I appeal to atheism

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

No it is not what is wriiten in scripture that matters to you. The only thing that matters to you is the changing and twisting of scripture to agree with the Watchtower doctrines. It is for that purpose only that the Watchtower made their own translation and keep making new editions to change what they have missed changing in previous editions.

Robbie, I notice you ignored that other verse I referenced. What do you think of that one. What does 'firstborn of the dead' mean?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Robbie, I notice you ignored that other verse I referenced. What do you think of that one. What does 'firstborn of the dead' mean?

I don't know what it means nor does it mater, its enough for me to merely recognise that the first-born is part of the dead, what it actually means is irrelevant.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No it is not what is wriiten in scripture that matters to you. The only thing that matters to you is the changing and twisting of scripture to agree with the Watchtower doctrines. It is for that purpose only that the Watchtower made their own translation and keep making new editions to change what they have missed changing in previous editions.

you are incapable of rational thought and like suzzianne are becoming hysterical.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't know what it means nor does it mater, its enough for me to merely recognise that the first-born is part of the dead, what it actually means is irrelevant.

So is 'the dead' part of creation?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So is 'the dead' part of creation?

there is no mention of creation in your text, there is mention of a firstborn who is part of the dead.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
there is no mention of creation in your text, there is mention of a firstborn who is part of the dead.

But the firstborn is also part of creation. So is there an intersection perhaps?

This reminds me of a die-hard Star Wars fan arguing that the movies are flawlessly written, immutable and without plot holes, while ignoring quotes from George Lucas and others who actually wrote the films. In Episode IV, they intended Vader and Anakin to be separate characters; in Episodes IV and V, they clearly did not intend for Luke and Leia to be siblings (or else they wouldn't have made out in Kentuckyesque fashion in V).

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.

Please give them the ENTIRE definition of "prototokos" please.

Do not do your usual trick of only providing half the information.

And invite them to read the rest of the chapter for context.

You're a piece of work, robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I don't know what it means nor does it mater, its enough for me to merely recognise that the first-born is part of the dead, what it actually means is irrelevant.

So, context is not important to you.

Great, glad we have that out of the way. It renders your whole argument moot, you know.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are incapable of rational thought and like suzzianne are becoming hysterical.

Except that, remarkably, RJHinds is the only one so far in this thread to have it right.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Please give them the ENTIRE definition of "prototokos" please.

Do not do your usual trick of only providing half the information.

And invite them to read the rest of the chapter for context.

You're a piece of work, robbie.

You had your chance, because of your religious bias you were incapable of rational thought, i appealed to the atheists who being objective in their evaluation and uninfluenced by religious bias have stated that according to the scripture Christ is indeed part of the creation and thus a created entity. I will appeal to them again if your hysterics continue.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You had your chance, because of your religious bias you were incapable of rational thought, i appealed to the atheists who being objective in their evaluation and uninfluenced by religious bias have stated that according to the scripture Christ is indeed part of the creation and thus a created entity. I will appeal to them again if your hysterics continue.

Your "appeal" is another bending of the facts.

I find no other recourse than to restate my objections to robbie's grandstanding. He's wrong, and further, he knows he's wrong.

I'm reposting a couple of my earlier posts that spoke truth and got robbie all in a lather.

First,

Col 1:15

"Some people have tried to use this term "firstborn" to argue that Jesus was a created being and not the Creator. That is not true. "Firstborn" is used here in the sense of first in importance (see Rom 8:29). This is verified by the context of this verse (see Col 1:18) where Paul said Jesus was to have the preeminence in all things.

The Greek term for "first created" is "PROTOKTISIS," whereas the Greek word for "firstborn," used here, is "PROTOTOKOS." These are two entirely different words. It is significant that in this verse, the Apostle Paul deliberately avoided using the Greek term for "first created" and instead chose the Greek word for "firstborn." Jesus "is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Col 1:17).

In Bible days, the Jews understood the term "firstborn" to refer to position and rank. In other words, the firstborn (according to Jewish custom) was his father's heir. All that his father possessed was his. This term signifies that the Son is the "appointed heir of all things" (Heb 1:2). Taken in context, this passage clearly reveals that all things in heaven and earth were created by the Son and for the Son (Col 1:16-17). By virtue of this fact, the Son stands as Ruler, Creator, and Firstborn."

From http://www.awmi.net

And the second,


You're just being incredibly thick-headed here, as well as semantic.

I SAID that the Greek word for "firstborn", or prototokos has more than one definition. The definition we need concern ourselves with here is that of rank, and not time order. Let's look at it again:

Colossians 1

15 "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:"

From here follows verses that reiterate what was just said, presumably for the slow ones (apparently you fall into this category).

16 "For by him were all things created*, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

*My bold, but this is another argument entirely.

17 "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

Here is the meat: Jesus is ranked before all things. He is firstborn, by rank. Again, reiterated in the next verse, for the slow ones.

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."

19 "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

How in the world can you say that because the Bible SAYS that he is "above all creation" you ignore this and claim that he was CREATED first? Clearly, if Paul had MEANT "first created", he would have SAID "protoktisis", or "first created". No, Paul avoided the use of "first created" and used a colloquialism common for the time of saying "firstborn", meaning "above all" (again, rank, not birth order) and "the heir [of God]". Saying someone is "firstborn of all creation" means simply, that he is "above all creation" and therefore, clearly NOT part of it. I am, of course, speaking to the gallery, as I must assume, since you are a "translation master" that you KNOW all this.

You call yourself the supreme "translation master" yet you fail to disclose the ENTIRE truth of the Greek, and so, as I said before, I can only assume a willful deceit.