Christ is God

When you want to talk about how to translate Col 1:15, you must find the same grammar used somewhere else, logically.

I have found only this three similar uses in the whole Bible:

πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως Col 2.15
firstborn over all creation

πάντων τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν Job 41:26
over all who are in the waters.

ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός J 17:2
authority over all people

For me, this is fully satisfactory. Q.E.D.

You searched wrong, there were 42 occurances of πάσης (pases) the same as the one found in Col 1:15, this is some how the NIV chooses to translate some uses of the word. Moreover one of your examples was the verse in question itself which is hardly evidence, how you only found two I don't know.


Acts 8:27 - ἦν ἐπὶ πάσης τῆς γάζης

NIV: “in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake”

Luke 5:17 - ἐληλυθότες ἐκ πάσης κώμης τῆς

NAS: had come from every village

NIV: had come from every village

Luke 6:17 - λαοῦ ἀπὸ πάσης τῆς Ἰουδαίας

NAS: of people from all Judea

NIV: from all over Judea


As you can see with your pointless argument even the NIV translates it as "of" and "from" (same as Col 1:18 -from the dead) in some places.

But again this is all irrelevant as my question has nothing to do with this non-issue you raised.

So please, answer the question I posed to you, if you're unable to answer it then please have the chrisitian of humblness to admit it.

Show me a example, in the bible or outside of the bible where someone is firstborn regarding a group and they themselves are not part of the group.

NOTE, that it does not matter in what respect Jesus was firstborn regarding the group of creation with my question, all that matters is that he is labelled as firstborn regarding the group of creation.

You are not getting the point. Your examples have "epi, apo, ek" etc. Col 2:15 does not. Therefore you must find the use without it and see if it can be translated as "over all" when there is no such word together with it.

I proved, it can be translated this way. Q.E.D.

And what does that argument have anything to do with my one?

Remember my question is for you to "show me an example where something is called firstborn regarding a group and they themselves aren't part of it."

The only thing that needs to be agreed on from both sides in relation to my question is that Jesus is called "firstborn" regarding the group of "creation" in Col 1:15. Do you agree Jesus is "firstborn" regarding the group "creation", if you do then you have no reason not to answer the question.

For your ease:
- Do you agree Jesus is "firstborn" regarding the group "creation"
- What does your rambling of other texts have anything to do with my question specifically
- Answer my question, please show me an example where something is called firstborn regarding a group and they themselves aren't part of it

For the last time, please read carefully:

You are complaining, that Col 2:15 should not be translated as "over all", but rather "from" or "of".

While both ways are possible, I go with the "over all" translation, because:
a) its how the same use is translated on other places
b) its the orthodox reading as reflected in the creed of Nicea

I proved that the translation "over all" is possible by listing other examples of the similar use:

πρωτότοκος [NOTHING HERE] πάσης κτίσεως Col 2.15
firstborn over all creation

[NOTHING HERE] πάντων τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν Job 41:26
over all who are in the waters.

ἐξουσίαν [NOTHING HERE] πάσης σαρκός J 17:2
authority over all people

Your examples ARE NOT the same, because they have also preposition in the sentence (en, epi, apo, hyper) etc.

If you are not satisfied, I cannot do anything more.

trofimus the last time I was arguing over Col 1:15 and the wording "of all" over the word "over" was 8 posts ago (post 550). Hence why all my quotations of the v15 after was "firstborn all creation" leaving out our debated of vs over.

If we can both agree that Jesus is called firstborn regarding the group creation then there is not a single reason why you can't answer my question I've been asking the upwards of 8 times now I believe.

AGAIN, my argument and question has nothing to do if Col 1:15 should be translated "over all" rather "of", my argument is simple. When we have someone mentioned as firstborn they are always part of the group they're firstborn in, Jesus is the "firstborn" regarding the group "creation" thus he must be created and in that group.

Something firstborn regarding the group Apes must itself be an ape
Something firstborn regarding the group Humans must itself be an human
Something firstborn regarding the group Fish must itself be an fish
Something firstborn regarding the group Cats must itself be an cat
Something firstborn regarding the group the dead must itself be be dead
Something firstborn regarding the group Creation must itself be created

Thus Jesus, according to Col 1:15, ("firstborn all creation") demands he be part of the group he's labelled as firstborn. If you deny this then you must answer the question I've posed so many times, show me an example where someone is firstborn regarding a group and not part of it.

trofimus the last time I was arguing over Col 1:15 and the wording "of all" over the word "over" was 8 posts ago (post 550). Hence why all my quotations of the v15 after was "firstborn all creation" leaving out our debated of vs over.

If we can both agree that Jesus is called firstborn regarding the group creation then there is not a single reason why you can't answer my question I've been asking the upwards of 8 times now I believe.

AGAIN, my argument and question has nothing to do if Col 1:15 should be translated "over all" rather "of", my argument is simple. When we have someone mentioned as firstborn they are always part of the group they're firstborn in, Jesus is the "firstborn" regarding the group "creation" thus he must be created and in that group.

Something firstborn regarding the group Apes must itself be an ape
Something firstborn regarding the group Humans must itself be an human
Something firstborn regarding the group Fish must itself be an fish
Something firstborn regarding the group Cats must itself be an cat
Something firstborn regarding the group the dead must itself be be dead
Something firstborn regarding the group Creation must itself be created

Thus Jesus, according to Col 1:15, ("firstborn all creation") demands he be part of the group he's labelled as firstborn. If you deny this then you must answer the question I've posed so many times, show me an example where someone is firstborn regarding a group and not part of it.

Brother in Christ,

[trofimus] has what is known as circular logic. it's what the world has defined logic and reasoning of those like trofimus. sadly, the guy probably believes the earth is flat, Calvinism, and anything with logic should be ignored.

my guess is that science and its many proofs that prove the existence of God via bacteria and DNA are denied and ignored by trofimus!!

circular logic when stopped, results in you running face first into your own behind

"Regarding" needs a corresponding preposition (ek, apo...). There is none. Therefore its not "regarding".

I do not know how to be clearer. When you have "pasés something", it does not mean "one of something". At least in cases I listed.

Hi,
I feel I must answer this post 585, where NWL wrote:
Something firstborn regarding the group Humans must itself be an human
Something firstborn regarding the group Creation must itself be created


You are right, the Word was from God, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the 'only begotten of God.' John 1:18 where it says, the Word was 'the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father.'
That means that the only begotten God (Son) was 'the Son of His love,'

Notice these verses from Colossians 1:
12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.
13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of 'the Son of His love,'
14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created

Remember the verse, John 1:3 All things were made through Him (the Word), and without Him nothing was made that was made.

The Scripture is true, it is those who read it wrong that have a problem.
--- And the Scripture said that Jesus was born on earth as the son of Mary, --- after his own kind.

so, if we know Yeshua [the WORD] created all things, made appearances throughout Old Testament in His human body, do we actually believe He was literally born from Mary?

He already existed and had an adult human body when He met Abram before sending His angels to Sodom.

so, wouldn't be figuratively that He was born of Mary, because He does not have her DNA...He was a SEED planted by the hand of God into the womb of Mary!!

unless, you are one of those crazy believers that feel the Holy Spirit did the wild thing with Mary...but then, that would make God a hypocrite for punishing angels who were with human women and created Nephilim!!

How do you read this?

"You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy."

Simple and short!!! answer without tuns of other verses, please. Just how you read this verse in your mind.

..therefore distinct God, the other distinct God has set you above your companions...

Are you happy now, simple and short just the way you like them.

So please note, you are the one pushing the argument of "over" vs "of" here.

Both contextually and grammatically "firstborn" cannot properly and is never in its 160 usages referred to as "over" something, expect in the case of Col 1:15 in some bible translations which we have both agreed are insertions of sorts. All other usages of the word the firstborn is always "from", "of" or implied as being part of it.

Again, the fact that Jesus is the firstborn of the group creation mentioned in Col 1:15 demands the translation to be "of all creation" over "over all creation", since grammatically speaking you can't be labelled as firstborn without being in that group, the very definition of the word demands it as I've said over and over.

You argument of grammatical parallels of the surrounding texts grammar cannot get off the ground unless you can first define or express the meaning of firstborn.

Please tell me your definition of what firstborn is so we are on the same level and secondly and more importantly, give me an example of a firstborn in your own words that resemble how Christ is firstborn that is comparable to something.

You fail to realise one thing, a copy of anything implies the very thing that is copied is excatly the same expect the age of that copy. If the Father was in existence alone, and then created a copy of himself (Hebrews 1:3), namely Jesus, then how does it make sense that Gods age also copies over to the copy of himself. Again, Jesus being a copy imples he is the same in every respect apart from God eternalness. Moreover, almighty God is NOT a copy of anyone, but Jesus is, therefore Jesus can't be God.

As Jesus himself stated, he lives because of the Father. God almighty lives because of no person or thing. Jesus lacks the main attribute of almighty God, that being having no beginning nor end.

(John 6:57) "..I [Jesus] live because of the Father.."

..therefore distinct God, the other distinct God has set you above your companions...

Are you happy now, simple and short just the way you like them.

So, no "authority your authority", but really God, your God? Good. Oneness destroyed again