I appeal to atheism

Originally posted by RJHinds
Actually the unicorn is the one-horned rhinoceros, baby or adult.

Scientific Name:

Rhinoceros unicornis

ok thanks then

Originally posted by RJHinds
Actually the unicorn is the one-horned rhinoceros, baby or adult.

Scientific Name:

Rhinoceros unicornis

Actually the baby rhinoceros. Scientific name Rhinocerotidae is also one-horned, and could have also been called unicorn. Any ways it doesn't matter the bible would have been referring to the unicornis

Originally posted by tim88
Actually the baby rhinoceros. Scientific name Rhinocerotidae is also one-horned, and could have also been called unicorn. Any ways it doesn't matter the bible would have been referring to the unicornis

Yes, it almost went extinct because it was hunted and killed for that horn, which was believed to have healing powers or something like that. It was not a mythical horse with a long horn extending out of its head as myths have it.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I have been following the other thread (but keeping my
atheist views to myself). And yes I agree with you Robbie.

But you cant have your cake and eat it! What about other
verses (lately on the place of women in the church) which
you say cannot be taken out of context?

I'm afraid as has been said many, many times; the bible
is full of contradiction. You take out of it the bits you want.

Good Luck!

thankyou wolfgang i knew that I could appeal to reason and objectivity. I have no problem with a translator if they wish to translate a verse and bring out the implicit meaning, however this verse is quite specific for there is no room for interpretation of the Greek genitive article translated 'of', Christ is simply part of the creation. In the case of women in order to understand Pauls intent, context is everything for we are concerned with a purely interpretive perspective with room for it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thankyou wolfgang i knew that I could appeal to reason and objectivity. I have no problem with a translator if they wish to translate a verse and bring out the implicit meaning, however this verse is quite specific for there is no room for interpretation of the Greek genitive article translated 'of', Christ is simply part of the creation. In the ca ...[text shortened]... text is everything for we are concerned with a purely interpretive perspective with room for it.

This is the oldest dictionary i could find for you mate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firstborn

Originally posted by tim88
This is the oldest dictionary i could find for you mate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firstborn

the definition of the firstborn has no bearing on the fact that the Greek genitive article, here translated into English as 'of', makes the firstborn part of the creation, i suggest that you suck it up for no amount of vain and feeble attempts to influence the Greek in terms of a purely interpretative approach can change this fact, it does not say what you want it to say, it says exactly what it says, Jesus is a part of creation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the definition of the firstborn has no bearing on the fact that the Greek genitive article, here translated into English as 'of', makes the firstborn part of the creation, i suggest that you suck it up for no amount of vain and feeble attempts to influence the Greek in terms of a purely interpretative approach can change this fact, it does not say what you want it to say, it says exactly what it says, Jesus is a part of creation.

K but tell me what do i want it to say again? And how do you know what i want it to say?

Originally posted by tim88
K but tell me what do i want it to say again? And how do you know what i want it to say?

No, its not about you, its about what the Greek actually says.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No, its not about you, its about what the Greek actually says.

Yes, it is. NOT what YOU want it to say. Paul did NOT use protoktisis, or "first created", in fact he avoided using this word. The *vast* majority of Bible commentators agree that Paul was using a colloquialism of the times, an alternate meaning of the word prototokos, or "firstborn". And by the way, the phrase is "firstborn of every creature", so are you saying that Christ is OF every creature? Again, your focus on the word OF is nonsensical.

And of course, contrary to what you say, it is NOT about "what the Greek actually says" as much as what Paul's meaning was in what he said. And that seems to be far, far above you.

Originally posted by tim88
This is the oldest dictionary i could find for you mate.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firstborn

I have to comment here. The definition of "firstborn" in English is not the issue here. It is the definition of prototokos in Greek that is the issue. This is translated into English as "firstborn" because this is the closest English comes to what the Greek is saying. To accentuate this, there are 3 following verses designed to explain what Paul meant. The meaning Paul meant for prototokos is clear to anyone who does not have a man-made, corporation-driven dogmatic agenda to promote.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Actually the unicorn is the one-horned rhinoceros, baby or adult.

Scientific Name:

Rhinoceros unicornis

Yeah, I know. But this is typical of a person who can only abide one, incorrect meaning for words, just so his agenda can be seen as correct.

In this ontological conception of Christ, Jesus is presented not only as a result of a horizontal historical progression but as an esokosmic self-introduction of G-d (Col. 1: 17) too, hence the emphasis on the metaphysical origin of Christ and on his eternal and his before-the-Creation existence as the Word of God (Col.1: 15). Also, from a cosmological view on the relationship between Christ, the world and history, Christ is not only supposed to be the completion of the expectations and recitations of the people of Israel, but substantially the Pliroma of every entity (Col. 1: 20) that is the eternal, central and transcendental ontological epicenter, where all the ontological transient inconsistencies and controversies between beings of everything are overcome and lifted. This essentially metaphysical, supra-ontological view is strange in the Jewish culture and a pure influence of the Greek culture in the Christian theology (in the theological synthesis of Paul, that is).

I ‘ll narrow this scope: methinks the passages look like a Christian adaptation of the myth of the Primal Man in a Jewish-Hellenistic form, which is an original Gnostic hymn, whilst the verses 12-14 work as a baptismal liturgy. In this Christological exposition the verses 15-20 establish the absolute pre-eminence of the Son in the realms of creation and reconciliation; and to be “in Christ” is explained by means of setting forth the cosmic salvation in which the Redeemer pacifies every single hostile force and becomes the Head of the cosmic body. All in all, I see a Christian tribute to the Church of the Lord: Jesus is conceived as the major ontological principle (Col. 2:3) “in which exist all the treasures of the wisdom and of the apocryphal gnosis”, whilst Col. 1:15-20 declares Jesus as “pigi” (Source) and “telos” (the ontological Pliroma) of everything that is created
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
In this ontological conception of Christ, Jesus is presented not only as a result of a horizontal historical progression but as an esokosmic self-introduction of G-d (Col. 1: 17) too, hence the emphasis on the metaphysical origin of Christ and on his eternal and his before-the-Creation existence as the Word of God (Col.1: 15). Also, from a cosmological ...[text shortened]... Jesus as “pigi” (Source) and “telos” (the ontological Pliroma) of everything that is created
😵

My above post is of course a reply to the OP of this thread😵

Originally posted by black beetle
My above post is of course a reply to the OP of this thread😵

A Greek! at last! now my son, let me lay before you the language of the ancient Greeks, yourself a native speaker of that noble tongue.

hos estin eikon tou Theou tou aoratou prototokos pases ktiseos

who is [the] image of the God invisible [the]firstborn of all creation

http://biblehub.com/text/colossians/1-15.htm

It seems to me dear beetle that while one can offer as many interpretative perspectives as one can imagine, the fact of the matter is this, that the Greek genitive article pases (translated 'of' in English) inextricably links Christ to the creation itself, of which he forms an integral part. Thus the language itself does not permit anything other than Christ being part of creation, regardless of what type of value we give to the first-born. Its simply inescapable.

Christ is the Creator - "Because in Him all things were created ..." (Col. 1:15a)

This agrees with John saying without the Logos not one thing came into being which has come into being.

"All things came into being through Him [the Word] and apart from Him not one thing came into being which has come into being." (John 1:3)

We are also told that God calls the things not being as being -

" ... God whom he [Abraham] believed, who gives life to the dead and calls the things not being as being." (Romans 4:17b)

So Colossians 1:15,16 says Christ is the Creator through whom things came into being - "all things have been created through Him and unto Him. "

However, as man, Jesus Christ shared in flesh and blood (Hebrews 2:14a). He is therefore also, through incarnation, a part of creation. "Firstborn of all creation" refers to Christ's preeminence in all creation, because in this passage from verse 15 through verse 18 the apostle stresses the first place that Christ has in all things.

1.) In the original creation among all created items, Christ in whom dwells the fullness of the Godhead, has preeminence.

2.) In the new creation, the church, Christ also in like manner has the preeminence being " ... the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead."

In both the original creation and in the new creation the Body of Christ, the church Christ has preeminence in both realms - "that He might have the first place in all things."

There was never when Christ was not.
If God then the Son of God.
If God then the Word was with God and was God.

Unless there are two FIRSTS ie. #1 First and #2 First, and two LASTS ie. #1 Last and #2 Last, then the Triune God, the Trinity is THE First and THE Last.

Compare:

"Thus says Jehovah the King of Israel ... I am the First and I am the Last, And apart from Me there is no God." (Isaiah 44:6)

"And when I saw Him [the resurrected and glorified Son of Man] I fell at His feet as dead; and He placed His right hand on me, saying, Do not fear; I am the First and the Last and the living One; and I became dead, and behold, I am living forever and ever; and I have the keys of death and of Hades." (Revelation 1:17,18)

How many Firsts are there?
How many Lasts are there?
Receive the Triune God.