Last time I posted about the meaning of Trinity which many obviously don't know. Today, I will be writing about Jesus origin.

My previous belief was that Jesus was a creature. This is because of what I was taught as a JW. The view is that Col 1:15 says that Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of all creation. The organization understand that to mean that Jesus was the first person created by God. They also understand the same about Only Begotten. They understand that begotten mean created. That Jesus is the only person directly created by Jehovah. And that after Jesus creation, God used Jesus to create all other things. That is why if you notice in their translation they added "other" in Col 1:16. Their view made them to use "a god" in their translation of John 1:1.

However, as I further went through the scriotures, I realized that the view is lacking. Why?

Why Jesus is not a Creature:

See John 1:1-3 once more.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence."

The bold face phrase shows clearly that Jesus cannot be a creature. Since this verse says that apart from Jesus, NOT even ONE thing came into existence, we only have two option, 1. If Jesus was created, Jesus must be the one who created himself. Why? Because apart from him, nothing was made. 2. He was not created.

The latter conclusion seems plausible.

Secondly, the word "all" that appeared in verse 3 is "panta" which the New World Translation added "other" at Col 1:16. "Other" was not added at John 1:3. Obviously, because it can't fit the rest of the sentence. You cannot add "other" when the verse clearly said that apart from him not even one thing came into existence. It is also noteworthy that if you read col 1:16 in their interlinear, you will notice that "other" is not there showing that "other" was added.

Thirdly, The book of John was written after the book of Colossians. So John must have known what Paul wrote at col 1:15,16 before he wrote that apart from Jesus "not even one thing came into existence". This shows that neither John nor Paul thought that Jesus was part of creation. That phrase at John 1:3 also shows that John didn't mean that Rev 3:14 be understood to mean that Jesus was a creature. John 1:3 was written after the book of Revelation. This means that Col 1:15 doesn't fit the rest of the scriptures if we understand "firstborn" to mean first created. Firstborn can also mean preeminence as in Exod 4:22.

But let's see Col 1:15, 16 ones more.

Let us analyse Colosians chapter 1:15-16 first, then we shall see what this firstborn means.

See col 1:16-17

"because by means of him all (other) things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All (other) things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all (other) things, and by means of him all (other) things were made to exist."

Why can we say that Jesus is not part of the creation?

The bible clearly says that all things created included both things visible and things invisible. This statement includes all created things in heaven. If Jesus was an invisible creature, then he created himself. If that is not plausible, then Jesus was not created. This scripture thus agrees with John 1:3, that not even one thing existed apart from Jesus.

Then why is he called the FIRSTBORN?

We read:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all (other) things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All (other) things have been created through him and for him."

This verse is clearly self explanatory. Notice that verse 16 explains the reason he is the firstborn. It says "BECAUSE by means of him all things were created..." This is self explanatory, he is the firstborn because all things were made by him. Firstborn in this sense means preeminence or Lord of creation. In him were all things created and for him. The same preeminence is pointed out in verse 18.

What about Prov 8:22?

I don't see this verse as a strong evidence of Jesus creation. Wisdom was used here and was seen to be possessed by kings and many others. Now in verse 22, it was said that Jehovah possessed the wisdom. The Hebrew word can be translated possess, purchase or beget. The latter can be found at Gen 4:1 beget a child. The same Hebrew word occured there. Certainly, Jesus is begotten by the Father. Begetal is not the same as created. You create from other materials while you beget your kind, your nature. Man begets a human. It should also be borne in mind that Apostle John knew about Prov 8:22 before he wrote at John 1:3 that"not even one thing came into existence" apart from Jesus. So we cannot take everything in Prov 8:22 as literal.

For example this Proverb appear to say that Jesus came sometime within the creative activity of Jehovah. But John 1:1-3 and Col 1:15-17 says Jesus did ALL the creating, while God the Father must have featured in some way, Jesus is said to be the main creator. Not even one thing came into existence apart from Jesus. Of course, what Jesus does is often said to be done by God and vice versa because they dwell within themselves. John 14:10. But since God the Father occupy the Headship role, he is often credited with ownership of the work most of the times.

In all this, John 1:3 is both more clear and rules out any supposition that Jesus is a creature. Heb 1:3 even stated that the universe, all creation is sustained by the word of his power. Can a creature sustain creatures? This shows that all things issued from him and he is their sustainer.

But what about Begotten?

Trinitarians agree that Jesus is begotten. Like I said above, He is begotten, not made. What is the subject of discussion is what begotten mean. Some are of the opinion that Jesus was generated by the Father from all eternity. Meaning that there was no time that the Son was not in existence. I personally think that God split Himself in two such that the other half didn't have beginning of experience at life, but have the same nature and experience as the Father. And for the purposes of having other conscious creatures like humans, they took roles, one Father, and the other Son. Then from Father and Son issue the Holy Spirit. The Father playing role of Headship, the Son acting a subordinate role. There are many reasons to reason this way, as I write more on the lofty position of Jesus, this will naturally start to make sense. But for now let's see why we cannot fix a beginning of experience for Jesus.

Let's start with Prov 8:22. When was the Son installed or brought up or begotten?

Prov 8:22-24, identifies it as "the beginning of his ways", earliest of his achievement of long ago", then verse 23 use the word " from". It says " from ancient times.

This might appear to suggest a beginning in time, but not until we understand the meaning of Ancient times. The same Hebrew word is used at at Psalm 93:2. We also see the same word used for Jesus at Micah 5:2. But notice what Psalm 93:2 says.

"Your throne was firmly established long ago; From eternity you have existed."

Notice that the word " from eternity" is used of the Father as well. This cannot make us to think that God the Father started from somewhere in eternity. See again at Hab 1:12

12 Are you not from everlasting, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die. O Jehovah, you appointed them to execute judgment; My Rock, you established them for punishment.

This is just few of where the same word is used of God. So the word ancient time or when "from" is used, we should not be tempted to think of beginning of existence. At worse beginning of experience.

Some have thought of the word "Son" attached to "begotten", as in, "only begotten Son" to say that for he to be a son, of necessity demands that he have a beginning. We can understand why one will say that, at least that is our own experience as humans, but the nature of God is not flesh. All the analogy we use for God must be borne in mind that it is not all encompassing, there are limitations to our analogies. For example while he is called only begotten Son, he is also called only begotten God at John 1:18. This made many scholars to see the begotten as a way of differentiating the function of the Father from that of the Son. Jesus is also called Everlasting Father at Isaiah 9:6. It is becoming clear that this might be because of roles they undertook from everlasting.

Let us move to other things said about Jesus that shows that he MUST be of the same essence or nature as his Father.

We ll consider that next week Thursday.

Nice one Sand2022. Following. 😎

You actually paint it as it should be.

Even Paul himself explained why Jesus is called FIRSTBORN.

In verse 18 "Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body. He is the beginning, supreme over all who rise from the dead. So he is first in everything."

Key note from this verse is that:
1. Jesus is called THE BEGINNING Just as God called Himself the Beginning
2. preeminence is @underlined

Sand2022:
Last time I posted about the meaning of Trinity which many obviously don't know. Today, I will be writing about Jesus origin.

My previous belief was that Jesus was a creature. This is because of what I was taught as a JW. The view is that Col 1:15 says that Jesus is the FIRSTBORN of all creation. The organization understand that to mean that Jesus was the first person created by God. They also understand the same about Only Begotten. They understand that begotten mean created. That Jesus is the only person directly created by Jehovah. And that after Jesus creation, God used Jesus to create all other things. That is why if you notice in their translation they added "other" in Col 1:16. Their view made them to use "a god" in their translation of John 1:1.

However, as I further went through the scriotures, I realized that the view is lacking. Why?

Why Jesus is not a Creature:

See John 1:1-3 once more.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence."

The bold face phrase shows clearly that Jesus cannot be a creature. Since this verse says that apart from Jesus, NOT even ONE thing came into existence, we only have two option, 1. If Jesus was created, Jesus must be the one who created himself. Why? Because apart from him, nothing was made. 2. He was not created.

The latter conclusion seems plausible.

Secondly, the word "all" that appeared in verse 3 is "panta" which the New World Translation added "other" at Col 1:16. "Other" was not added at John 1:3. Obviously, because it can't fit the rest of the sentence. You cannot add "other" when the verse clearly said that apart from him not even one thing came into existence. It is also noteworthy that if you read col 1:16 in their interlinear, you will notice that "other" is not there showing that "other" was added.

Thirdly, The book of John was written after the book of Colossians. So John must have known what Paul wrote at col 1:15,16 before he wrote that apart from Jesus "not even one thing came into existence". This shows that neither John nor Paul thought that Jesus was part of creation. That phrase at John 1:3 also shows that John didn't mean that Rev 3:14 be understood to mean that Jesus was a creature. John 1:3 was written after the book of Revelation. This means that Col 1:15 doesn't fit the rest of the scriptures if we understand "firstborn" to mean first created. Firstborn can also mean preeminence as in Exod 4:22.

But let's see Col 1:15, 16 ones more.

Let us analyse Colosians chapter 1:15-16 first, then we shall see what this firstborn means.

See col 1:16-17

"because by means of him all (other) things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All (other) things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all (other) things, and by means of him all (other) things were made to exist."

Why can we say that Jesus is not part of the creation?

The bible clearly says that all things created included both things visible and things invisible. This statement includes all created things in heaven. If Jesus was an invisible creature, then he created himself. If that is not plausible, then Jesus was not created. This scripture thus agrees with John 1:3, that not even one thing existed apart from Jesus.

Then why is he called the FIRSTBORN?

We read:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all (other) things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All (other) things have been created through him and for him."

This verse is clearly self explanatory. Notice that verse 16 explains the reason he is the firstborn. It says "BECAUSE by means of him all things were created..." This is self explanatory, he is the firstborn because all things were made by him. Firstborn in this sense means preeminence or Lord of creation. In him were all things created and for him. The same preeminence is pointed out in verse 18.

What about Prov 8:22?

I don't see this verse as a strong evidence of Jesus creation. Wisdom was used here and was seen to be possessed by kings and many others. Now in verse 22, it was said that Jehovah possessed the wisdom. The Hebrew word can be translated possess, purchase or beget. The latter can be found at Gen 4:1 beget a child. The same Hebrew word occured there. Certainly, Jesus is begotten by the Father. Begetal is not the same as created. You create from other materials while you beget your kind, your nature. Man begets a human. It should also be borne in mind that Apostle John knew about Prov 8:22 before he wrote at John 1:3 that"not even one thing came into existence" apart from Jesus. So we cannot take everything in Prov 8:22 as literal.

For example this Proverb appear to say that Jesus came sometime within the creative activity of Jehovah. But John 1:1-3 and Col 1:15-17 says Jesus did ALL the creating, while God the Father must have featured in some way, Jesus is said to be the main creator. Not even one thing came into existence apart from Jesus. Of course, what Jesus does is often said to be done by God and vice versa because they dwell within themselves. John 14:10. But since God the Father occupy the Headship role, he is often credited with ownership of the work most of the times.

In all this, John 1:3 is both more clear and rules out any supposition that Jesus is a creature. Heb 1:3 even stated that the universe, all creation is sustained by the word of his power. Can a creature sustain creatures? This shows that all things issued from him and he is their sustainer.

But what about Begotten?

Trinitarians agree that Jesus is begotten. Like I said above, He is begotten, not made. What is the subject of discussion is what begotten mean. Some are of the opinion that Jesus was generated by the Father from all eternity. Meaning that there was no time that the Son was not in existence. I personally think that God split Himself in two such that the other half didn't have beginning of experience at life, but have the same nature and experience as the Father. And for the purposes of having other conscious creatures like humans, they took roles, one Father, and the other Son. Then from Father and Son issue the Holy Spirit. The Father playing role of Headship, the Son acting a subordinate role. There are many reasons to reason this way, as I write more on the lofty position of Jesus, this will naturally start to make sense. But for now let's see why we cannot fix a beginning of experience for Jesus.

Let's start with Prov 8:22. When was the Son installed or brought up or begotten?

Prov 8:22-24, identifies it as "the beginning of his ways", earliest of his achievement of long ago", then verse 23 use the word " from". It says " from ancient times.

This might appear to suggest a beginning in time, but not until we understand the meaning of Ancient times. The same Hebrew word is used at at Psalm 93:2. We also see the same word used for Jesus at Micah 5:2. But notice what Psalm 93:2 says.

"Your throne was firmly established long ago; From eternity you have existed."

Notice that the word " from eternity" is used of the Father as well. This cannot make us to think that God the Father started from somewhere in eternity. See again at Hab 1:12

12 Are you not from everlasting, O Jehovah? O my God, my Holy One, you do not die. O Jehovah, you appointed them to execute judgment; My Rock, you established them for punishment.

This is just few of where the same word is used of God. So the word ancient time or when "from" is used, we should not be tempted to think of beginning of existence. At worse beginning of experience.

Some have thought of the word "Son" attached to "begotten", as in, "only begotten Son" to say that for he to be a son, of necessity demands that he have a beginning. We can understand why one will say that, at least that is our own experience as humans, but the nature of God is not flesh. All the analogy we use for God must be borne in mind that it is not all encompassing, there are limitations to our analogies. For example while he is called only begotten Son, he is also called only begotten God at John 1:18. This made many scholars to see the begotten as a way of differentiating the function of the Father from that of the Son. Jesus is also called Everlasting Father at Isaiah 9:6. It is becoming clear that this might be because of roles they undertook from everlasting.

Let us move to other things said about Jesus that shows that he MUST be of the same essence or nature as his Father.

We ll consider that next week Thursday.

The Fact that the word " Son of God " and " Firstborn" was never applied to the Father already showed this is just a futile attempt to dribble the truth.

Every occurrence of Son in the scriptures was applied to peope with beginning. That is why no such word is ever applied to the Father at any point in history.

Emusan:
You actually paint it as it should be.

Even Paul himself explained why Jesus is called FIRSTBORN.

In verse 18 "Christ is also the head of the church, which is his body. He is the beginning, supreme over all who rise from the dead. So he is first in everything."


Key note from this verse is that:
1. Jesus is called THE BEGINNING Just as God called Himself the Beginning
2. preeminence is @underlined

First in everything, everything include creation

Among all things and personalities created, he is the First.

Jozzy4:
First in everything, everything include creation

No! He is the creator according to verse 16-17

Among all things and personalities created, he is the First.

He created ALL THINGS!

He can't be among ALL THINGS again.

Jozzy4:
The Fact that the word " Son of God " and " Firstborn" was never applied to the Father already showed this is just a futile attempt to dribble the truth.

He was Son of God and FIRSTBORN when he became part of creation.

This was the point Col 1:15-18 addressed.

Every occurrence of Son in the scriptures was applied to peope with beginning.

The Father is also THE BEGINNING don't forget.

That is why no such word is ever applied to the Father at any point in history.

Liar! The Father called Himself THE BEGINNING.

Beginning of what? If I may ask?

Emusan:


He was Son of God and FIRSTBORN when he became part of creation.

This was the point Col 1:15-18 addressed.



The Father is also THE BEGINNING don't forget.



Liar! The Father called Himself THE BEGINNING.

Beginning of what? If I may ask?

Show me where the Father was called " Son" to at least let us know it can be applied to Uncreated person.

Jozzy4:

First in everything, everything include creation
Among all things and personalities created, he is the First.

I don't know when FIRST BORN is no longer one of those being born o! Colossians 1:15

Jozzy4:
Show me where the Father was called " Son" to at least let us know it can be applied to Uncreated person.

Jesus became 'SON' for His mission on earth how is that hard for you to understand?
If Jesus never come to earth for man salvation He won't have had the Title SON.

Col 1:15-18 already proved that Jesus is the CRRATOR.

A CREATOR can't be CREATED.

MaxInDHouse:
I don't know when FIRST BORN is no longer one of those being born o! Colossians 1:15

FIRSTBORN is different from FIRSTCREATED

Firstborn is used among human to mean human can give birth NOT CREATE, you can never say your father CREATED YOU.

Firstborn is used among RULERS to mean HIGH RANK, FIRST POSITION, PREEMINENCE E.T.C

The writers of the New Testament know the two words exist yet NEVER USED the word 'FIRSTCREATED' for Jesus Christ.

And Col 1:15-18 expressly shows that The firstborn used for Jesus IS ABOUT PREEMINENCE not as being BORN AS HUMAN.

Simple English!

Emusan:


FIRSTBORN is different from FIRSTCREATED

Firstborn is used among human to mean human can give birth NOT CREATE, you can never say your father CREATED YOU.

Firstborn is used among RULERS to mean HIGH RANK, FIRST POSITION, PREEMINENCE E.T.C

The writers of the New Testament know the two words exist yet NEVER USED the word 'FIRSTCREATED' for Jesus Christ.

And Col 1:15-18 expressly shows that The firstborn used for Jesus IS ABOUT PREEMINENCE not as being BORN AS HUMAN.

Simple English!

Firstborn of humans or of God?

MaxInDHouse:


Firstborn of humans or of God?

Go to university you refused.

Now look at how you are displaying your dullness in a public forum.

Thank God for delivering this you ex- pedophile organisation member.

DoWhatThouWilt:

Go to university you refused.
Now look at how you are displaying your dullness in a public forum.
Thank God for delivering this you ex- pedophile organisation member.

Even despite your religion kicking against Jesus being God's Son!
Sorry for your pains o, my matter that's paining you like this?

MaxInDHouse:


Even despite your religion kicking against Jesus being God's Son!
Sorry for your pains o, my matter that's paining you like this?

Please try not to derail this ex JW member's thread with your stupidity.

I know you can't help but be stupid because it is who you naturally are but please keep your stupid questions to yourself.

Sand2022:
.

What is the Meaning of JW PIMO?

DoWhatThouWilt:


Please try not to derail this ex JW member's thread with your stupidity.

I know you can't help but be stupid because it is who you naturally are but please keep your stupid questions to yourself.

Thanks!

MaxInDHouse:


Thanks!

Don't thank me.
We give God the glory for exposing your organisation for what it truly is.

DoWhatThouWilt:

Don't thank me.
We give God the glory for exposing your organisation for what it truly is.

Thanks!

MaxInDHouse:

Thanks!

we give God the glory 🙏

DoWhatThouWilt:

we give God the glory 🙏

Thanks!

MaxInDHouse:

Thanks!

Allah be praised.

NowYouKnow:

What is the Meaning of JW PIMO?

Your self-righteousness is a logo that makes you holier than all others!

NowYouKnow:


What is the Meaning of JW PIMO?

Jehovah's Witnesses that are physically in Mentally Out.

Jehovah's Witnesses that go to meeting to mark attendance but are not ready anymore to swallow, not buying the the mentality behind their teaching and doctrines anymore not buying that thing called being in Jehovah's organization paapaa

MaxInDHouse:
Firstborn of humans or of God?

Good!

Human is the one the term FIRSTBORN always applied to.

You yourself take Jesus as NOT HUMAN that is as someone who exists somewhere before he was BORN as human.

So, the term FIRSTBORN has ALWAYS BEING ABOUT HUMAN not NOR HUMAN.

Logically, if Jesus existed somewhere before being BORN AS HUMAN he can't be called FIRSTBORN as someone who was FIRST GIVING BRITH TO AS HUMAN, the only logical way the term FIRSTBORN was used for Jesus will be PREEMINENCE which Col 1:18 specifically TALKED ABOUT.

Any understanding of FIRSTBORN than this is a corrupt/fraudulent interpretation.

MaxInDHouse:

Your self-righteousness is a logo that makes you holier than all others!

Jehovah's Witnesses have self righteous, holier than all others in their midst

Emusan:


Good!

Human is the one the term FIRSTBORN always applied to.

You yourself take Jesus as NOT HUMAN that is as someone who exists somewhere before he was BORN as human.

So, the term FIRSTBORN has ALWAYS BEING ABOUT HUMAN not NOR HUMAN.

Logically, if Jesus existed somewhere before being BORN AS HUMAN he can't be called FIRSTBORN as someone who was FIRST GIVING BRITH TO AS HUMAN, the only logical way the term FIRSTBORN was used for Jesus will be PREEMINENCE which Col 1:18 specifically TALKED ABOUT.

Any understanding of FIRSTBORN than this is a corrupt/fraudulent interpretation.

So he was created since the scriptures called him:
"The FIRSTBORN of all creation" Colossians 1:15

The FIRSTBORN of anything means the first to be created through that source!

Trinity trinity trinity!

And na someone created this dogma causing commotion all the time here like this!

The fact the even your Jesus and Bible fail to specifically explain it is against trinity!

Emusan:


Jesus became 'SON' for His mission on earth how is that hard for you to understand?
If Jesus never come to earth for man salvation He won't have had the Title SON.

Col 1:15-18 already proved that Jesus is the CRRATOR.

A CREATOR can't be CREATED.

So there was no God the Son before he came to earth? you just single handedly capsize the ship of trinity

Emusan:


FIRSTBORN is different from FIRSTCREATED

Firstborn is used among human to mean human can give birth NOT CREATE, you can never say your father CREATED YOU.


Firstborn is used among RULERS to mean HIGH RANK, FIRST POSITION, PREEMINENCE E.T.C

The writers of the New Testament know the two words exist yet NEVER USED the word 'FIRSTCREATED' for Jesus Christ.

And Col 1:15-18 expressly shows that The firstborn used for Jesus IS ABOUT PREEMINENCE not as being BORN AS HUMAN.

Simple English!

And not once was the Father addressed with that word, that should tell you something. The word is exactly what it meant , Someone Born first. No one born the Father , hence no such term was applied to him

The Bible said God born the mountains, we know it means he created them. Born and create are used interchangeably in the scriptures

Jozzy4:


The Fact that the word " Son of God " and " Firstborn" was never applied to the Father already showed this is just a futile attempt to dribble the truth.

Every occurrence of Son in the scriptures was applied to peope with beginning. That is why no such word is ever applied to the Father at any point in history.

Even Father in the scriptures are also applied to people with beginning. Don't forget also that Jesus is called Everlasting Father.

Sand2022:

Even Father in the scriptures are also applied to people with beginning. Don't forget also that Jesus is called Everlasting Father.

Fathers surely have a beginning but the father of Jesus never had a beginning o!

Jesus was never an everlasting father until he adopted all obedient descendants of Adam {1Corinthians 15:45} so according to Isaiah.

The Messiah (Christ) will be called:

•Wonderful Counselor because through his wise counsel mankind will settle all their disparities peacefully among themselves, divert their resources into production of food and information materials, stop producing, buying, selling and usage of weapons and vow never to raise weapons against anyone again! Isaiah 2:4 compare to Mark 12:31

•Mighty God because he is going to perform miracles greater than Moses a God in Egypt who is mightier than Pharaoh the greatest king of his time! Exodus 7:1

•Eternal Father because he will buy all Adam's descendants with his blood, Adam became a father to all humans yet he is dead now but Jesus became an adoptive father of obedient humans and he will never ever die again with all the children he bought with his blood.

•Prince of Peace because during his reign the earth will become peaceful from one end to the other end! Psalms 37:9-11

Jehovah has never been referred to as Son or Prince!