I appeal to atheism

Dear friends, it has been my experience that atheists may be better prepared to give an objective opinion whereas Christians may be swayed by various religious bias. In this instance i ask you to look at a very small portion of scripture which has excited some controversy, Colossians 1:15, which states and is made with reference to Jesus,

'He is the firstborn of all creation' Colossians 1:15

I shall lay the facts before you as follows, from the original Greek text,

(1)prototokos (2)pases (3)kitseos - firstborn of creation

(1) From protos and the alternate of tikto; first-born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively) firstbegotten(-born)

(2) pas - of all, every, all manner of

Including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole -- all (manner of, means)

(3) ktisis - creation, creature

From ktizo; original formation (properly, the act; by implication, the thing, literally or figuratively) -- building, creation, creature, ordinance.

Now if you were to read this verse objectively, which is the reason i am appealing to our atheist friends, for it appears to me that nominal Christians seem almost incapable of rational thought so blinded by religious bias, would you concur that the firstborn is or is not a part of creation? If you would be as kind to render an opinion based purely on the text i would be grateful.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
....would you concur that the firstborn is or is not a part of creation?

Taken literally, and in isolation, I would say that the sentence clearly mean that the firstborn is a part of creation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
for it appears to me that nominal Christians seem almost incapable of rational thought so blinded by religious bias

Lol, you're a real treat, Robbie. Always amusing to read your posts.

Anyway, yes he's clearly a part of creation.

I do wonder though, didn't you previously state that one can't read certain portions of the bible without incorporating other portions because that would put it out of context? I believe you said that only a couple of weeks ago.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Taken literally, and in isolation, I would say that the sentence clearly mean that the firstborn is a part of creation.

thankyou, logically is there any other way to read it?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Lol, you're a real treat, Robbie. Always amusing to read your posts.

Anyway, yes he's clearly a part of creation.

I do wonder though, didn't you previously state that one can't read certain portions of the bible without incorporating other portions because that would put it out of context? I believe you said that only a couple of weeks ago.

you are most welcome, 😀

yes I did say that and I have no objection to the verse being looked at in its immediate context nor in the context of the Bible as a whole, however i thought it advantageous to view it through a figurative microscope first, to lay before you purely the original language for it appeared to me that this lexical scientific approach rather than an interpretative one would be more palatable to our atheist friends. That is not to say that an interpretive approach is also not welcome, as long as its firmly rooted in the text.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
'He is the firstborn of all creation' Colossians 1:15

My conclusion is that the author of Colossians 1:15 and the others who copied and edited his work
believed that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, without offering evidence. It could be allegorical.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankyou, logically is there any other way to read it?

Of course there are other ways to read it.
'Firstborn' may simply mean 'eldest' rather than physically born.
Your translation of 'pas' isn't clear whether 'of' is a necessary part of the translation.
'creation' may be interpreted many ways too.
So it might be interpreted for example 'Older than all that is'.
There may be an even wider range of meaning, but I don't know ancient greek.

What do you think of this one:

Revelation 1:5 (New American Standard)
.. and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood -

Is Jesus also dead?

Originally posted by HandyAndy
My conclusion is that the author of Colossians 1:15 and the others who copied and edited his work
believed that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, without offering evidence. It could be allegorical.

Whether its allegorical or otherwise, offered with evidence or without, copied and edited by others, is it in its present form and indication that Jesus is of the creation or not of the creation?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course there are other ways to read it.
'Firstborn' may simply mean 'eldest' rather than physically born.
Your translation of 'pas' isn't clear whether 'of' is a necessary part of the translation.
'creation' may be interpreted many ways too.
So it might be interpreted for example 'Older than all that is'.
There may be an even wider range of meani ...[text shortened]... h. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood -[/quote]
Is Jesus also dead?

my intention was not to offer any interpretative meaning of the text simply to ascertain whether it can be logically asserted that Jesus is or is not part of the creation, i don't think that logically it can been viewed in any other way,

the definition of first-born was given, clearly it was made with regard to progeny. If Jesus was born then again logically he must be part of the creation.

Of is entirely necessary, we don't say 'first-born all manner creation' in English, do we? No we say first-born of all creation, don't we.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
my intention was not to offer any interpretative meaning of the text simply to ascertain whether it can be logically asserted that Jesus is or is not part of the creation, i don't think that logically it can been viewed in any other way,

In your English translation it logically implies that Jesus is part of creation. But even in English, it is not necessary to take things literally.
And if you were only concerned about the English translation you would not have mentioned the Greek.

the definition of first-born was given, clearly it was made with regard to progeny.
No, it is not clear at all. You even said 'figuratively' in your definition.

If Jesus was born then again logically he must be part of the creation.
No, that doesn't follow. The reason I stated that the sentence in English implies that Jesus is part of creation is the word 'of' which implies 'part of'.

Of is entirely necessary, we don't say 'first-born all manner creation' in English, do we? No we say first-born of all creation, don't we.
Only if that is what we mean. If we mean something else, we say something else.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In your English translation it logically implies that Jesus is part of creation. But even in English, it is not necessary to take things literally.
And if you were only concerned about the English translation you would not have mentioned the Greek.

[b]the definition of first-born was given, clearly it was made with regard to progeny.
No, it is no ...[text shortened]... , don't we.[/b]
Only if that is what we mean. If we mean something else, we say something else.[/b]

ok fine its not obvious, words have two meanings and i am sorry that i asked you a second time. I will not make the same mistake again.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Dear friends, it has been my experience that atheists may be better prepared to give an objective opinion whereas Christians may be swayed by various religious bias. In this instance i ask you to look at a very small portion of scripture which has excited some controversy, Colossians 1:15, which states and is made with reference to Jesus,

'He is ...[text shortened]... ion? If you would be as kind to render an opinion based purely on the text i would be grateful.

Colossians 1:15a

Who is the image of the invisible God,..

Notice that Jesus is here said to be "the image of the invisible God" and not "created in the image of God" as was man, dear friends!

The bias is on you robbie. You follow the teachings of men and fail to comprehend the clear teaching of scripture.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok fine its not obvious, words have two meanings and i am sorry that i asked you a second time. I will not make the same mistake again.

Words have a whole range of meanings and if you don't know the language you can only guess at the possible range. Certainly in English there is no need to take it to literally require physical birth. Even 'birth' may have a range of meaning.

In this game:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warspear_Online
The 'firstborn' refers to the Elves.

Originally posted by josephw
Colossians 1:15a

Who is the image of the invisible God,..

Notice that Jesus is here said to be "the image of the invisible God" and not "created in the image of God" as was man, dear friends!

The bias is on you robbie. You follow the teachings of men and fail to comprehend the clear teaching of scripture.

perhaps you would like to comment upon the fact that the texts states that Jesus is part of creation after all we are interested in what the Bible actually says, not what it does not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Whether its allegorical or otherwise, offered with evidence or without, copied and edited by others, is it in its present form and indication that Jesus is of the creation or not of the creation?

Of the creation, ostensibly. But it's an opinion, not an indication.