johntjr wrote: The Greek word translated "firstborn" is not a noun, but an adjective. If it really refers to being born, the verse is theologically incorrect. Adam was the firstborn man of creation (although he wasn't really born). Cain was actually the first to be actually born into the creation. Jesus was not born until thousands of year later. The word "firstborn" in this verse does not refer to a physical birth, but refers to Jesus' position to inherit the creation.

Malachi's response: Wrong! on every point. Adam is not called the Firstborn. As I said, there are no biblical examples to the contrary where the firstborn OF something is not in the same ORDER or class or group of that SOMETHING. You therefore have no biblical examples to backup your take on Col. 1:15. Daniel Wallace, a respected Trinitarian and Greek scholar, according to what he has written, would frown upon such an unfounded and scripturally unsubstantiated explanation.

I have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the "firstborn OF something" is a member OF the SOMETHING. Therefore, according to all scriptural examples that bear on the subject, the Son being called the firstborn OF creation makes him a member of creation. That stands unrefuted with no Biblical examples to the contrary.

Remember not just Firstborn but the phrase Firstborn "OF" you and Doug seem to forget that the "OF". That changes everything.


johntjr wrote: The idea is that "Firstborn" in the Greek refers to a position rather than actually being born or created. The position is about being an "heir." I checked with my handy dandy Vine's Dictionary and it confirms that Jsus was not a created being but existed before creation and produced creation. This is the actual word usage in Vine's.

Malachi's respopnse: Wrong again. Even if a firstborn possess preeminence among the group, he is still a part of the group and he is still the first one born. There are no biblical exceptions. To deny the primary meaning of the word in regard to Christ is pure bias at work.

I maintain that the word PRWTOTOKOS followed by a group (in the Greek genitive) grammatically REQUIRES that the PRWTOTOKOS is part of that very group. I maintain that this requirement derives from the lexical force of PRWTOTOKOS, and it is so powerful that this is true even though you and Doug claims a figurative sense for PRWTOTOKOS. Proof?

- I submit every example of PRWTOTOKOS + a group in the LXX as proof. No exceptions in over 50+ examples.

- I submit a parallel example in English. The word "one" in English followed by "of" + a group REQUIRES a partitive genitive (that the "one be a part of the group).

Thus,

One of the sons (the "one" is himself in the group of "sons")

One of the created things (the "one" is itself a created thing)

I maintain my appeal to you for a prayerful and meditative reconsideration of the presuppositions you have held on this verse. I believe I have amply provided convincing scriptural, scholarly, linguistical, and logical evidence for you to reconsider your view based on what the words of Col 1:15 say. I am confident that you will not only understand the power of this testimony and not adopt a meaning of the phrase "firstborn of" that corresponds to a preconceived concept beyond the lexical force of the phrase.

johntjr wrote: Jesus is to inherit the creation. It has nothing to do with being created. Verse 18 from this chapter of Colossians goes on to directly contradict Jesus being created describing Him as "the beginning."2 This same verse describes Jesus as being the "firstborn from the dead" and defines Jesus as having "first place in everything," demonstrating that "firstborn" refers to position and not creation.

Malachi's response: Could Jesus be referred to as firstborn of the dead#, of many brethren##, of every creature###, if he did not literally belong to the dead, the brethren, the creatures, and was the first one resurrected, in the first resurrection as a spiritual being, the first one of the brethren, the first one of the creatures?

Here is what I am saying johntjr: PRWTOTOKOS has a single meaning, namely, born in temporal priority. Increased inheritance, preferential treatment, etc., is a CONNOTATION that came to one who was born first. But none of these are MEANINGS of the biblical "firstborn." These remain CONNOTATIONS and not MEANING. Thus, the firstborn of Israel enjoyed Increased inheritance, preferential treatment, etc. (connotation) because he was born first, or firstborn (meaning). To apply connotation without meaning as in the case of figurative language is not to apply a different meaning. It is to apply a different SENSE. The meaning is one. (cf. Cotterell & Turner _Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation_ , 1989, pp. 139-140)

What did the early Church Fathers have to say about Jesus since this thread started out about that:

Let's look at what Clement of Alexandria wrote.

Clement lived from 153 - 217 A.D. was one of the first to use the term "first-created" in reference to the Son of God. In his book "Clement of Alexandria" (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1914; pp. 103, 104) John Patrick tells us:

"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of G-d, and yet he refers to Wisdom as the first-created of G-d; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word. But this seems to be rather a question of language rather than a question of doctrine. At a later date a sharp distinction was drawn between "first-created" and "first-born" or "first-begotten." But no such distinction was drawn in the time of Clement, who with the Septuagint rendering of a passage in Proverbs before him could have no misgiving as to the use of these terms. ...Str., 5.14 Ex. Theod., c.20. Str., vi.7. See Suicer's Thesaurus on PROTOKTISTOS KURIOS EKTISEN ME ARCHEN hODON AUTOU. [Lord (Jehovah) created me first of work of his] Prov 8:22 ... Zahn [in "Supplementum Clementinum: pages 141-147] ... points to the fact the Clement makes a sharp distinction between the Son and the Word who was Begotten or created before the rest of creation and the alone unbegotten G-d and Father."

Please look up all references and you will see that as far back as Clements, the early Church Fathers did not make Jesus equal to the Father.

The rest of what you wrote concerning the dual nature false doctrine, I will address later.

Best regards,
Malachi

{Malachi, I didn't edit your text; I just removed all the blanks at the end of your last 2 posts. (UY)}