it’s using “firstborn” and that is what matters:

Colossians 1:15-17

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him

Why is Jesus the '“firstborn of creation”? Does the text say “because he was the first to be created.” No. It says “because by means of him all [other] things were created … All [other] things gave been created through him and form him.” Firstborn is being used as “preeminence” or “primacy.”
I gave you an example of God using “firstborn” in this sense.

Psalm 89:27

27 Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn,
The most high of the kings of the earth.

God made David “firstborn”, the “most high of the kings of the earth.” Here is one verse that does not use “firstborn” in the way that you use it and contradicts your “consistency” argument regarding its use. Here it is used as the equivalent of “preeminence” or “primacy.” Jesus has preeminence/primacy over creation because all things were created through Him and for Him and that is why He is called the “firstborn of creation.”

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Looks like you have a non-JW professor who would disagree with you:

…

it is accurate to add other because other is implied in the Greek. (pp. 83-87)"

No it is not accurate to add the word other, because there are greek words that mean “other” that would have been used if Paul wanted to teach your theology.

It is rather the comparative (superlative) force of prwto߼/B> that is used (first-born of all creation) as in Colossians 1:18; Romans 8:29; Hebrews 1:6; Hebrews 12:23; Revelation 1:5. **Paul is here refuting the Gnostics who pictured Christ as one of the aeons by placing him before “all creation” (angels and men). **Like eikwn we find prwtotoko߼/B> in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logo߼/B> teaching (Philo) as well as in the LXX. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikwn (Image) and to the universe as prwtotoko߼/B> (First-born).

bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=col&chapter=001&verse=015&next=016&prev=014

This central activity of Christ in the work of creation is presented also in John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2 and is a complete denial of the Gnostic philosophy.

bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=col&chapter=001&verse=016&next=017&prev=015

Robertson’s Word Pictures of the New Testament

Before all things (pro pantwn). Pro with the ablative case. This phrase makes Paul’s meaning plain. The precedence of Christ in time and the preeminence as Creator are both stated sharply. See the claim of Jesus to eternal timeless existence in John 8:58; John 17:5. See also Revelation 22:13 where Christ calls himself the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning (arch) and the End (telo߼/B>). Paul states it also in 2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:6. Consist (sunesthken). **Perfect active indicative (intransitive) of sunisthmi, old verb, to place together and here to cohere, to hold together. The word repeats the statements in verse Philippians 16, especially that in the form ektistai. Christ is the controlling and unifying force in nature. The Gnostic philosophy that matter is evil and was created by a remote aeon is thus swept away. The Son of God’s love is the Creator and the Sustainer of the universe which is not evil. **

bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/RobertsonsWordPictures/rwp.cgi?book=col&chapter=001&verse=017&next=018&prev=016

Paul is writting aganist gnosticism, if he want to say that the Son of God created “all other things” he would have spelled it out using the greek word for other.

 

[mikeledes]

No one has responded to my point that 30+ times “firstborn of…” is interpreted one single and consistent way.

When it comes to Jesus being “the firstborn of creation”… the standard and consistent interpretation isn’t followed.

That is injecting theological bias into the text.

Actually, its the JWs that are injecting a theological bias into the text because the text clearly explains itself. It says why Jesus is the “firstborn of creation.”

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

Actually it is the opposite. I’ve presented a Bible only argument, while you have supported your view by quoting various imperfect men’s opinions.

BibleSteve how many times do we have to tell you that a Sola Scriptura (especially with a JW perverted slant) means nothing to Catholics? You have proved nothing to us and it is a waste of time arguing with you about it.
Don’t y’all think that every point that can be made has been made in 475+ posts on the subject? I am un-subbing this thread–it has gone so far from healthy discourse on the subject it does not even make sense anymore.
Ravyn

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Why are you still using this reference when I posted the person being referenced in this link as being totally opposed to the JW’s using his work as proof of of their theology, his clarification of his stance that is not in line with what JW say he is saying, and his own reports of his fellow professors disagreeing with his theories and conclusions on the matter? This is rather odd, Steve.

Hebrews 1:3 – God’s Final Word in His SonHebrews 2:1 – Give HeedHebrews 2:5 – Earth Subject to ManHebrews 2:9 – Jesus Briefly HumbledHebrews 3:1 – Jesus Our High PriestHebrews 3:12 – The Peril of UnbeliefHebrews 4:1 – The Believer’s RestHebrews 5:1 – The Perfect High PriestHebrews 6:1 – The Peril of Falling AwayHebrews 6:9 – Better Things for YouHebrews 7:1 – Melchizedek’s Priesthood Like Christ’sHebrews 8:1 – A Better MinistryHebrews 8:7 – A New CovenantHebrews 9:1 – The Old and the NewHebrews 10:1 – One Sacrifice of Christ Is SufficientHebrews 10:19 – A New and Living WayHebrews 10:26 – Christ or JudgmentHebrews 11:1 – The Triumphs of FaithHebrews 12:1 – Jesus, the ExampleHebrews 12:4 – A Father’s DisciplineHebrews 12:18 – Contrast of Sinai and ZionHebrews 12:25 – The Unshaken KingdomHebrews 13:1 – The Changeless ChristHebrews 13:15 – God-pleasing SacrificesHebrews 13:20 – BenedictionHebrews 1:3

---

NASB: And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, (NASB ©1995)​

GWT: His Son is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact likeness of God’s being. He holds everything together through his powerful words. After he had cleansed people from their sins, he received the highest position, the one next to the Father in heaven. (GOD’S WORD®)​

KJV: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:​

ASV: who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;​

BBE: Who, being the outshining of his glory, the true image of his substance, supporting all things by the word of his power, having given himself as an offering making clean from sins, took his seat at the right hand of God in heaven;​

DBY: who being the effulgence of his glory and the expression of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, having made by himself the purification of sins, set himself down on the right hand of the greatness on high,​

WEY: He brightly reflects God’s glory and is the exact representation of His being, and upholds the universe by His all-powerful word. After securing man’s purification from sin He took His seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,​

WBS: Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself made purification of our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;​

WEB: His Son is the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself made purification for our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;​

YLT: who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might – through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest,

 

[BibleSteve]

God made David “firstborn”, the “most high of the kings of the earth.” Here is one verse that does not use “firstborn” in the way that you use it and contradicts your “consistency” argument regarding its use. Here it is used as the equivalent of “preeminence” or “primacy.” Jesus has preeminence/primacy over creation because all things were created through Him and for Him and that is why He is called the “firstborn of creation.”

God Bless,
Michael

Your reference to David is another example where “firstborn” is used with reference to someone who is part of the group “kings of the earth”.

Jesus being called “firstborn of creation” similarly puts him as part of the group called creation.

I’m not aruging that the word “firstborn” can’t be used with regards to preeminance.

The phrase “firstborn of _________” puts the person in the category of _______________."

 

[BibleSteve]

Jesus has preeminence/primacy over creation because all things were created through Him and for Him and that is why He is called the “firstborn of creation.”

God Bless,
Michael

through him… for him…

By accomplishing the creation through Jesus, and for Jesus, Jehovah has done something marvelous by means of his “firstborn”, who is part of the group called “creation”.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

This argument does not hold water. When God asserts that there is no savior than me, he is asserting that there is no one that does the saving work that he specificaly does. In other words, there are different kinds of salvation and thus different kinds of saviors. If you fall into the train tracks and I rescue you, I am your savior. But I am not your savior in the sense that God is your savior. When God says there is no savior like Him, He is talking about a specific kind of salvation that only He can provide.

Regarding creation, however, he is clearly asserting a clear fact, namely, that he was by Himself when He created the world and there was no one with Him. He even asserts that he created everything with His own hands, thus excluding any possibility of anyone doing the work for or with Him. He even asks in the NWT “WHO WAS WITH ME?”

The question I have is how do the JWs work out the logistics of creation. Did God provide Jesus the blueprint and Jesus did the actual work? How do you reconcile that with passages that clearly stated God created everything with His own hands. The expression “own hand” specifically excludes any representaives or the idea of anyone doing the work for Him. For example, let’s say, Steve, that you gave me a letter and told me to give it to Jaypeeto. Later on in the day, I tell you “I gave it to Jaypeeto.” Now that can be ambiguous. It can mean that I gave it to Jaypeeto personally or I sent someone to give it to him for me. But if I tell you, Steve, that “I gave it to Jaypeeto with my own hands”, that means I personally and directly gave him the letter and thus excludes any delegates, representatives, or messengers.

When God says that He created the world with His own hands, He is clearly stating that He personally and directly created the world by Himself, no delgates or representatives. Since we believe Jesus is God, these verses are not problematic. Since you see Jesus as a created partner in creation, you have a serious problem reconciling this with God’s express words.

God bless,
Michael

Amen

 

[BibleSteve]

BibleSteve how many times do we have to tell you that a Sola Scriptura (especially with a JW perverted slant) means nothing to Catholics?

Yes, I think the point is being made that this “Firstborn of creation” needs to be supported with something outside the Bible.

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

BibleSteve how many times do we have to tell you that a Sola Scriptura (especially with a JW perverted slant) means nothing to Catholics? You have proved nothing to us and it is a waste of time arguing with you about it.
Don’t y’all think that every point that can be made has been made in 475+ posts on the subject? I am un-subbing this thread–it has gone so far from healthy discourse on the subject it does not even make sense anymore.
Ravyn

(DR) Proverbs-
26:4. Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like him.
Ne respondeas stulto iuxta stultitiam suam ne efficiaris ei similis
(Answer not a fool, etc… Viz., so as to imitate him but only so as to reprove his folly. )

26:5. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he imagine himself to be wise.
Responde stulto iuxta stultitiam suam ne sibi sapiens esse videatur

ok I am done here. see ‘you guys’ on some other thread I am sure.
have a great week and Happy Father’s Day to those who are physical and spiritual fathers…

Ravyn

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Not exactly.

(Matthew 24:36) “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father.

I already, pointed that out in Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

My point is, Jesus does what he does by his own ablity. Both Matthew 24 and Acts 1, speak of rank of authority in this area.

An Officer out ranks an Enlisted man, both are outranked by their commander and chief, but all three are by Nature still human.

and, my point from John 5 still stands that Jesus is working there by his own ability. But, he is doing his Father’s Will by Obedience.

Philippians 2:8
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!

Romans 5:19
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

And the text clearly states why Jesus is the firstborn of creation. He is the firstborn of creation “because” - and that’s the word found in the NWT - everything was created through Him and for Him. Thus he has preeminece over all creation. He is not firstborn because He was the first created.

God Bless,
Michael

Exactly

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

The discussion was centered on the word apostle. Like the other 12 apostles, Jesus was sent forth with a message, representing the one who sent him, and had the authority to convey the message.

The disciples where called high priests. They were called part of a royal priesthood:

(1 Peter 2:9) But YOU are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that YOU should declare abroad the excellencies” of the one that called YOU out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Jesus was the one called “High Priest”. Like others who were called that in the OT, the “High Priest” wasn’t JEhovah, but served a role before him in behalf of the people…

There is only ONE High Priest, and royal priesthood simply does not mean “high priests”. Whoever, told you that Peter was claiming that the apostles were “high priests” is pulling your leg.

In fact, the preisthood of Jesus is NONTRANSFERABLE.

Hebrews 7

1For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;

2To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

3Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

4Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

5And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:

6But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

7And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

8And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

9And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.

10For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

17For he testifieth, **Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. **

18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

20And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec

22By so much was **Jesus made a surety of a better testament. **

23And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:

24But **this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. **
25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

28For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.
This is the text where us protestants see the Jewish Presthood as ending.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

So, anyone else in the Bible says “my God” (like Thomas, and various OT Bible writers), and you’re sure they are identifying the recipient as Jehovah. But Jesus himself says it and now he, as Jehovah, is just quoting scripture…

Jesus referred to his Father, Jehovah many times by “my God”.

Thomas used “My Lord and My God” that is different than simply saying what you are trying to read into the text.

Pliny’s letter to Trajan demonstrates that the early Christians worshpped Jesus as God. He puts Jesus on level with the emperor, who was believed to be a God.

Pliny, Letters 10.96-97
Pliny to the Emperor Trajan

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

Meanwhile, in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

Soon accusations spread, as usually happens, because of the proceedings going on, and several incidents occurred. An anonymous document was published containing the names of many persons. Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ–none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do–these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. **They all worshipped your image **and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and **sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, **and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded.

ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

It is this emperor worship that is the back drop for Paul. The emperor was believed to be God. When Pliny uses the word “god” he as a pagan is using god as God.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Church History Study Helps:
Emperor Worship

Emperor Worship

The climax of the civic religion was reached in the ruler cult of Hellenistic-.Roman times. The ruler cult started as an expression of gratitude to benefactors and became an expression of homage and loyalty. It was a matter of giving to the ruler, not getting from him (except indirectly); in other words, supernatural assistance was not expected from him in the same way it was sought from the gods. The reli.gious meaning of the ruler cult was not as great as its social and political importance where it served to testify to loyalty and to satisfy the ambition of leading families. Nevertheless, material and political well.being could arouse genuine religious emotions. The subject of the ruler cult has special importance for the study of early Christianity because it formed the focal point of the early church’s conflict with paganism. Also, the phenomenon of this Hellenistic.Roman ruler cult had a lasting impact for the political theory that invested even Christian monarchs with a divine aura through medieval to modern times.

Historical Developments in the Imperial Cult

After an age of wars and catastrophes Augustus brought peace. He was a “savior.” There was no way to explain a power so great without appeal to a divine (“demonic” in the Greek sense) nature residing in the soul of Augustus. According to the cus.toms of the time the feelings of his subjects had to find expression in divine honors. Julius Caesar provided the model for the official cult of Augustus . The people called Caesar “god” and honored him as such in his lifetime. A statue was dedicated to him in the temple of Quirinus in 45 BC with the words “To the invincible god.” Before his death he had his own temple under the name “Jupiter Julius”; this was the first step in establishing the cult, by honoring a living hero according to the Greek. The second step in the cult of Caesar was taken with his official apotheosis after his death. As a dead hero he was transferred to the number of the gods. The senate and people declared him a god and during the celebration in honor of the divus Julius the appearance of a comet was taken as proof that his soul had been received into the number of the immortals.

These two stages are also found in the cult of Augustus. His own attitude and policy differed according to whether he was dealing with the provinces or with Rome itself. In his decrees to the provinces he called himself “son of god” (divus filius, i.e., the adopted son of Caesar who had been recognized as a god). Temples, altars, priests, and games in his honor were found in the provinces. He did insist that Rome join with him in the expressions of cult. Thus he allowed the Greeks in Asia to build temples to dea Roma et Augustus, but at Rome he refused a temple and allowed the Romans only to build a temple to dea Roma et divus Julius. Augustus did not want to antagonize further the conservative. elements, and he made a show of restoring the old republican religion.

From about 12 BC. Augustus showed less fear of the worship and took steps to initiate the cult of the ruler and Rome in the western provinces. Augustus himself took steps even in Rome to include the element of religious devotion within loyalty to his rule. For instance, when he reorganized the urban districts and the cult of the lares compitales he required a sacrifice to the genius of the emperor as part of the ceremonies. This asso.ciated him with the domestic divinities. On Augustus’ death in A.D. 14 he was transferred among the celestial gods by apotheosis. By official act the senate included the new god in the list of Roman divinities and decreed that he receive in Rome (as he had elsewhere) a temple and priests. All of the first.century emperors equally favored the cult of the dead emperor. Tiberius, Claudius, and Vespasian did not encourage the marks of adoration, but Caligula, Nero, and Domitian permitted or even provoked them. The vitality of the imperial cult in the province of Asia during the reign of Domitian provides the setting for the Book of Revelation.

theologywebsite.com/history/rulercult.shtml

 

[mikeledes]

through him… for him…

By accomplishing the creation through Jesus, and for Jesus, Jehovah has done something marvelous by means of his “firstborn”, who is part of the group called “creation”.

You insist on ignoring the express words of Scripture. Maybe if I actually post the text for the … I lost count … you can see that the text itself explains what “firstborn of creation” means.

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him

What does “because” mean? The following definintion is from the reliable and unbiased dictionary.com:

1. for the reason that; due to the fact that: The boy was absent because he was ill.

I’m sure that “because” is consitently used the same way throughout the Bible. So Colossians states that Jesus is the firstborn of creation and then gives the reason why (because…).

In all the passages you pointed out, Steve, firstborn is being used literally, as in first one born. In the passage I gave you on King David, it is used metaphorically. Just as the firstborn son enjoys a certain primacy/preeminence in his family, David will enjoy a primacy/preeminence. The point of this passage was to show that firstborn is also used as a metaphor for preeminence.

Similarly, “firstborn” is being used metaphorically in Colossians and the rest of the verse, Steve, clearly explains in what sense it is being used. Words can be used literally and metaphorically. You must first look at its immediate context to determine its meaning. If its meaning is not clear from the immediate context, you look elsewhere. We do not need to look beyond the immediate context of this verse because it explicitly gives the meaning of the “firstborn of creation.”

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

As one who possesses a human nature, he can rightfully call His Father My God. However, no creature can call another creature “My God.” The fact that Jesus did not correct such a potentially blashpemous statement proves that Jesus acknowledged what Thomas said about Him.

God bless,
Michael

Amen

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Daniel, I appreciate your thoughtful analysis on scripture.

The discussion about banned books was not started by me. I couldn’t care less if the Catholic Church bans books and excommunicates people who read them. Someone previously made the charge the WTS was bad for requesting people not read anti-JW books. I asked the person if they were concerned about the CC’s policy of banning LOTS of books and excommunicating those. The person said they would be off to read the links I provided and I haven’t seen comment back from them yet. If someone complains about a WTS practice, they should at least be concerned if their own church does something similar, don’t you think?

As for Arians being violent… they probably were. And so were the Trinitarian followers. My reading about the first several centuries after the apostles shows all sorts of violence and killing over disagreements of beliefs. It’s not clear to me at all who was showing the love Jesus said would identify his true disciples (John 13:35)

I stand corrected and we can put that away now .

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

BibleSteve;2334221:

Looks like you have a non-JW professor who would disagree with you:

tetragrammaton.org/truthintrans.htm

The article is quoting Debuhn which you are doing but the article then gives reasons as to why Debuhn is biased. This is the logical fallacy of “stacking the deck” by presenting a source that on the surface appears to support your reasonings but in reality are opposite. Infact the article addresses Debuhn later on:

Debuhn in debates with Trinitarians went so far as to concede that from his POV, the Gospels present two Gods and polytheism in stark contrast to judaism and the OT.

I am unworthy, thanks for dealing with that.

Steve, why are you “stacking the deck” so to speak?