Christ as the firstborn

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Prentis

New Member
May 25, 2011
2,047
92
0
31
Montreal, Qc
It says of Christ that he is the firstborn of creation... I have seen this used to say that he is not God, but rather a created being.

But if it were so, how could it say...

[sup]1[/sup] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [sup]2[/sup] He was in the beginning with God. [sup]3[/sup] All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (He also says he was there before Abraham)

AND

Acts 13:33
God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘ You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’

Christ was begotten at resurrection? Rather the new creation, of which he is the firstborn. Christ is the firstborn of the new creation, all the while being God.
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
It says of Christ that he is the firstborn of creation... I have seen this used to say that he is not God, but rather a created being.

But if it were so, how could it say...

[sup]1[/sup] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [sup]2[/sup] He was in the beginning with God. [sup]3[/sup] All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (He also says he was there before Abraham)

AND

Acts 13:33
God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘ You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’

Christ was begotten at resurrection? Rather the new creation, of which he is the firstborn. Christ is the firstborn of the new creation, all the while being God.

Well i see you are set in what you believe. I was wondering why you were unable to see your way through that one.

You are smart enough to put expressions like that "in the beginning" into an indicated context which is obviously after the existence of the "let us" and "in our" existed. But you first have to be willing to see..

Genesis deals not with spirit creation but with physical creation. It deals only with the physical universe and the earth.
 

Prentis

New Member
May 25, 2011
2,047
92
0
31
Montreal, Qc
Well i see you are set in what you believe. I was wondering why you were unable to see your way through that one.

You are smart enough to put expressions like that "in the beginning" into an indicated context which is obviously after the existence of the "let us" and "in our" existed. But you first have to be willing to see..

Are you done learning, Vengle? Brother, I don't get why you play the 'your indoctrination gets in the way' card rather than convince me, if your are so sure. ;) Understand that I say this in love, but to get a point across.

Here's why this also doesn't work... When we are walking in the Spirit, everything we experience is Christ, and it is glory, we walk in his light. Are we walking in the light of another creation? How can Christ not be one 'in whom nothing God dwells' if he is a created being? Rather he is God, come to us in the flesh, that he might be one with us, and we might be one with him, in the new creation.
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
Are you done learning, Vengle? Brother, I don't get why you play the 'your indoctrination gets in the way' card rather than convince me, if your are so sure. ;) Understand that I say this in love, but to get a point across.

Here's why this also doesn't work... When we are walking in the Spirit, everything we experience is Christ, and it is glory, we walk in his light. Are we walking in the light of another creation? How can Christ not be one 'in whom nothing God dwells' if he is a created being? Rather he is God, come to us in the flesh, that he might be one with us, and we might be one with him, in the new creation.

I am trying to get you to see that is a choice you make either to let indoctrination do that to you or learn to take it out of your way.

I cannot do that for you. You must learn to do that for yourself.

And as long you don't you are wasting a lot of potential and time.

i don't usually bother except that i see the potential you have.

You have already built much wrong weave on a few false ideas. You just do not know it.

What a waste.
 

Prentis

New Member
May 25, 2011
2,047
92
0
31
Montreal, Qc
I am trying to get you to see that is a choice you make either to let indoctrination do that to you or learn to take it out of your way.

I cannot do that for you. You must learn to do that for yourself.

And as long you don't you are wasting a lot of potential and time.

i don't usually bother except that i see the potential you have.

What happens here is that you already are assuming this is indoctrination. :rolleyes:

Do you make the rules of what is indoctrination and what isn't? Have you arrived at all truth? ;)

All things were created BY him, and through him... God? Yes. Christ? Yes. :)
 

Prentis

New Member
May 25, 2011
2,047
92
0
31
Montreal, Qc
Let's reason together.

What I find ironic, Vengle (and I tell you this with love :) ), is your reaction, and here is why: if this is indeed indoctrination, of which you have been freed, you should be able to see the fault in my reasoning and expose it. You would not blindly believe what you do, and tell me how it works with the above verses, etc, etc.

Rather you have looked at what I said, to which I gave both verses and reasoning, and you have said 'it is not true, you are indoctrinated', without explaining. But that is the reaction of indoctrination; to say it is untrue without actually exposing it's reasoning or showing the truth. So what you point at me for, following indoctrination and being stiff necked, you show the symptoms of.

Do not misunderstand me, I consider you a solid brother, and do not find you to be a stiff necked man. But your reaction in this case leaves me perplexed.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
First and foremost, the term "firstborn" (prototokos) never means "first created." It simply never carries such a connotation. Ancient Eastern cultures often used the term "firstborn" to indicate priority or preeminence that will be handed down to a child, (usually the one born first), within a family unit. Used in this sense it does not necessarily refer to the oldest child as seen below:

Gen 25:31 Jacob said, "Sell me your birthright now."
Gen 25:32 Esau said, "I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?"
Gen 25:33 Jacob said, "Swear to me now." So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob.
Gen 25:34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.


When used of Christ in Colossians 1, for example, the idea of priority and preeminence is clearly described in what follows verse 15.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.


The term "firstborn" simply points to Christ's headship over creation and the Church.
 

Prentis

New Member
May 25, 2011
2,047
92
0
31
Montreal, Qc
Thanks for sharing, Nomad. Only I looked up protokos in strongs and the definition there was firstborn. Where did you get this definition? Maybe a breakdown of the Greek words that form protokos would clear this up.

Here's something...

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

He is the firstborn from the dead, ie, the firstborn born of the new creation, the first man walking in the new nature...

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

And now this new creation is available to us. :)
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
What happens here is that you already are assuming this is indoctrination. :rolleyes:

Do you make the rules of what is indoctrination and what isn't? Have you arrived at all truth? ;)

All things were created BY him, and through him... God? Yes. Christ? Yes. :)

I got yanked away for a bit and just got back.

Not assuming at all. Holding to the correct definition of the word indoctrination.

Yes I do make the rule. But that rule is to stick with the correct definition of words.

And it is indoctrination what you believe.

Any time anyone believes falsely it is because of indoctrination unless that was their desire to believe falsely to begin with.

And though you do not know that you believe falsely, I do know.

Now, you might be a know-it-all (there are certainly many) and assume that what I have said means and proves I am arrogant. It is not arrogant to have this knowledge when you are truly one in Christ. Unless you assert that Christ does not really know with certainty what he knows.

1 Corinthians 2:16b "... we have the mind of Christ."

Do you see in this little thing how much you have not thought of yet, and yet you think you can know me?
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
Let's reason together.

What I find ironic, Vengle (and I tell you this with love :) ), is your reaction, and here is why: if this is indeed indoctrination, of which you have been freed, you should be able to see the fault in my reasoning and expose it. You would not blindly believe what you do, and tell me how it works with the above verses, etc, etc.

Not so. You are bound up in complexity. As I said before, a weave based upon accepted falsehoods. Only you have the ability to break free from that for you will have a padlock set tightly upon what you believe at any door I try to enter so as to begin to help you unravel it.

You have spent time learning to defend the doctrine and that is why you have so many padlocks.

The greatest mistake a man makes is seeking to defend belief for that gives him blinders which cause him to cease looking to see whether the belief is even true.

And the key to true knowledge is to always as it pertains to your approach to learning think yourself wrong. (Not to be confused with being certain you have made certain that what you believe is right.)

Rather you have looked at what I said, to which I gave both verses and reasoning, and you have said 'it is not true, you are indoctrinated', without explaining. But that is the reaction of indoctrination; to say it is untrue without actually exposing it's reasoning or showing the truth. So what you point at me for, following indoctrination and being stiff necked, you show the symptoms of.

It is testing you. Because i do not waste my time on anyone that only wants to prove to me that what they believe is right. I do not care what is right to me or to you. It was caring only about what was right to God that gained me the mind of Christ and the help the Father freely gives it of the Holy Spirit.

Do not misunderstand me, I consider you a solid brother, and do not find you to be a stiff necked man. But your reaction in this case leaves me perplexed.

I know that. It is supposed to. The only way I can move you to step away from the defend mode and enter the true let's look and learn mode is to stir your emotions a bit. Especially because you are young and prematurely certain about much.
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
Thanks for sharing, Nomad. Only I looked up protokos in strongs and the definition there was firstborn. Where did you get this definition? Maybe a breakdown of the Greek words that form protokos would clear this up.

Here's something...

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

He is the firstborn from the dead, ie, the firstborn born of the new creation, the first man walking in the new nature...

Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

And now this new creation is available to us. :)

A little suggestion for Nomad's post:

Your answer does contain the important clue, "preeminence". If Christ were God he would not need to acquire preeminence in everything.

Your musing about that being firstborn of the new creation is cute, but you need to harmonize it with what the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians tells you. (And with much else.)

I don't believe you want to know though. I believe you want proof that what you already believe is correct.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
A little suggestion for Nomad's post:

Your answer does contain the important clue, "preeminence". If Christ were God he would not need to acquire preeminence in everything.

Where does Scripture say that Christ "acquired" preeminence?
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
I have talked about the Bible with others for at least 40 years now and never have I ever seen anyone let go of a false belief and learn a correct view until they began listening and asking questions instead of telling.

That is why I say I know you are not ready yet.


Where does Scripture say that Christ "acquired" preeminence?

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

God by His very nature already has preeminence in everything.

He is in the very process of life as we know it.

Preeminence infers the making of the things dependent upon him.
 

Vengle

New Member
Sep 22, 2011
921
27
0
Ohio
I see nothing in Colossians 1:18 that says Christ "acquired" preeminence.

That does not surprise me.

You do not want to see it.

I could use the largest type for the words "might have" and you would still not see it.

That is because it is not something one sees with physical eyes.

As I said: "Preeminence infers the making of the things dependent upon him."
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That does not surprise me.

You do not want to see it.

I could use the largest type for the words "might have" and you would still not see it.

That is because it is not something one sees with physical eyes.

As I said: "Preeminence infers the making of the things dependent upon him."

That's cute Vengle, but you're not exempt from your own charge.

That does not surprise me.

You do not want to see it.

I could use the largest type for the words "and the Word was God" and you would still not see it.

Be that as it may, there is still nothing in Col. 1:18 that conveys the idea that Christ "acquired" preeminence.
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
First and foremost, the term "firstborn" (prototokos) never means "first created." It simply never carries such a connotation. Ancient Eastern cultures often used the term "firstborn" to indicate priority or preeminence that will be handed down to a child, (usually the one born first), within a family unit. Used in this sense it does not necessarily refer to the oldest child as seen below:


It comforts me to see a Trinitarian believer acknowledge pre-eminence and not thrust pre-existence upon this section of the Holy Writ.


Gen 25:31 Jacob said, "Sell me your birthright now."
Gen 25:32 Esau said, "I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?"
Gen 25:33 Jacob said, "Swear to me now." So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob.
Gen 25:34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew, and he ate and drank and rose and went his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.


When used of Christ in Colossians 1, for example, the idea of priority and preeminence is clearly described in what follows verse 15.

Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.


The term "firstborn" simply points to Christ's headship over creation and the Church.

Nomad, it is very rare for a Trinitarian believer to correctly acknowledge the pre-eminence of Colossians 1.
Refreshing it is.
 

Nomad

Post Tenebras Lux
Aug 9, 2009
995
143
43
58
Philadelphia, PA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'm happy that you're happy Insight, but don't think for second that I can't defend the Son's preexistence. If you wish, that is a topic for another thread.
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
I'm happy that you're happy Insight, but don't think for second that I can't defend the Son's preexistence. If you wish, that is a topic for another thread.

Only error needs to be defended...I would rather contend for truth.

Nomad, what do you think the term "firstborn of all creation" means? Given the context of the old creation?

Let’s consider the options shall we:

Could it suggest Jesus was the first being to be created? Of course from my experience both Trinitarians and Unitarians reject this wholesale.

Thankfully, we are not kept guessing and no speculation is warranted to its meaning.

Paul explains it for us very clearly that Jesus' is the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15) speaks to the fact he was the "firstborn from among the dead" ( Col 1:18; cf. Rom 8:29, Heb 1:6, 12:23, Rev 1:5).

In him being the firstborn he became entitled to an inheritance not previous held, else it would no longer be an inheritance but something else.

What did he inherit?

Insight
 

Insight

New Member
Aug 7, 2011
1,259
5
0
Even today the Hebrew culture embraces a son’s ability to become an heir to his family’s estate.
But what of a special unique Son?

The Father in having a Son in this creation saw virtue in appointing him over everything except Him who appointed him heir.

Psa 2:7 "Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession" (Psa 2:8.

Beautiful words are they not?

One can only imagine the Son growing from babe to manhood seeing and beholding all the earth and knowing it was his for an inheritance. It’s not a wonder when the tempter offered him a sin ridden world Jesus rejected his kind offer for the hope of Glory set before him.

Doesn’t the Trinity ruin the inheritance, the Power, Glory, the Name and bringing many sons to Glory?

For these teachings of inheritance to have any meaning you must see the Son not born, only in the Logos of God, His central significance at the beginning, in creation, and its conclusion, an inheritance for His beloved Son.

The Trinity is like cancer that breaksdown all the beautiful langauge, such as firstborn, Inherit, begotten and so many more.

Insight