I appeal to atheism

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 beetl ...[text shortened]... f creation, regardless of what type of value we give to the first-born. Its simply inescapable.

No! As is the case with Rom. 8:29, here protokokos/ firstborn has Messianic associations and means that Jesus stands above creation. It is not the case that he is either a part of creation or a part of it; the case is simply that Christ, taken in his relationship with G-d, is the One through whom G-d reveals himself as the soul of a man is revealed in his face. So the writer says that Christ, taken in his relationship to the world, comes before all things because he is the Son born and not created, and he is not merely before all things -instead, he is the Creator of all (Col. 1:16-17)
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
No! As is the case with Rom. 8:29, here protokokos/ firstborn has Messianic associations and means that Jesus stands above creation. It is not the case that he is either a part of creation or a part of it; the case is simply that Christ, taken in his relationship with G-d, is the One through whom G-d reveals himself as the soul of a man is revealed in h ...[text shortened]... ed, and he is not merely before all things -instead, he is the Creator of all (Col. 1:16-17)
😵

And I have to stand corrected; the second sentence of my text should go like this:
It is not the case that he is either the first being of the creation or a part of it;
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
No! As is the case with Rom. 8:29, here protokokos/ firstborn has Messianic associations and means that Jesus stands above creation. It is not the case that he is either a part of creation or a part of it; the case is simply that Christ, taken in his relationship with G-d, is the One through whom G-d reveals himself as the soul of a man is revealed in h ...[text shortened]... ed, and he is not merely before all things -instead, he is the Creator of all (Col. 1:16-17)
😵

I am not interested in an interpretive approach to the definition of first-born, the Greek genitive article (pases) makes it clear the Christ is an intrinsic part of the creation, there is no room in a purely linguistic interpretation to introduce any element of above the creation or to distance Christ from the creation, except on a purely doctrinal basis.

He could be the last born of all creation and still be a part of creation. The term infact indicates that Christ belongs to a type, a class if you like, designated creation.

see Mark 9:49 “For everyone [pas] must be salted with fire

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not interested in an interpretive approach to the definition of first-born, the Greek genitive article (pases) makes it clear the Christ is an intrinsic part of the creation, there is no room in a purely linguistic interpretation to introduce any element of above the creation or to distance Christ from the creation, except on a purely doctrinal basis.

He could be the last born of all creation and still be a part of creation.

Prototokos is here "the greatest among" etc. It is an accepted definition.

Also, if we try to accept that the interpretation you offer is correct, we will face unsolvable problems once we 'll try to explain Paul's thesis as regards the Pliroma (Eph. 3:19), the Single Absolute Centre (Col. 1:17) and A' Cor. 15:28 amongst else😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Prototokos is here "the greatest among" etc. It is an accepted definition.

Also, if we try to accept that the interpretation you offer is correct, we will face unsolvable problems once we 'll try to explain Paul's thesis as regards the Pliroma (Eph. 3:19), the Single Absolute Centre (Col. 1:17) and A' Cor. 15:28 amongst else😵

It appears to me that the intepretation that I offer is what the language actually indicvates, christ is a part of a class, for example,

The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree* that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

a version of the class of all trees - Matthew 3:10

and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."

a class of all the people who bring the choice wine out first - matthew 3:10

the firstborn of all creation

a class of every kind of creation - colossians 1:15

Originally posted by black beetle
Prototokos is here "the greatest among" etc. It is an accepted definition.

Also, if we try to accept that the interpretation you offer is correct, we will face unsolvable problems once we 'll try to explain Paul's thesis as regards the Pliroma (Eph. 3:19), the Single Absolute Centre (Col. 1:17) and A' Cor. 15:28 amongst else😵

if we are to accept the interpretation that Christ is above or apart from the creation then we must need to accept, from the immediate context that Christ

1. created himself (verse 16)??
2. that Christ was before God and God was made to exist by means of Christ (v17)??
3.That Christ too needed to be reconciled to God (v20)??

really? wow, is that what we are meant to accept?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if we are to accept the interpretation that Christ is above or apart from the creation then we must need to accept, from the immediate context that Christ

1. created himself (verse 16)??
2. that Christ was before God and God was made to exist by means of Christ (v17)??
3.That Christ too needed to be reconciled to God (v20)??

really? wow, is that what we are meant to accept?

I, as an atheist, accept or reject nothing as regards this matter; I just point out what the meaning of the word "prototokos" is in the context of the Pauline theology.
That being said, according to the Orthodox dogma the interpretation that Christ is really above and apart of the creation is justified by the concept of Trinity (you know what I think about this concept, but that 's another story)
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I, as an atheist, accept or reject nothing as regards this matter; I just point out what the meaning of the word "prototokos" is in the context of the Pauline theology.
That being said, according to the Orthodox dogma the interpretation that Christ is really above and apart of the creation is justified by the concept of Trinity (you know what I think about this concept, but that 's another story)
😵

I bow beetle in sincerity 😀

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.

Sure Jesus is part of the creation, since he was born of Mary. However, that is not the same as being the first born of creation. He was definitely not the first born or first created. Therefore, the Greek word translated "firstborn" not "first born" must then relate to his preeminence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if we are to accept the interpretation that Christ is above or apart from the creation then we must need to accept, from the immediate context that Christ

1. created himself (verse 16)??
2. that Christ was before God and God was made to exist by means of Christ (v17)??
3.That Christ too needed to be reconciled to God (v20)??

really? wow, is that what we are meant to accept?

Nobody has to except this nonsense.

1. Did God create Himself? God has always existed for He is eternal.
2. The Creator is obviously exclude from all the things that are created.
3. God does not need to be reconciled back to Himself.