first-born of all creation

[InvestigateTruth]

"who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation," Colossians 1:15

The above verse often is understood to mean that Jesus existed before all other creation, but when we look at the term 'firstborn', and 'created beings', in the light of the context of the whole Bible, it does not really indicate literally the firstborn of creation of the world, No!, It is only in the sense of being the first in His Age who was born among the spiritually dead people. These verses makes it clear:

"And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy" Colossians 1:18

The term 'dead' in above verse has a spiritual signification, similar to:

"Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Ephesians 5:14

According to this concept that by coming of Jesus revelation a 'new man' was created, that caused the 'dead' to rise from their spiritual sleep, Jesus Himself is considered to be the Firstborn among all those who were created new. This concept is seen from the following verse:


"and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator" Colossians 3:10

 

[Pegg]

John 8:58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.

Jesus lived long before Abraham did. This proves that being 'the firstborn of all creation' really does refer to his 'existence' and not to some spiritual awakening.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

John 8:58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.

Jesus lived long before Abraham did. This proves that being 'the firstborn of all creation' really does refer to his 'existence' and not to some spiritual awakening.

I think you are reading it too literally. Jesus was like a Mirror facing the Sun of Reality, showing the image of God. It is like you place a Mirror facing the Sun. What do you see in it? You see the Sun. Now if we point to the Mirror with the image of Sun, and say this always existed, it is true. Therefore the Mirror (individuality of Jesus) did not exist before, but the Sun (God) always existed. That is to say, the Reality of God that was Manifested in the Mirror always existed, not the individuality of Jesus.

Another way to see this is we see how scriptures define 'existence' and 'identity'.
Because the scriptures does not define existence and identity the way normally it is defined. Let me ask you this: Do you believe John the Baptist existed on earth before He was born? According to scriptures yes. Because Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah who had returned again. But the existence of John as Elijah is related to how scriptures define identity as spiritual Qualities. However the individuality of John was different than Elijah, and therefore John did not "Literally" exist as Elijah. In the same way Jesus existed before as Moses, even as Abraham or Noah as all of them were revealers of the Word and attributes of God.

 

[Sleeppy]

I think you are reading it too literally. Jesus was like a Mirror facing the Sun of Reality, showing the image of God. It is like you place a Mirror facing the Sun. What do you see in it? You see the Sun. Now if we point to the Mirror with the image of Sun, and say this always existed, it is true. Therefore the Mirror (individuality of Jesus) did not exist before, but the Sun (God) always existed. That is to say, the Reality of God that was Manifested in the Mirror always existed, not the individuality of Jesus.

Another way to see this is we see how scriptures define 'existence' and 'identity'.
Because the scriptures does not define existence and identity the way normally it is defined. Let me ask you this: Do you believe John the Baptist existed on earth before He was born? According to scriptures yes. Because Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah who had returned again. But the existence of John as Elijah is related to how scriptures define identity as spiritual Qualities. However the individuality of John was different than Elijah, and therefore John did not "Literally" exist as Elijah. In the same way Jesus existed before as Moses, even as Abraham or Noah as all of them were revealers of the Word and attributes of God.

I agree.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Have you heard my 'Bubble Theory' yet? It depends heavily upon a particular interpretation of the gospel of John and it goes like this:

John the Baptist is preaching repentance for forgiveness of 'Sins' (as opposed to making sacrifices). In other words he is preaching a Judaism that converts all gentiles to equal spiritual status with Jews without them having to sacrifice animals or wear special clothes etc.

Enter Jesus, who says that John is Elijah in a way. At the same time John literally denies that he is Elijah. Therefore John is not literally Elijah yet is Elijah in some other way. The significance here is that according to the prophet Malachi (very significant to Christians), according to him Elijah signals a renewal of Judaism and of Israel that is regularly celebrated in a festival called 'Jubilee'. John the Baptist baptizes Jesus, and Jesus then reads in synogue the Isaiah scroll and confirms that he is announcing the beginning of Jubilee.

At the same time, Jews do not perceive any Jubilee and their reasonable requirements for Jubilee are not literally fulfilled. Within their frame of view, neither Elijah nor Jubilee has come.

All of these things are recorded in the gospel John which some say was written later than the other gospels. Be that as it may, John opens with a parallel to Genesis 1 "In the beginning was..." By this John signals that he is describing some sort of creation. Then John continues on with bits about Jesus life and ministry and in chapter 3 of John we see Jesus describing his own ministry as the light of a new creation. The same author writes three letters John 1, John 2 and John 3 also all of which consider the beginning of Jesus ministry to be the beginning of creation.

These things being established its easy to reason that perhaps the early Christians (and subsequent Christians) considered Jesus to be the author and finisher of a new creation, the creation of themselves. Thus Jesus could be called the 'Firstborn' and also the 'Alpha and Omega' without contradicting the previously established case that Jesus was born and had a beginning.

It is a bubble, because unless the bubble creation of Jesus eventually converges with the Jewish view, that is unless Jesus mission is someday completed -- the bubble pops. If it doesn't pop and Jesus accomplishes all of the aims and desires of Abraham, then the circle is complete and all of the frames of view merge into one. What keeps the bubble intact is faith that Jesus work will be completed.

Yes, it is also consistent with the Baha'i way of thinking which may be significant to you are not. Going by this logic, you could attempt to view each succeeding Abrahamic prophet as a bubble creation within the creation of the previous one.

 

[Muffled]

"who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation," Colossians 1:15

The above verse often is understood to mean that Jesus existed before all other creation, but when we look at the term 'firstborn', and 'created beings', in the light of the context of the whole Bible, it does not really indicate literally the firstborn of creation of the world, No!, It is only in the sense of being the first in His Age who was born among the spiritually dead people. These verses makes it clear:

"And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy" Colossians 1:18

The term 'dead' in above verse has a spiritual signification, similar to:

"Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Ephesians 5:14

According to this concept that by coming of Jesus revelation a 'new man' was created, that caused the 'dead' to rise from their spiritual sleep, Jesus Himself is considered to be the Firstborn among all those who were created new. This concept is seen from the following verse:


"and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator" Colossians 3:10

I beleive, however, I recently have seen that it means that He is the first created man to also be born. All previous creations did not go through a birth.

I beleive I find no evidence for this.

I believe there is nothing spiritual mentioned. This is about the supremacy of the firstborn as was the postion of a firstborn son. REbirth from the dead in this case I believe means resurrection into a new eternal body and that He is the first to have the new body.

I beleive there is no evidence that Jesus is the first instance of the Paraclete since Jesus said that He must go away so the Paraclete would come.

 

[Muffled]

John 8:58 Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.

Jesus lived long before Abraham did. This proves that being 'the firstborn of all creation' really does refer to his 'existence' and not to some spiritual awakening.

I believe the Spirit of God did exist before Abraham and Jesus is speaking of that existence but the physical body is contemporary.

 

[Muffled]

Have you heard my 'Bubble Theory' yet? It depends heavily upon a particular interpretation of the gospel of John and it goes like this:

John the Baptist is preaching repentance for forgiveness of 'Sins' (as opposed to making sacrifices). In other words he is preaching a Judaism that converts all gentiles to equal spiritual status with Jews without them having to sacrifice animals or wear special clothes etc.

Enter Jesus, who says that John is Elijah in a way. At the same time John literally denies that he is Elijah. Therefore John is not literally Elijah yet is Elijah in some other way. The significance here is that according to the prophet Malachi (very significant to Christians), according to him Elijah signals a renewal of Judaism and of Israel that is regularly celebrated in a festival called 'Jubilee'. John the Baptist baptizes Jesus, and Jesus then reads in synogue the Isaiah scroll and confirms that he is announcing the beginning of Jubilee.

At the same time, Jews do not perceive any Jubilee and their reasonable requirements for Jubilee are not literally fulfilled. Within their frame of view, neither Elijah nor Jubilee has come.

All of these things are recorded in the gospel John which some say was written later than the other gospels. Be that as it may, John opens with a parallel to Genesis 1 "In the beginning was..." By this John signals that he is describing some sort of creation. Then John continues on with bits about Jesus life and ministry and in chapter 3 of John we see Jesus describing his own ministry as the light of a new creation. The same author writes three letters John 1, John 2 and John 3 also all of which consider the beginning of Jesus ministry to be the beginning of creation.

These things being established its easy to reason that perhaps the early Christians (and subsequent Christians) considered Jesus to be the author and finisher of a new creation, the creation of themselves. Thus Jesus could be called the 'Firstborn' and also the 'Alpha and Omega' without contradicting the previously established case that Jesus was born and had a beginning.

It is a bubble, because unless the bubble creation of Jesus eventually converges with the Jewish view, that is unless Jesus mission is someday completed -- the bubble pops. If it doesn't pop and Jesus accomplishes all of the aims and desires of Abraham, then the circle is complete and all of the frames of view merge into one. What keeps the bubble intact is faith that Jesus work will be completed.

Yes, it is also consistent with the Baha'i way of thinking which may be significant to you are not. Going by this logic, you could attempt to view each succeeding Abrahamic prophet as a bubble creation within the creation of the previous one.[/quote]

I believe, I don't see any evidence to support this.

I believe one can make the attempt but will not succeed.

 

[james2ko]

"who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation," Colossians 1:15

The above verse often is understood to mean that Jesus existed before all other creation, but when we look at the term 'firstborn', and 'created beings', in the light of the context of the whole Bible, it does not really indicate literally the firstborn of creation of the world, No!, It is only in the sense of being the first in His Age who was born among the spiritually dead people. These verses makes it clear:

"And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy" Colossians 1:18

No ancient text, that I'm aware of, contains the phrase "the firstborn creation of the world". That makes a huge difference because it confines the subject "firstborn" to the human realm. The Greek reads He was the "firstborn of all creation" or "every creature". The Greek term for firstborn-- "prototokos"-- indicates He was the first being created before any other being, which is not only confined to the human creation of this world, but would also have to include the angelic creation, who are not confined to this physical world.

The term 'dead' in above verse has a spiritual signification, similar to:

"Wake up, sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Ephesians 5:14

According to this concept that by coming of Jesus revelation a 'new man' was created, that caused the 'dead' to rise from their spiritual sleep, Jesus Himself is considered to be the Firstborn among all those who were created new. This concept is seen from the following verse:

"and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator" Colossians 3:10

Why does it have to exclude a literal application? For instance, your statement, in red above, implies Christ was born a literal and fleshly human being. So just as Christ could not be literally called “Firstborn from the dead” had He not been the first human being to die and be raised to immortality, it would not be logical for Him to be called “the Firstborn of all creation” had He not been the first created being of all creation-- including the angels.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I believe, I don't see any evidence to support this.

Its just a guess and a way of trying to make sense of certain things said in John. Also Jesus here is from the beginning yet a created person, so it resolves one of the major confusing points John makes and which some other NT authors make.

I believe one can make the attempt but will not succeed.

Its hard to imagine the world in a seventh day condition, partly because we haven't seen it. Also all of the new technology has disrupted the slow and continuous time line of history, so we scarely recognize the world of one hundred years ago. The planet is scrambling to determine what to keep from the past and what to replace. Is this the new age spoken of by prophets? Its certainly a different age.

 

[Pegg]

Gods creation began somewhere. The 'first' of all his creations was a living being like himself. That living being was Jesus Christ.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Creation is without beginning. If we imagine a time that, God had no creation, we are denying the fact that a creator without creation is meaningless. It is like a king without a kingdom. God always had a creation, since His name is the creator, and there was not and is not a change in God. It is not like God waited from eternity until He finally started to create. No!
Having said that, Holy Books, are concerned with spiritual creation of the world. This spiritual creation occurs cyclically. Every cycle begins by appearance of Manifestation of God, in which a new major revelation of God comes, to create spiritual part of the world, because this world is not only materialistic, but also spiritual, and the spirituality is created by God. For instance, cycle of Moses started by appearance of Moses and ended when Jesus appeared. In the cycle of Moses a spiritual creation of God came to existence through divine guidance. Moses was the first born of that creation. Likewise Jesus was the firstborn of His own cycle. But neither Moses or Jesus individuality pre-existed.

 

[james2ko]

Creation is without beginning.

1. That would contradict Gen 1:1--"in the beginning God created....".

If we imagine a time that, God had no creation, we are denying the fact that a creator without creation is meaningless. It is like a king without a kingdom.

2. Not that far fetched. For a while, David was anointed king yet had no kingdom.

God always had a creation, since His name is the creator, and there was not and is not a change in God. It is not like God waited from eternity until He finally started to create. No!

3. One becomes a driver when one starts driving. In like manner, He became a "Creator" when He finally decided to start "creating". What God did before He started creating is none of our business.

Having said that, Holy Books, are concerned with spiritual creation of the world.This spiritual creation occurs cyclically. Every cycle begins by appearance of Manifestation of God, in which a new major revelation of God comes, to create spiritual part of the world, because this world is not only materialistic, but also spiritual, and the spirituality is created by God. For instance, cycle of Moses started by appearance of Moses and ended when Jesus appeared. In the cycle of Moses a spiritual creation of God came to existence through divine guidance. Moses was the first born of that creation. Likewise Jesus was the firstborn of His own cycle. But neither Moses or Jesus individuality pre-existed.

4. A symbolic interpretation like this one is like an item sold at the dollar store. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

1. That would contradict Gen 1:1--"in the beginning God created....".

It doesn't contradict. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", we do know for a fact according to science that the earth had a 'beginning'. So, for example our universe started with big bang. But before big bang we don't know if other universes had existed. It could be that before this universe, there was another universe that God had created through another big bang, and before that universe, yet another universe.
What bible is talking about is earth and heaven in our universe had a beginning, not that this was the first creation of God ever.

2. Not that far fetched. For a while, David was anointed king yet had no kingdom.

except God is not anointed by anyone, so, I don't think your example works with God.

3. One becomes a driver when one starts driving. In like manner, He became a "Creator" when He finally decided to start "creating". What God did before He started creating is none of our business.

I think you ignored that according to scriptures there is no change in God (I the Lord do not change). if you say God was not a creator before, then He became a creator, that is change in God, which contradicts with what Bible teaches us.

4. A symbolic interpretation like this one is like an item sold at the dollar store. Take it for what it's worth.

On the countrary. Millions of Baha'is accept this. Not only that, saint Augustine interpretes Genesis 1 symbolically. From 2 peter it can be seen creation in genesis is spiritual creation of human civilization in 6 days (6 x 1000 = 6000 years, since accoring to 2 peter each day is 1000 years)

 

[Desert Snake]

"who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation," Colossians 1:15

The above verse often is understood to mean that Jesus existed before all other creation,

Yes, I think this is valid.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes, I think this is valid.

Yes, most people see it that way. In our view, Bible has a hidden meaning (inner meaning). The inner meaning of story of creation in Bible, is spiritual creation in 6000 years, started from Adam, and ended in year 1844. This was the first creation of the World, and at the end of this World, and new World was to come. In our view, the new World started after 1844. It was the beginning of a new human era, which we live in now. This is the new creation.... By creation I mean, creation of human civilization, through guidance of God, by progressive revelations.

 

[james2ko]

It doesn't contradict. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth", we do know for a fact according to science that the earth had a 'beginning'. So, for example our universe started with big bang. But before big bang we don't know if other universes had existed. It could be that before this universe, there was another universe that God had created through another big bang, and before that universe, yet another universe. What bible is talking about is earth and heaven in our universe had a beginning, not that this was the first creation of God ever.

1. It no longer contradicts because you altered your initial premise (moving the goal post). First you stated unequivocally "creation had no beginning". Now you are saying we don't know if it had a beginning. Which is it?

except God is not anointed by anyone, so, I don't think your example works with God.

2. Being anointed was merely a ceremonial function. David was still a king without a kingdom. My example works. It is your analogy that does not.

I think you ignored that according to scriptures there is no change in God (I the Lord do not change). if you say God was not a creator before, then He became a creator, that is change in God, which contradicts with what Bible teaches us.

3. I ran into an old friend recently who told me "you haven't changed". I thought to myself, "Hmmm.. I changed my mind quite frequently from the last time we met." The point is we must investigate the truth of a particular scripture by examining its immediate and broad context. Just as I fictionally took my friend's comment out of context, you did the same with a bible verse.

On the countrary. Millions of Baha'is accept this.

4. They should all invest in dollar stores.

Not only that, saint Augustine interpretes Genesis 1 symbolically. From 2 peter it can be seen creation in genesis is spiritual creation of human civilization in 6 days (6 x 1000 = 6000 years, since accoring to 2 peter each day is 1000 years)

5. Attention to detail my friend. I didn't say every symbolic interpretation is without merit. Just "this one"[yours].... Always fun chatting with you ..later.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

1. It no longer contradicts because you altered your initial premise (moving the goal post). First you stated unequivocally "creation had no beginning". Now you are saying we don't know if it had a beginning. Which is it?

I didn't really change my premise. When I say we don't know, I mean according to science, we don't know what was before big bang. But there must have been something.

2. Being anointed was merely a ceremonial function. David was still a king without a kingdom. My example works. It is your analogy that does not.

David was not a king before He was anointed. God has always been the King.

3. I ran into an old friend recently who told me "you haven't changed". I thought to myself, "Hmmm.. I changed my mind quite frequently from the last time we met." The point is we must investigate the truth of a particular scripture by examining its immediate and broad context. Just as I fictionally took my friend's comment out of context, you did the same with a bible verse.

Your friend didn't know better, so He said you didn't change. Bible is inspired by God, so we better take it as Truth.

4. They should all invest in dollar stores.

Oh my God, you are thinking of opening a dollar store these days? Lol

5. Attention to detail my friend. I didn't say every symbolic interpretation is without merit. Just "this one"[yours].... Always fun chatting with you ..later.

It's fun chatting with you too.

 

[james2ko]

I didn't really change my premise. When I say we don't know, I mean according to science, we don't know what was before big bang. But there must have been something.



David was not a king before He was anointed. God has always been the King.




Your friend didn't know better, so He said you didn't change. Bible is inspired by God, so we better take it as Truth.



Oh my God, you are thinking of opening a dollar store these days? Lol



It's fun chatting with you too.

Boy, could I have a lot of fun picking apart those nonsensical replies, but I'll practice restraint for the sake of peace.

 

[Muffled]

Gods creation began somewhere. The 'first' of all his creations was a living being like himself. That living being was Jesus Christ.

I believe there is no evidence to support this view.