"Kiss the Son."

Grandliseur said:

The teaching is quite clear. The best concise description is perhaps found in 1 Cor chapter 15.

Before I quote that, let me briefly explain. God and the angels have their own reality which precedes our own; our reality, universe, is a created one. This means that our matter, the periodic table of elements is unique to our universe, our reality. Therefore, the angels and God have bodies that do not consist of material found in our universe but is matter nonetheless from their universe, reality: they have bodies, just not what we are used to.

Quoting some of chapter 15: (ASV)

38 But God giveth it a body as he will: and to every seed its proper body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but one is the flesh of men, another of beasts, another of birds, another of fishes.

40 And there are bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial: but, one is the glory of the celestial, and another of the terrestrial. 41 One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, and another the glory of the stars. For star differeth from star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory. It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written:

45 The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit. 46 Yet that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; afterwards that which is spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly. 48 Such as is the earthly, such also are the earthly: and such as is the heavenly, such also are they that are heavenly. 49 Therefore as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God: neither shall corruption possess incorruption.​

As we are told, Christ is the exact image of God - this means that there is a spiritual body of both Christ and God. Otherwise, if God didn't have a body, there could be no image of it. Heb 1:

ISV: 3 He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact likeness of his being, and he holds everything together by his powerful word. After he had provided a cleansing from sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Highest Majesty
ASV: 3 who being the effulgence of his glory, and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
​

Here the word substance is used, meaning it is substantial in the sense that there is something other than something that is just air, insubstantial. Something that is substantial can be touched and felt, it usually has weight and mass. So, God's body has substance but not of our universe.

God, Christ, and the angels, including the fallen ones -- all are spirit beings with spirit bodies. That is, their bodies are of a substance from another reality than ours with its own periodic table of elements. Naturally, we cannot know what that is, thus, it is said to be spirit bodies.

Click to expand...

. . . We probably agree in spirit, for the most part. . . The point, for me, is trying to exegete so that the entire scripture makes sense. I don't think Messiah (Christ) is a "reflection" (I think the Greek ἀπαύγασμα is mistranslated) of God. God, imo, has no body, other than Christ. So Christ isn't a "reflection" of God. He (Christ) is the sole manifestation/symbol/being/body, that is the "fullness" of God in tangible form (God having no tangible form outside of Christ).

Imo, and for reasons near and dear to this thread, Jesus is, prior to his death and resurrection, the physical son of Adam and nothing more. He and Adam are of the same substance ὑπόστασις. ------- And I'm Trinitarian, so that God and Christ and Adam are basically the same substance. God hid himself in Adam so completely that Adam may not have known he was God. It was left to his firstborn son, Jesus Christ, to, with the perspective of the Tanakh, realize precisely who he, and his father, Adam, are. That revelation/understanding is earthshattering since prior to Jesus, no creature, in heaven, or on earth, neither Abraham, Moses, or the prophets, no angel (least of all the lawgiver) fully appreciated who Adam was, or who Messiah would be.

That revelation was unique to Jesus. He was the first creature from the hand of God to realize that God had truly chosen to become a creature. And Jesus, because of his life and ministry, realized why that knowledge had to be hidden (until his death and resurrection).


John

whirlingmerc said:

In Genesis the seed (singular) of the woman who would be (virigin born) and crush the head of the serpent

In psalm 2 'I will pour out my King on mount Zion' and Jesus was poured out on Mt Zion at the cross

Click to expand...

. . . At the time of the prophesy, the only "seed of the woman" was the seed of Eve. How does that seed, that birthed the ******* Cain, birth Christ? Would you believe there's a scientific answer to that question?


John

Grandliseur said:

And, yet, one of Jesus' ancestor mothers was not a Jew or from Israel. Please remember faithful Ruth. God surely did.

Click to expand...

. . . That truism must be made contingent upon our interpretation of what it means to say a Jew must have a Jewish mother. --- My proposition doesn't break Jewish law (a Jew must have a Jewish mother) nor the historical record. Even though that seems impossible.


John

Clear said:

Instead of πρωτοσ in πρωτοτοκοσ as a reference to sequence, have you considered its' meaning as a reference to quality? That is "firstfruits" as a reference to the "best" of a type of thing, rather than the "first" of a type of thing? If it is being used in this sentence, as a common reference to "quality", instead of "sequence", would that change your line of thinking? IF so, how would it?

Click to expand...

. . . Though we know Christ is the "firstfruit" --- in the sense of "best" --- I'm convinced that it's not just that. Mine is a very convoluted argument, based on decades of study, that might not come out in this thread. We'll see. . . . I'm confident that Colossians 1:15-18 is Paul's correction of Genesis 1:1 (see HERE http://http://bere****ybeginning.blogspot.com/ if you want the foundation for the argument) . . . but there are things beyond what's presented at the link that I hoped to bring out in this thread.

Btw . . . the link doesn't seem to be working. There's a no no word in the Hebrew for "beginning" (sam henry iota tom) that the software doesn't like. You might have to go to LINK and then find the essay on Bere****ty Beginning in the list of essays at the link (it's something like the 23'rd essay in the list).


John

Clear said:

Hi Whirlingmerc - The point you are making is my point as well. "Firstfruits" that are given as a sacrifice is a reference to the quality of the thing sacrificed rather than the sequence by which it was obtained. If Christ, is being referenced as the "best" of all creation, then this is different than Christ as the "first" thing God created. I assumed John D. Brey know of this useage and wondered how it might change his thoughts if Colosians is a reference to quality, rather than sequence.

Thanks for your clarification as well.

Clear

Click to expand...

John D. Brey said:

. . . At the time of the prophesy, the only "seed of the woman" was the seed of Eve. How does that seed, that birthed the ******* Cain, birth Christ? Would you believe there's a scientific answer to that question?


John

Click to expand...

Cain was not the seed of the woman as he was not virigin born as Jesus was
Now many people thought that Eve originally thought her first child was the fulfillment and may even have thought baby Cain was an incarnation of God... alas no... she was disappointed and Cain was a reminder that death entered into the world

So lets let a woman answer that. Dr Georga Purdom, molecular genetisist addresses 'the seed of the woman' here
Eve’s Legacy—Hope Amid Despair

Grandliseur said:

I don't know of Rahab being one of the mothers. Can you show this from the Bible?

I found it. No need to do any work on it. Just didn't remember that one.

Click to expand...

I looked anyhow... was embarrassed I could not recall ... there was also Tamar (one of 3 Tamars all who were abused in some form by men), Rahab a prostitute , Ruth a Moabite and Bathsheba... all in some manner looked down on ... of course Eve and Mary

on the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab" (Matthew 1:5).

John D. Brey said:

. . . Though we know Christ is the "firstfruit" --- in the sense of "best" --- I'm convinced that it's not just that. Mine is a very convoluted argument, based on decades of study, that might not come out in this thread.

Click to expand...

John, you used prototokos as a SEQUENCE (first) instead of using it as a QUALITY (best). While you say your argument as to why you did this is, in your own words "convoluted", the early koine use of πρωτοσ is very, very simple.

Are you saying that your "convoluted argument" is too "convoluted" to explain?

Why not then accept simple early useage of Koine greek, rather than create a "convoluted argument" to assign meaning? Can you try to explain why your "convoluted argument" has an advantage over simple, common use of ancient koine?

Why not use the simplest, most obvious, most logical and most rational use of koine, rather than be forced to create a "covoluted arguement" to support your theory?

Clear
φιτζακω

Clear said:

John, you used prototokos as a SEQUENCE (first) instead of using it as a QUALITY (best). While you say your argument as to why you did this is, in your own words "convoluted", the early koine use of πρωτοσ is very, very simple.

Are you saying that your "convoluted argument" is too "convoluted" to explain?

Why not then accept simple early useage of Koine greek, rather than create a "convoluted argument" to assign meaning? Can you try to explain why your "convoluted argument" has an advantage over simple, common use of ancient koine?

Why not use the simplest, most obvious, most logical and most rational use of koine, rather than be forced to create a "covoluted arguement" to support your theory?

Clear
φιτζακω

Click to expand...

. . . You're confusing me? ----Exegetically, protos πρῶτος means first in sequence. And prototokos πρωτότοκος means "firstborn," i.e., the "first" protos, in the case of birth-order. -----My "convoluted" argument deals with explaining how (not that) Messiah can be the "firstborn," since in point of fact, and in chronology, Cain seems to occupy that position (signifying why Eve thought he was the Messiah)?

Btw, the last phrase in Colossians 1:18, viz, genetai proteuon (translated "have the preeminence" in the KJV) actually means to have the poll position: to be the first, the genesis, of all that come subsequently.


John

whirlingmerc said:

Cain was not the seed of the woman as he was not virigin born as Jesus was
Now many people thought that Eve originally thought her first child was the fulfillment and may even have thought baby Cain was an incarnation of God... alas no... she was disappointed and Cain was a reminder that death entered into the world

So lets let a woman answer that. Dr Georga Purdom, molecular genetisist addresses 'the seed of the woman' here
Eve’s Legacy—Hope Amid Despair

Click to expand...

Cain was the "seed of the woman" ---- as are you, and I, and everyone else. Jesus' distinction is only that he's the seed of the woman without the seed of the man. -----Having the seed of the man affect the seed of the woman is part and parcel of the doctrine of the original sin. The fact that Jesus is the seed of the woman apart from the seed of the man means he skipped the contamination of the original sin.


John

THE PROBLEM OF THEORIZING WITHOUT SUPPORTING DATA

Hi John D. Brey,

Brickjectivity characterized your multiple theories by saying “Its like a bed of nails, full of assumptions and claims, no references, no reason to believe any of it.” (post #7) I have to agree that your theories are, as you yourself admit, based on “convoluted” arguments. I am simply wanting you to think about how a single word and it’s meaning might change your argument.

You are using πρωτοτοκοσ or "firstfruits" as referring to Christ as a sequence of birth, whereas it also means the “finest”, the “best”.

In post 5 you say that “According to Paul, Messiah is the real, actual, "firstborn of creation." And then conclude that “Paul implies that Messiah was slated to be the first human being "born," had not the Cain fiasco usurped his birth. “.

The implication that Cain somehow “usurped” that position and that “Eve thought he was the Messiah” give credence to Brickjectivitys’ description regarding your assumptions and claims without any firm reference. You don’t describe how it is that Cain can “usurp” a birth order of the Messiah. You don’t describe why you think Eve thought Cain was the Messiah. These are very unusual claims and to give such unusual theories any legitimacy, will require some supporting data.

Your theorizing has it’s own set of illogical assumptions. For example, you ask “And how can he [Jesus] be called the "firstborn of creation" when Cain owns that title legitimately?” (post #16) If you insist on “firstfruits” in it’s meaning as a sequence, rather than it’s meaning as the “best” fruits, then your question undermines your theorizing.

You theorize that "firstborn of creation." Means that Jesus “…was alive, physically alive, not just as the Word, or some spiritual apparition, but physically alive, before Cain was physically alive.” (post #23) You do not support this unusual theory of a physical Jesus before a physical Cain with any supporting data. You provide no evidence that Jesus had a physical body before Cain did. Ascribing your personal meaning to “firstfruits” as a sequence rather than as “the best” requires such illogical thoughts. However, this sort of theorizing without supporting data enhances Brickjectivitys’ complaint that your theories are “full of assumptions and claims, no references, no reason to believe any of it.”

This is why I suggested (post #47) you consider “firstfruits” as a reference to it’s early usage as “the best”, the most “pre-eminent” of all creation, rather than as the “first thing” physically born resulting in your theory that Jesus had a physical body before Cain had one in post #37. If you simply use this common meaning then your theory does not require a “convoluted argument” to make it rational.

In post #48 you counter that “..protos πρῶτος means first in sequence. And prototokos πρωτότοκος means "firstborn," i.e., the "first" protos, in the case of birth-order. “ This leads you to theorize that “in chronology, Cain seems to occupy that position (signifying why Eve thought he was the Messiah)?”

Again, you theorize that Eve thought Cain was the Messiah without any supporting data. Your insistence on “firstfruits” as a sequence rather than as it’s common usage representing pre-eminence results in multiple, unusual theories which you, so far, have not offered data for. The normal usage of “firstfruits” as “pre-eminent” does not result in a similar cascade of irrational and unsupportable theories.


WHY NOT CONSIDER THE NORMAL USE OF THE COMPOUND WORD?

John, the compounding of one word with another changes the meaning. While “first” grade is the FIRST in a sequence , “first” prize, or “first violin” is the BEST is a class.

Anciently, in Koine, πρωτος modified multiple other words to create different meanings. For examples : πρωτος / as used with hands, Προχειριζομαι was used for someone who had authority over others. The verb meant, to “elect” or “appoint” someone OVER others as used in Acts 22:14 when referring to those “appointed” to be special in some way, or in 26:16 when Paul is appointed to be a special witness. This is not a religious word, but is also the word used in and Amhearst Papyrus (II 69.3) to indicate “the appointed collectors”. Fay Papyrus, London Papyrus and others of this peri c.e. era use this word in this way in common Koine Greek.

A slightly different modification of the word CAN meant “appointed beforehand” (τωι προκεχειροτονημενωι ) such as is seen only in Acts 10:41. But, since this modification is seen only in this one verse and nowhere else, it is not the rule of usage, but the exception.

As you admitted, Πρωτευω and it’s compound such as used in Col 1:18 mean to “hold the chief place” or “preeminent”.

In such cases, the word is a comparative of pre-eminence and not a sequence. This is true of the word when used in normal Koine Greek of the time. For example, in the Oxyrynchus Papyri, it refers to leaders : “…Παρεγγνησαν τοις πρωτευουσιν αποσχεσθαι…” when it means “instruct their leaders”. Again, it is used as a comparative of pre-eminence and leadership, not of a sequence or a number. This is the normal usage in examples of Koine in common usage from papyrus of the period. Even the Greek poet Menander uses the word as a reference to a woman taking the leadership of the home “… οικος δ εν ω τα παντα πρωτευει γυνη…” “where woman takes the lead in everything”…

When Luke 14:7 speaks of those who chose the “chief seats”, the word πρωτοκλισιας (literally “first seats”) is not referring to a sequence of seats, but to the “best” seats. In verse 8 of Luke 14, when Jesus says “don’t sit in the “first-seat” / πρωτο-κλισιαν he is not referring to choosing the FIRST seat as a sequence, but instead he is referring to choosing the BEST seat. In verse 10, when Jesus says “go and sit in the “last-place” / εσχατον τοπον, he is not referring to the LAST seat in sequence, but to the LEAST quality of seat…the worse place.

In none of these instances is the word used as a sequence, but as a quality.


This is why Abbot translates John 1:15 “he who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was “before me” as “for he was my Chief”. The Greek uses πρωτος / protos as a quality of pre-eminence, and not sequence.

This is the same standard usage as in Acts 16:12 when the author refers to Philippi, which is a city of Macedonia, the first of the district….” he means it is the "chief" city. As with the other examples, in this instance, πρωτε is not referring to “first” in a geographical sequence as prior linguist have pointed out, but it is referring to political pre-eminence as Moulton pointed out “in connexion with the rivalries of greek cities to be regarded as “first” or “chief” of their respective districts”

In Syll 523, the papyrus refers to “first work” ‘ “…το πρωτον εργον” and it is used in the sense of the highest class just as we say someone does “first rate work”.

The point is that the standard usage for πρωτος / protos in such compound usage refers to quality and pre-eminence. Why not consider the standard and common usage for this term and see how it affects your theories and their logic and rationalle?


Clear
φθτζσεω

Clear said:

You are using πρωτοτοκοσ or "firstfruits" as referring to Christ as a sequence of birth, whereas it also means the “finest”, the “best”.

Click to expand...

. . . In the KJV, the word is translated "firstborn" exclusively. And most of the contexts suggest the "first" "birth." ----The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Kittel) states that almost exclusively, the LXX connects the word to the Hebrew בכור or בכר, which means "first born" as in a woman's first child.

So there's really not a very strong exegetical argument for reading Colossians 1:15 to be stating that Christ is the "firstborn of creation" in any sense other than that he was slated to be born first, or was born first, or something along those lines. The argument that Paul means "firstborn" only in the sense of preeminence is only supported by the fact that it seems nearly impossible to claim that Jesus is the "firstborn" of creation in anything but an extremely abstract way, e.g., meaning he's preeminent.

Paul is onto something much deeper than that.


John

Clear said:

In post 5 you say that “According to Paul, Messiah is the real, actual, "firstborn of creation." And then conclude that “Paul implies that Messiah was slated to be the first human being "born," had not the Cain fiasco usurped his birth. “.

The implication that Cain somehow “usurped” that position and that “Eve thought he was the Messiah” give credence to Brickjectivitys’ description regarding your assumptions and claims without any firm reference. You don’t describe how it is that Cain can “usurp” a birth order of the Messiah. You don’t describe why you think Eve thought Cain was the Messiah. These are very unusual claims and to give such unusual theories any legitimacy, will require some supporting data.

Click to expand...

The great exegetes of Midrash Rabbah point out that the Masoretic interpretation of Genesis 4:1 is extremely problematic:


The correct Hebrew interpretation of Genesis 4:1 has Eve implying that she has birthed the Lord, rather than that with the help of the Lord she has given birth. But as the hoary sages note, that interpretation is too dangerous to the Masoretic interpretation of the entire Tanakh, such that it's interpreted in a kinder, milder way, that everyone can swallow:


The quote from Midrash Rabbah is strewn throughout Jewish midrash to include the Talmud. And Luther's reasoning is found throughout Christian commentary, such that it's not outrageous to believe someone who might be reading my arguments might be familiar with these fairly well distributed ideas. For instance, we find in Keil and Delitzsch:


Keil and Delitzsch go on to wonder how Eve could have thought that her son was of divine pedigree? But they need to sharpen up on Jewish midrashim, Rashi, and commentary far and wide, that shows that without misinterpreting the text to say what we already think it means, Eve had plenty of reason to think her first offspring would be of divine pedigree.


John

Clear said:

Your theorizing has it’s own set of illogical assumptions. For example, you ask “And how can he [Jesus] be called the "firstborn of creation" when Cain owns that title legitimately?” (post #16) If you insist on “firstfruits” in it’s meaning as a sequence, rather than it’s meaning as the “best” fruits, then your question undermines your theorizing.

You theorize that "firstborn of creation." Means that Jesus “…was alive, physically alive, not just as the Word, or some spiritual apparition, but physically alive, before Cain was physically alive.” (post #23) You do not support this unusual theory of a physical Jesus before a physical Cain with any supporting data. You provide no evidence that Jesus had a physical body before Cain did. Ascribing your personal meaning to “firstfruits” as a sequence rather than as “the best” requires such illogical thoughts. However, this sort of theorizing without supporting data enhances Brickjectivitys’ complaint that your theories are “full of assumptions and claims, no references, no reason to believe any of it.”

Click to expand...

. . . I've not mentioned "firstfruits" but only "firstborn." And though it might seem that claiming Jesus was physically real before Cain can't be supported Biblically, that prejudice is incorrect, and can be corrected, to show that Jesus really was, physically, scientifically, tangibly, the firstborn of creation (and not merely preeminent in relation to Cain).

It might strain most people's understanding of scripture, commentary, and most importantly, Jewish teaching on the scriptures, but the fact that it can be shown that Jesus is the true, legitimate, firstborn of creation, is no small thing. Along the way toward proving this, many other odd decrees, and bastardized interpretation/translation (like Genesis 4:1) receive their true, exegetically correct, interpretation.


John

Clear said:

John, the compounding of one word with another changes the meaning. While “first” grade is the FIRST in a sequence , “first” prize, or “first violin” is the BEST is a class.

Anciently, in Koine, πρωτος modified multiple other words to create different meanings. For examples : πρωτος / as used with hands, Προχειριζομαι was used for someone who had authority over others. The verb meant, to “elect” or “appoint” someone OVER others as used in Acts 22:14 when referring to those “appointed” to be special in some way, or in 26:16 when Paul is appointed to be a special witness. This is not a religious word, but is also the word used in and Amhearst Papyrus (II 69.3) to indicate “the appointed collectors”. Fay Papyrus, London Papyrus and others of this peri c.e. era use this word in this way in common Koine Greek.

A slightly different modification of the word CAN meant “appointed beforehand” (τωι προκεχειροτονημενωι ) such as is seen only in Acts 10:41. But, since this modification is seen only in this one verse and nowhere else, it is not the rule of usage, but the exception.

As you admitted, Πρωτευω and it’s compound such as used in Col 1:18 mean to “hold the chief place” or “preeminent”.

In such cases, the word is a comparative of pre-eminence and not a sequence. This is true of the word when used in normal Koine Greek of the time. For example, in the Oxyrynchus Papyri, it refers to leaders : “…Παρεγγνησαν τοις πρωτευουσιν αποσχεσθαι…” when it means “instruct their leaders”. Again, it is used as a comparative of pre-eminence and leadership, not of a sequence or a number. This is the normal usage in examples of Koine in common usage from papyrus of the period. Even the Greek poet Menander uses the word as a reference to a woman taking the leadership of the home “… οικος δ εν ω τα παντα πρωτευει γυνη…” “where woman takes the lead in everything”…

When Luke 14:7 speaks of those who chose the “chief seats”, the word πρωτοκλισιας (literally “first seats”) is not referring to a sequence of seats, but to the “best” seats. In verse 8 of Luke 14, when Jesus says “don’t sit in the “first-seat” / πρωτο-κλισιαν he is not referring to choosing the FIRST seat as a sequence, but instead he is referring to choosing the BEST seat. In verse 10, when Jesus says “go and sit in the “last-place” / εσχατον τοπον, he is not referring to the LAST seat in sequence, but to the LEAST quality of seat…the worse place.

In none of these instances is the word used as a sequence, but as a quality.

Click to expand...

The compounding in Colossians 1:18 means first in sequence. And all the statements that Christ is the "firstborn of creation" use words that we can very easily check through their usage throughout the scripture and even extra-biblical texts of the time. Using fairly simple exegetical practices we can see that Paul is saying that Christ is the "firstborn of creation." Every usage in the NT speaks of the first in birth order. ------Only the fact that we can't figure out how Jesus could be the firstborn of creation compels us to use forced exegesis. For instance, like how Genesis 4:1 is translated against the grain of the actual Hebrew because we can't understand, without a deeper knowledge of all the texts involved, why Eve would be claiming she's birthed the Lord: the promised Seed, the Redeemer of mankind.

If we can't find a way to show that Jesus is the firstborn, then naturally we might be inclined to believe the word means something else. But we can show, conclusively, with scripture, that Jesus is the physical firstborn of creation. And when that's done, it negates the need to hyposthesize against the grain of word usage and authentic meaning.

Jesus is the firstborn of creation. Jesus, not just Christ, but Jesus of Nazareth, is the firstborn of creation. Cain is a usurper.


John

Hi John D. Brey :

REGARDING PROTOTOKOS AND PHYSICAL / BODILY BIRTH OF JESUS

1) John. I LIKE your writing style and I like the various tid-bits you include in your points (though I think many of them are not particularly relevant). I also agree with you that prototokos is indeed, literally “firstborn”. It is also a common metaphor for status (pre-eminence) independent of birth order (sequence). The reason I gave multiple examples of this from early papyri is to show that pre-eminence was a common usage for compound words with πρωτος.

My initial question simply was, if in this case of Colosians the word applied to preeminence, (instead of literal sequence), how would that affect your theorizing.


2) John D. Brey said : “it seems nearly impossible to claim that Jesus is the "firstborn" of creation in anything but an extremely abstract way, e.g., meaning he's preeminent” (post #51)

John, I disagree. For example, your claim that Jesus was LITERALLY, and physically born “first” and possessed a physical body before Cain had a body is not “extremely abstract” at all. You have simply not supported this claim with sufficient data to make the theory viable. Also, the corresponding concept that a Jesus is preeminent is not “extremely abstract”. He is LITERALLY preeminent in Christian worldviews. He is the finest, most intelligent, loving, perfect, etc.

In fact, it is the literalness of your claim that Jesus had a physical body before Cain that creates problems for your theory. Your theory that "firstborn of creation." Means that Jesus “…was alive, physically alive, not just as the Word, or some spiritual apparition, but physically alive, before Cain was physically alive.” (post #23) is not “extremely abstract” but literal. You asked : “And how can he [Jesus] be called the "firstborn of creation" when Cain owns that title legitimately?” (John D. Brey post #16). The rest of us are waiting for your answer to your own question. And though you repeat the claim in post #53, like Brickjectivity said, we are waiting for actual data and rationale.


3) USING RABBINIC JUDAISM AS A SUPPORT FOR CHRISTIAN THEORY

Since the context is Christian interpretation, I am not sure why you are referring to Jewish Midrash for interpretation. Please do not misunderstand. I LIKE your use of mishnas and your quotes of early Rabbinic sources. I use them myself. I’m just not sure what you think it is proving.

For example, you say that “The correct Hebrew interpretation of Genesis 4:1 has Eve implying that she has birthed the Lord, rather than that with the help of the Lord she has given birth.” (post #52) However, even Rashi himself applies a different meaning to Gen 4:1 that “My husband and I were created by God alone, but thought the birth of Cain we are partners with Him” (rashi). Rashi does not indicate that Cain is a usurper of the Messiahs birth order nor does he indicate that Eve thought Cain was the Messiah. Even Ramban says the verse means “This [newborn] man shall be my acquisition for the sake of God,” (“i.e. she dedicated her son to become the servant of God after she and Adam died.”) Ramban does not indicate Cain usurps the position or birth order of the Messiah.

None of these support your theory that Eve thought Cain was the messiah.

In any case, these are Jewish worldviews from later centuries and do not equate with the Christian interpretation of Colosians. Regarding Luther. Are you saying that Luther believed that Eve Thought Cain was the Messiah? (I can't tell what you think this means...). If Luther did think this, are you using it as "proof", or for another purpose?


You end your post # 54 by repeating the claim that “Cain is a usurper”. A usurper is “a person who takes a position of power or importance illegally or by force.”. You still have not explained how the unborn Cain was able to affect his birth so as to be born before Jesus nor by what power Cain was able to accomplish this sequence of Birth order. Do you see some of the problems with this interpretation and theory?

I think the lack of clear data and rational logic is the core problem with offering an unusual theory. It doesn't mean that an unusual theory is incorrect, simply that it lacks supporting data and obvious logic and rationale.

Do you see the problem from the readers standpoint?

In any case, Good luck and I hope your journey is good.

Clear
φυφυφιω

Clear said:

Hi John D. Brey :

REGARDING PROTOTOKOS AND PHYSICAL / BODILY BIRTH OF JESUS

1) John. I LIKE your writing style and I like the various tid-bits you include in your points (though I think many of them are not particularly relevant). I also agree with you that prototokos is indeed, literally “firstborn”. It is also a common metaphor for status (pre-eminence) independent of birth order (sequence). The reason I gave multiple examples of this from early papyri is to show that pre-eminence was a common usage for compound words with πρωτος.

My initial question simply was, if in this case of Colosians the word applied to preeminence, (instead of literal sequence), how would that affect your theorizing.

Click to expand...

. . . The issue here, and even more-so in a Jewish framework, is that the "pre-eminence," the preferred status, comes from sequence, such that the firstborn in sequence is always preeminent in Judaism. The preeminence is an epiphenomenon (by-product) of the sequence since it's not easy to make the reverse the case. The firstborn is symbolically conceived, in pagan religions, and even in Judaism (though it's more hidden in Judaism) through jus primae noctis. -----God is always the father of the firstborn. Ergo his (the firstborn's) preeminence. The bride's womb is sanctified by jus primae noctis (Rabbi Hirsch) such that all the bridegroom's own offspring (following God's son) are sanctified by coming from a sanctified womb.

. . . Not to get sidetracked on jus primae noctis in the bible, but in the ancient religions, on her wedding day the bride would enter the temple and deflower herself on a wooden or golden phallus (god's reproductive organ) so that her and her bridegroom's firstborn would be a "priest" in the house of god, being that god was his father. And for reasons important in this thread, Judaism dispenses with the bride's deflowering by God's organ such that the veil of her bodily temple is intact when the firstborn "opens the womb" (Ex. 13:2). In Exodus 13:2, God says to set aside for him all the firstborn who "open the womb" for they are his. ----Literally his own offspring. ----The Jewish firstborn must be redeemed from his service to God, pidyon haben, since he belongs to God. The very word for "messiah" (the anointed) comes from the fact that the pagans "anointed" the divine organ with a salubrious liquid to make the ordeal less painful. The one born of the "anointed" organ, is "messiah," who is sired by god.

Brit milah, ritual circumcision, was originally a wedding ritual guaranteeing in the most visual and bloody manner that the firstborn would be sired by God and not by the, uh . . . serpent. -----Rather than the bride being deflowered by a god organ (and the phallic-cults worshiped the phallus as the quintessential emblem of god), in Judaism, that god, that divine organ of God's will (Gevurah), is cut off, and out, of the birth of the true firstborn, who opens the womb since it's still intact, unlike in the case of the pagan bride deflowered by a divine phallus. The Jewish firstborn is "anointed" with a less salubrious lubricant: the blood of the god-organ shed under the chuppah by the bride's father-in-law, the hatan.

. . . Which segues perfectly into Rashi, whom you mentioned.

On Genesis 4:1, Rashi reveals, through sound Hebrew exegesis, that unlike other places where yada ידע "knew" (as in, "so and so knew his wife and she bore him a son"), in this particular case, Genesis 4:1 it should be correctly interpreted "had known" rather than "knew." Rashi says:


Rashi again corrects a faulty interpretation that was formerly based on interpreting the scripture to say what we think it's saying rather than what it actually says. Rashi is clear that in strict Hebrew exegesis, the text is saying Adam knew something about his wife, and her sexual proclivities, before the expulsion and birth of Cain. Nearly every expositor assumes Adam is the father of Cain. But that's not what the text says. And Rashi is brilliant for pointing this out. Adam knew that Eve was a sexual creature before she shared her sexual knowledge (gained from the serpent) with him too.

Cain is sired by the serpent, as the first fruit of Eve's sexual education. She then offers that knowledge ידע to Adam, who takes and "eats" (see Rabbi Boyarin on "eating" as a metaphor for sex). Cain's father is the serpent. Genesis 4:1 states that Adam already knew that Cain wasn't his offspring because of something that occurred before the expulsion. Eve thinks of Cain as a divine son because he is. He's the first nephilim, the first son of the "fallen" napal, ones. The serpent is the god and ruler of the nephilim (which merely means "fallen ones").

By the way, in the Saperstein Edition of Rashi, we read:

Eve did acquire a man, Hashem; really did. But it wasn't Cain. And there is science, sound science, that segues with scripture, for how this can all make sense . . . . Which segues into your most important point: that I keep talking about this science and scripture without revealing it.


John

WHAT RELATIONSHIP DOES THE DISCUSSION HAVE WITH THE THEORIES?


1) PRE-EMINENCE
John D. Brey explains : “. . . The issue here, and even more-so in a Jewish framework, is that the "pre-eminence," the preferred status, comes from sequence, such that the firstborn in sequence is always preeminent in Judaism. “

It feels like you are trying to place sequence above quality, whereas the scriptures do not seem to support this point. The scriptures demonstrate that there are principles and characteristics which trump birth order. For example, it is Abraham and not the first born Haran that becomes pre-eminent; Isaac, and not first born Ishmael which becomes pre-eminent; Jacob, and not Essau….

However, regardless of which principles are at play, how does this principle support your theory that the context of Colosians is that Jesus had a physical body before Cain? How does this discussion support your theory that Cain was able through some power to usurp Jesus’ Birth order? How does this discussion support your theory that Eve saw Cain as the messiah?



2) EVES’ “SEXUAL EDUCATION” – Yet Another theory
John D. Brey explains : "Cain is sired by the serpent, as the first fruit of Eve's sexual education. She then offers that knowledge ידע to Adam, who takes and "eats" (see Rabbi Boyarin on "eating" as a metaphor for sex). Cain's father is the serpent. Genesis 4:1 states that Adam already knew that Cain wasn't his offspring because of something that occurred before the expulsion. Eve thinks of Cain as a divine son because he is. He's the first nephilim, the first son of the "fallen" napal, ones. The serpent is the god and ruler of the nephilim (which merely means "fallen ones")."


John D. Brey : Here again, you are offering yet more strange theories but not offering us data and logical, rationale to support these unusual theories.

How do these new and unusual theories regarding “Eve’s sexual education” or your theory that “Cain’s father is the serpent” support your theory that the context of Colosians is that Jesus had a physical body before Cain?

How does this discussion support your theory that Cain was able through some power to usurp Jesus’ Birth order?

How does this discussion support your theory that Eve saw Cain as the messiah?


These are questions you are being asked. However, If you either do not have data or logical support, for these earlier theories, then what is the use of offering us more unusual theories?

As Brickjectivity indicated, we are waiting for actual data and rationale and we are wasting posts unless you are going to support your earlier theory. John, Please. Do you actually HAVE any data or rationale for the specific theories you have already offered? I am not at all angry, but I honestly cannot justify spending time discussing religious theory that has no historical merit or usefulness or that does not provide insight into authentic historical Christianity.


Clear
φυσεφυω

Clear said:

1) PRE-EMINENCE
John D. Brey explains : “. . . The issue here, and even more-so in a Jewish framework, is that the "pre-eminence," the preferred status, comes from sequence, such that the firstborn in sequence is always preeminent in Judaism. “

It feels like you are trying to place sequence above quality, whereas the scriptures do not seem to support this point. The scriptures demonstrate that there are principles and characteristics which trump birth order. For example, it is Abraham and not the first born Haran that becomes pre-eminent; Isaac, and not first born Ishmael which becomes pre-eminent; Jacob, and not Essau….

Click to expand...

Abram doesn't ever, technically, become pre-eminent in relationship to the firstborn Haran. "Abra-h-am," is pre-eminent to Haran ----because he (Abraham) has removed the very flesh added to Adam to make Cain's birth, Haran's birth, and Abram's birth possible (Genesis 2:21). -----When Abram's name changes, he become a new man in the likeness of pre-lapse Adam. After Abraham symbolically removes the flesh Adam added, he becomes parallel to pre-lapse Adam, while after Genesis 2:21, Adam becomes like Abram.

Ismael is Haran's nephew. Haran has no familial relationship to Isaac.

In Hebrew the addition of one letter can transform a masculine to a feminine: i.e., the letter heh ה. -----When Abram removes the symbol of the masculine, added to Adam to deny his Jewish motherhood, God adds the letter to his name that changes a masculine to a feminine. The fact that in many cases in the Tanakh it's the firstborn who is the least preeminent is based on the case of Cain's contamination of the nature of the firstborn. Jesus corrects the Tanakh. He (Jesus) is the firstborn. Not Cain.

In Genesis chapter 17, Abraham is told to enter into the covenant with God, which Rabbi Hirsch claims, based on Hebrew exegesis, is not a new covenant but the reinstatement of the original covenant between God and Adam. And how is Abraham to reinstate the original covenant between God and Adam? By removing (at least symbolically) the very flesh Adam gained in Genesis 2:21 to make the conception of Cain conceivable. Adam has surgery to become a Gentile while Abraham does the exact opposite. ------He takes a blade and performs prophylactic surgery precisely where the original surgery was performed on Adam in Genesis 2:21. But to the exact opposite affect. Abraham subtracts the flesh בשר Adam added. . . Voila, just as we’re told Eve is pregnant after Genesis 2:21, the surgical preparation for the original act of genital-sex, so too, we’re told immediately after Abraham performs prophylactic-surgery (precisely where Adam had a surgical addition) that Sarah is pregnant and is going to have a son.

Adam has a son, Cain, after he allows the violent, surgical, desecration of God's original design of his body (Gen. 2:21). Abraham has a son, Isaac (the firstborn of the renewed covenant) after Abraham undergoes a violent, surgical, restoration of God's original design for the human body.


John

Clear said:

2) EVES’ “SEXUAL EDUCATION” – Yet Another theory
John D. Brey explains : "Cain is sired by the serpent, as the first fruit of Eve's sexual education. She then offers that knowledge ידע to Adam, who takes and "eats" (see Rabbi Boyarin on "eating" as a metaphor for sex). Cain's father is the serpent. Genesis 4:1 states that Adam already knew that Cain wasn't his offspring because of something that occurred before the expulsion. Eve thinks of Cain as a divine son because he is. He's the first nephilim, the first son of the "fallen" napal, ones. The serpent is the god and ruler of the nephilim (which merely means "fallen ones")."


John D. Brey : Here again, you are offering yet more strange theories but not offering us data and logical, rationale to support these unusual theories.

Click to expand...

If someone says its a "strange theory" to suggest Eve thought Cain was Messiah, I should hope that pointing out that Luther, and Rashi, with most other good Hebrew-based commentaries, conclude that, interpreted plainly, clearly, and correct exegetically, Eve says she birthed the Lord, Hashem, implies that I'm in fact providing "data" and a "logical rationale" for the "strange theory"? ---- If correcting the word of God, against the false interpretations used as a hedge against the deeper meaning, is considered meaningless, data-less, ir-rational[e], I fear I'm doomed to the life of a conspiracy theorist for the remainder of my living days.

Professor Gershom Scholem, a great scholar of mystical Judaism, said, in, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 46: "If Adam had not sinned the world would have entered the Messianic state on the first Sabbath after creation, with no historical process whatever." ----- The implication being that Adam would have birthed Messiah without the historical process whereby he had a surgical event leading to the creation of the phallus, and the creation of gender, and the creation of Eve, where the creation of the serpentine-phallus, allowed it to act as mediator between the newfangled gender (male and female), leading to Cain, you, and me. . . Paul said that in Christ, there's neither male nor female. Christ is the second Adam: what Adam would have been had not the sad historical process taken place whose great climax occurred just after Genesis 2:21.


John

Clear said:

These are questions you are being asked. However, If you either do not have data or logical support, for these earlier theories, then what is the use of offering us more unusual theories?

Click to expand...

. . . Again, if the correct interpretation of scripture (against the grain of orthodoxy) isn't logical support, or data, then I must confess that I have no logical support or data for my theories. I've given proof that the Hebrew experts (to include Luther, Rashi, and Keil and Delitzsch) justify (through correct exegetical data and logical rationales) my "strange theory" that Eve thought Cain was Messiah, to no affect.

. . . As a side note, Buber and Rosenzweig worked on a German translation of the Hebrew Bible and both stated that they were literally in awe of Luther's grasp of Hebrew. They claimed that they (two brilliant Jewish exegetes) almost quit their translation when they realized they probably couldn't better Luther's. ------Luther was a brilliant Hebrew exegete, as was Rashi, and both of them have been quoted to say that Eve claims she birthed Messiah, but that orthodoxy won't have it---- it's too strange even to allow the true exegesis (based on the rules of Hebrew grammar) to be considered "data" nor even "logical."


John