For an Answer Home | Mars Hill Index | Bibliography | Glossary |
The Bible Gateway | The Blue Letter Bible | The Greek New Testament (NA26) | Greek & Hebrew Lexicons |
Mars Hill Apologetic Discussions
A Dialog Between Ray Goldsmith and Wes Williams on Colossians 1:15
This dialog took place on Larry Ingram's Trinity Discussion Board in 2000. Dave Sherrill announced a new article by Ray on Dave's website. You can read Ray's article here. Wes Williams, one of Jehovah's Witnesses, posted a response to Ray's article. Ray replied to Wes, and the following dialog ensued:
|
Posted
by Wes Williams on March
14, 19101 at 19:27:41: 64.58.0.22 In
Reply to: JWs and Col 1:15
posted by Dave Sherrill on February 19, 19101 at 12:43:11: Ray wrote in his article: “Although certain
witnesses like Wes Williams and Greg Stafford have quoted extensively
from the LXX to demonstrate that the term HAD the "first in
time...first in the series" meaning, they also make the point that
this meaning constitutes the overwhelming majority of uses, thereby
providing them with an argument based on Scriptural precedence. However,
as I am about to show, they have grossly overstated their case. These
"overwhelming examples" from the bible do not give them the
precedence they really need. Since the witnesses have appealed to
Colossians 1:15 to prove THEIR case, all we would really need is a
single example where "prototokos" was applied without a
numerical significance (first in time or series), and they would lose
the argument. For such would show that there is no necessity for the
term to bear that sense.” Wes
replies: Of course, I am no authority, the scriptures are. I posted on
this board about two years ago every non-metaphorical instance in the
LXX where it occurs with a genitive (or "of a ") phrase. What the examples show is that the PRWTOTOKOS
("firstborn") is a PART of the group. Of course, in each
instance the firstborn is "first in time" and I stand by that
as its inherent meaning. Jesus was Mary's PRWTOTOKOS, the one born first
in time. It can have no other meaning there. Ray,
you examples use PRWTOTOKOS in a metaphorical sense. As you are aware, a
metaphor is contra-factual, it is a formal lie. Therefore, to use
metaphor to argue what a non-metaphor meaning should be is not sound
argumentation. For instance, the expression "JHWH is a sun and a
shield" is metaphor. YHVH is not really a sun but is *like* a sun
in certain respects. Jesus
really *is* the PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS ("firstborn of all
creation"). To use your metaphorical examples of where nations are
called "firstborn" or the one who YHWH *placed* as his
firstborn (he is not *really* the firstborn, that is why he is *placed*
as such), or where is genitive noun is an abstraction (like
"death" in the Job example), you are not using scriptures with
accurate judgment. Wes
cont: There is no language
at Col 1:15 to indicate that God's Son is *placed* or *set* as
firstborn. But really, Ray,
what I emphasize is that the PRWTOTOKOS is *part* of the group
*creation*. This is indubitable. In
passing, Meyer advocated the teaching of the Trinity but had to admit on
Col 1:15 "PRWTOTOKOS never means _the most excellent,_ and can only
have this sense _ex adjuncto_ (as at Ps 89:27; Rom. 8:29), which in this
passage is not by any means the case, as the context (see ver. 16, and
PRO PANTWN in ver. 17...) brings prominently forward the relation of
_time._ Therefore, none of
your examples meet the test where any of them show that the firstborn of
a group is not a member of the group. Ray, why not simply accept what
the natural language indicates, that Jesus is a member of group
creation? You can redefine "creation" as they tried to do at
Nicaea but you cannot exclude him from the group. Sincerely,
Wes Williams *************************** Posted
by RayG on March 15, 19101
at 01:55:25: 24.140.14.155 In
Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15
posted by Wes Williams on March 14, 19101 at 19:27:41: Hi
Wes: I'll just intersperse my comments between yours...here goes Ray
wrote in his article: “Although certain witnesses like Wes Williams
and Greg Stafford have quoted extensively from the LXX to demonstrate
that the term HAD the "first in time...first in the series"
meaning, they also make the point that this meaning constitutes the
overwhelming majority of uses, thereby providing them with an argument
based on Scriptural precedence. However, as I am about to show, they
have grossly overstated their case. These "overwhelming
examples" from the bible do not give them the precedence they
really need. Since the witnesses have appealed to Colossians 1:15 to
prove THEIR case, all we would really need is a single example where
"prototokos" was applied without a numerical significance
(first in time or series), and they would lose the argument. For such
would show that there is no necessity for the term to bear that
sense.” Wes
replies: Of course, I am no authority, the scriptures are. I posted on
this board about two years ago every non-metaphorical instance in the
LXX where it occurs with a genitive (or "of a ") phrase. What
the examples show is that the PRWTOTOKOS ("firstborn") is a
PART of the group. Of course, in each instance the firstborn is
"first in time" and I stand by that as its inherent meaning.
Jesus was Mary's PRWTOTOKOS, the one born first in time. It can have no
other meaning there. Ray
replies: As to the "partitive" argument, what I showed in my
article is that this is nothing but a stawman anyway since both sides
agree that Christ was a member of the group. As to whether one needed to
be the first in the group, I also showed that most if not all your
examples had to do with men's customs and expectations, and the WT
Organization agrees with me that Jehovah was not bound by such customs
and traditions of men in the making of his choices. Note what they
themselves said right in the midst of discussing Jacob's gaining of the
birthright over Esau. "By
this means Jehovah God made clear that his choice of individuals for
certain uses is not bound by the usual customs or procedures conforming
to men's expectations." Hence,
then, in Jehovah's eyes numerical order was not the most important thing
to consider. This is just one of several examples in the OT which show
that Jehovah was not bogged down in the straight-jacket of men's customs
when he made his choices. Another
example which really shows how the most prominent in Jehovah's eyes was
actually called "my firstborn" is recorded in Jeremiah 31:9
with reference to Ephraim. Although Manassah was actually the first
numerically (Genesis 41:50-52), yet Jehovah's choice was Ephraim and so
he says "as for Ephraim, he is my firstborn" (Jer. 31:9). Note
that Jehovah's choice of Ephraim over Manassah actually went clear back
to the literal sons of Joseph, and this is when the choice was actually
made, and made over the initial protest of Joseph even. After giving
Ephraim the precedence Jacob predicts that the younger will be greater
than the older and so we read: "thus he kept putting Ephraim before
Manassah" (Genesis 48:20). Not only did he gain the prominence over
Manassah but in Jehovah's eyes he was the "firstborn" not
Manassah. This was not metaphorical, Wes, nor is it an example of men's
traditions like you cited. Would you please tell me what you think of
the WT's acknowledgment cited above? Wes
said: Ray, you examples use
PRWTOTOKOS in a metaphorical sense. As you are aware, a metaphor is
contra-factual, it is a formal lie. Therefore, to use metaphor to argue
what a non-metaphor meaning should be is not sound argumentation. For
instance, the expression "JHWH is a sun and a shield" is
metaphor. YHVH is not really a sun but is *like* a sun in certain
respects. Ray
replies: As to the metaphorical use, check above. Actually the examples show various uses for the same Hebrew
word, thus literal (men's
customs/numerical order)...literal/Jehovah's choice (Ephraim)...double
and pictorial or anticipatory (David)...and figurative such as Job 18:13
which is similar to the example I cited from Polycarp right after the
apostolic age where it shows that the term even with a genitive had
gained a stereo-typical usage (whosoever). The least important of these
uses would be the opposite of what Jehovah made clear according to the
WT Society, and that would be the examples you cited of men's customs of
numerical order. Wes
said: Jesus really *is* the PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS ("firstborn of
all creation"). To use your metaphorical examples of where nations
are called "firstborn" or the one who YHWH *placed* as his
firstborn (he is not *really* the firstborn, that is why he is *placed*
as such), or where is genitive noun is an abstraction (like
"death" in the Job example), you are not using scriptures with
accurate judgment. Ray
replies: No doubt the title is applied, but Paul rules out any thought
of "first created" in words as plain as language can make it.
He gives as the grounds for the application of this title that Christ
was hands on responsible for all creation in the first place and hands
on responsible for it's reconciliation in the last place. He makes it
plain that "he is before all things", and that is the same
thing John tells us in John 1:3, right after identifying him as "theos".
John says everything came into existence through "theos" and
that there were no exceptions to this...oude hen...not even one thing.
This means that even the first thing that ever came into existence did
so through him. Yet
getting back whether Christ was placed as "firstborn" in Col.
1:15, we know that Christ was "appointed heir of all things"
(Heb.1:2) which is placed in juxtaposition with "the end of these
days", and this is crossed back to Psalms 2:8 in the NWT's big
reference Bible (page 1438), and if you take this WT lamp and shine it
on Psalms 2:7-8 guess what we find? We find a reference to Christ's
Messianic role as our Kinsman Redeemer! Included here is a reference to
Matt. 3:17 (baptism) Heb. 1:5, John 1:14 (birth), and Acts 13:33
(resurrection). And yet, Wes, these references are REALLY interesting
because also referenced here is Psalms 89:27 where David in anticipation
of Christ is called "firstborn". Looks pretty clear to me,
friend. David was "placed" and Christ was
"appointed"...and really how much difference is there between
them? Hardly enough to deny the clear connection in the exegetical
circle tracked in the NWT Reference Bible! Ray
cont: You should take the time to trace these references, OK? I'm
not surprised, then, that Greg Stafford admitted a possible
"figurative" fullfillment here, although he did try to
retrieve himself at the last minute with the complaint that Col. 1
doesn't "say" that Christ was placed. However, as I pointed
out, what's the difference between being "placed" and being
"appointed"? Wes
says: There is no language at Col 1:15 to indicate that God's Son is
*placed* or *set* as firstborn. Ray
replies: See above. There doesn't need to be...Hebrews 1:2 as crossed
through the NWT Reference Bible to Psalms 2:8 and Psalms 89:27 makes it
clear enough. Check it out. Wes
said: But really, Ray, what I emphasize is that the PRWTOTOKOS is *part*
of the group *creation*. This is indubitable. Ray
replies: Trinitarians agree with this, we just notice that Paul rules
out any thought of him being the FIRST member of the group by placing
him before all creation. We also recognize the Messianic focus in this
context which reaches back to David's being called "firstborn"
in anticipation of Christ's human experience for our sakes. Paul merely
points out that he is most deserving of such recognition because he
pre-existed all creation in the first place; it
came into existence through him and for him, and is held together by
him. It's really not that difficult to see. Wes
says: In passing, Meyer advocated the teaching of the Trinity but had to
admit on Col 1:15 "PRWTOTOKOS never means _the most excellent,_ and
can only have this sense _ex adjuncto_ (as at Ps 89:27; Rom. 8:29),
which in this passage is not by any means the case, as the context (see
ver. 16, and PRO PANTWN in ver. 17...) brings prominently forward the
relation of _time._ Ray
replies: I'm not concerned with what Meyer advocated, the
WT Soceity through their reference Bible puts us on the same page as far
as tracing the "firstborn" through Psalms 89:27 thru...Hebrews
1:2... through Psalms 2:7-8... and then back through Psalms 2:7-8 to
Christ's Messianic role as our Kinsman Redeemer...Thus...Matt. 3:17
(baptism) also Heb. 1:5, and Acts 13:33 (Resurrection). Wes
says: Therefore, none of your examples meet the test where any of them
show that the firstborn of a group is not a member of the group. Ray,
why not simply accept what the natural language indicates, that Jesus is
a member of group creation? You can redefine "creation" as
they tried to do at Nicaea but you cannot exclude him from the group. Ray
replies: I'm afraid I must disagree friend. It is your examples based on men's customs that don't pass the
smell test because they are the opposite of what "Jehovah God made
clear". What my examples show is exactly what Jehovah God made
clear, as even the WT acknowledged. They show that one doesn't NEED to
be the first member of a group to deserve the designation
"firstborn" (Ephraim..David...Christ). Sincerely,
Wes Williams Take
care, Wes....RayG ****************************************** Posted
by Wes Williams on March
15, 19101 at 12:50:31: 64.58.0.22 In
Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15
posted by RayG on March 15, 19101 at 01:55:25: Dear
Ray, My
time is fragmented because of a busy schedule, so I cannot take but a
few moments here. As time permits I will respond briefly, but I do not
wish to detract from the excellent comments made by Martin Smart and Kaz.
Here
are a few comments on your reply: (Wes) :
Ray replies: As to the "partitive" argument, what I showed in
my article is that this is nothing but a stawman anyway since both sides
agree that Christ was a member of the group. As to whether one needed to
be the first in the group, I also showed that most if not all your
examples had to do with men's customs and expectations, and the WT
Organization agrees with me that Jehovah was not bound by such customs
and traditions of men in the making of his choices. Note what they
themselves said right in the midst of discussing Jacob's gaining of the
birthright over Esau. Wes
replies: Ray, it is NOT a strawman -- it is THE argument since the
partitive word PRWTOTOKOS puts Jesus as a member of
"creation." Most pop-advocates of the Trinity do *not* believe
this as Robert Bowman, Jr argued against your point on this board two
years ago, and as the NIV and NKJ argue: "the firstborn *over* all
creation". Also Louw-Nida: 87.47
PRWTOTOKOS, on: pertaining to existing superior to all else of the same
or related class - 'superior to, above all.' PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS
'existing superior to all creation' Col 1.15. Wes
contined: Your argument about Jacob and Esau is meaningless and it shows
that you miss the point, which causes you to rail out against those who
you consider to be in error. JHWH's selection of Jacob to gain the
*right* of firstborn did not make Jacob the PRWTOTOKOS! Esau remained
the PRWTOTOKOS because he was born first in time. This never changed and
is why your argument is fatal. You have constructed a strawman. Ray,
can you admit that Jacob did not become the PRWTOTOKOS by gaining the
*right* (a different Hebrew word)? Ray
had said, quoting the Society: "By this means Jehovah God made
clear that his choice of individuals for certain uses is not bound by
the usual customs or procedures conforming to men's expectations." Wes
replies: True, but meaningless to the point at hand. You have built a
strawman. Ray
then continues: Hence, then, in Jehovah's eyes numerical order was not
the most important thing to consider. This is just one of several
examples in the OT which show that Jehovah was not bogged down in the
straight-jacket of men's customs when he made his choices. Wes
replies: True, but you err when *you assume* that Jacob became the
PRWTOTOKOS. He did not. He only received the birthright. Once again, you
are tearing down your own strawman built from your own straight-jacket. Ray
continued: Another example which really shows how the most prominent in
Jehovah's eyes was actually called "my firstborn" is recorded
in Jeremiah 31:9 with reference to Ephraim. Although Manassah was
actually the first numerically (Genesis 41:50-52), yet Jehovah's choice
was Ephraim and so he says "as for Ephraim, he is my
firstborn" (Jer. 31:9). Note that Jehovah's choice of Ephraim over
Manassah actually went clear back to the literal sons of Joseph, and
this is when the choice was actually made, and made over the initial
protest of Joseph even. After giving Ephraim the precedence Jacob
predicts that the younger will be greater than the older and so we read:
"thus he kept putting Ephraim before Manassah" (Genesis
48:20). Not only did he gain the prominence over Manassah but in
Jehovah's eyes he was the "firstborn" not Manassah. This was
not metaphorical, Wes, nor is it an example of men's traditions like you
cited. Would you please tell me what you think of the WT's
acknowledgment cited above? Wes
replies: Ray, you really should be more careful with your exegesis.
Jeremiah's reference to Ephraim is to the 10-tribe kingdom that was
headed by the *tribe* of Ephraim, *not* the person of Ephraim. The
PRWTOTOKOS here is *God's* firstborn and *not* the firstborn of *Jacob*.
Did you note that? Ray,
have you actually considered the context of Jeremiah 31 and the state of
the 2-tribe/ 10-tribe kingdom during that state of affairs? Or are you
getting this out of some pop-Trinity book? I really want to know since I
want to know what your source is on this, since it is in error. In
any case, the Jer 31 reference is to the 10-tribe kingdom, making the
reference to PRWTOTOKOS metaphorical. The reason you rail against your
detractors is because of a faulty understanding of these basic points. Wes
had said: Ray, you examples use PRWTOTOKOS in a metaphorical sense. As
you are aware, a metaphor is contra-factual, it is a formal lie.
Therefore, to use metaphor to argue what a non-metaphor meaning should
be is not sound argumentation. For instance, the expression "JHWH
is a sun and a shield" is metaphor. YHVH is not really a sun but is
*like* a sun in certain respects. Ray
had replied: As to the metaphorical use, check above. Wes
replies: Yes, Ray, I have.
You need to review your fundamental assumptions since they are not in
harmony with the scriptures. Ray
continued: Actually the examples show various uses for the same Hebrew
word, thus literal (men's customs/numerical order)...literal/Jehovah's
choice (Ephraim) Wes
broke in here: (error as per above. Ephraim was never the PRWTOTOKOS -
you err when you assume that Jer 31 refers to that) Ray
cont:...double and pictorial or anticipatory (David)...and figurative
such as Job 18:13 which is similar to the example I cited from Polycarp
right after the apostolic age where it shows that the term even with a
genitive had gained a stereo-typical usage (whosoever). The
least important of these uses would be the opposite of what Jehovah made
clear according to the WT Society, and that would be the examples you
cited of men's customs of numerical order. Wes
replies: Since you have built a strawman based on your own assumptions,
I really recommend you revisit the scriptures. Ray, do some serious work
with the *text.* None of your proposed exceptions are exceptions.
Therefore, your proposal lacks foundation. Wes
had said: Jesus really *is* the PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS
("firstborn of all creation"). To use your metaphorical
examples of where nations are called "firstborn" or the one
who YHWH *placed* as his firstborn (he is not *really* the firstborn,
that is why he is *placed* as such), or where is genitive noun is an
abstraction (like "death" in the Job example), you
are not using scriptures with accurate judgement. Ray
had replied: No doubt the title is applied, but Paul rules out any
thought of "first created" in words as plain as language can
make it. He gives as the grounds for the application of this title that
Christ was hands on responsible for all creation in the first place and
hands on responsible for it's reconciliation in the last place. He makes
it plain that "he is before all things", and that is the same
thing John tells us in John 1:3, right after identifying him as "theos".
John says everything came into existence through "theos" and
that there were no exceptions to this...oude hen...not even one thing.
This means that even the first thing that ever came into existence did
so through him. Wes
replies: We agree that the firstborn is *before* (PRW) "all
things." But once again, you *assume* that "all things"
has the same reference as "all creation." Your assumption rips
apart your argument. Wes
cont: Both verbs in Col
1:16 and John 1:3 have passive verbs. Therefore, SOMEONE ELSE created
"all things" EN ("in", or "by means of")
the firstborn (cf 1:12 where the Father is the subject of the passage).
Jesus is thus presented as the Father's agent of creation. The Firstborn
is naturally excluded from the very things that were brought into
existence by means of his agency! Wes
cont…As Lohse stated on Col 1:16: "It
should be noted that EN (in), DIA (through), and EIS (for) are used, but
not EK (from). "From whom are all things" (EX hOU TA PANTA) is
said of God in 1 Cor 8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the
pre-existent Christ is the mediator of creation." E. Lohse ,1971, A
Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon p 50, note
125. Wes
asks: Ray, did you miss the import of the preposition EN here as
referring to agency? Ray
had said: Yet getting back whether Christ was placed as
"firstborn" in Col. 1:15, we know that Christ was
"appointed heir of all things" (Heb.1:2) which is placed in
juxta-position with "the end of these days", and this is
crossed back to Psalms 2:8 in the NWT's big reference Bible (page 1438),
and if you take this WT lamp and shine it on Psalms 2:7-8 guess what we
find? We find a reference to Christ's Messianic role as our Kinsman
Redeemer! Included here is a reference to Matt. 3:17 (baptism) Heb. 1:5,
John 1:14 (birth), and Acts 13:33 (resurrection). And
yet, Wes, these references are REALLY interesting because also
referenced here is Psalms 89:27 where David in anticipation of Christ is
called "firstborn". Looks pretty clear to me, friend. David
was "placed" and Christ was "appointed"...and really
how much difference is there between them? Hardly enough to deny the
clear connection in the exegetical circle tracked in the NWT Reference
Bible! You should take the time to trace these references, OK? I'm not
surprised, then, that Greg Stafford admitted a possible
"figurative" fulfillment here, although he did try to retrieve
himself at the last minute with the complaint that Col. 1 doesn't
"say" that Christ was placed. However, as I pointed out,
what's the difference between being "placed" and being
"appointed"? Wes
replies: Ray, what do you *assume* that the references are for? The
publishers explain the purposes of the references in their forward. Do
you *assume* that they mean something more than their intended purpose?
Could it be, Ray, that you are READING TOO MUCH into the references? Wes
says: Jesus' being "appointed heir of all things" *after his
resurrection* (Mt 28:18) has nothing to do with his *being* the
PRWTOTOKOS of all creation *before* "all things" that came
into existence by means of his agency. He *is* the "firstborn of
all creation. He was not "appointed* to such. You are going around
the bull's horn to force an importation of theology that is not present
in the text. The reference to Heb 1:2 is to note that God create the
AIWNES *through* the Son, similar language at 1:16 and John 1:3. Wes
had said: There is no language at Col 1:15 to indicate that God's Son is
*placed* or *set* as firstborn. Ray
replied: See above. There doesn't need to be...Hebrews 1:2 as crossed
through the NWT Reference Bible to Psalms 2:8 and Psalms 89:27 makes it
clear enough. Check it out. Wes
had said: But really, Ray, what I emphasize is that the PRWTOTOKOS is
*part* of the group *creation*. This is indubitable. Ray
replied: Trinitarians agree with this, we just notice that Paul rules
out any thought of him being the FIRST member of the group by placing
him before all creation. We also recognize the Messianic focus in this
context...which reaches back to David's being called
"firstborn" in anticipation of Christ's human experience for
our sakes. Paul merely points out that he is most deserving of such
recognition because he pre-existed all creation in the first place; it
came into existence through him and for him, and is held together by
him. It's really not that difficult to see. Wes
replies: Your assertion is based on your assumption that "all
things" has the same reference as "all creation." The
"all things" are reconciled to God in 1:19. Are you sure that
you want to do this Ray? Wes
says: Once again, your assumptions cause you to not see that the text
naturally refers to Jesus as the first-created creature of God.
Ray
replied: I'm not concerned with what Meyer advocated, Wes
breaks in: Oh, why are you waving away a potentially fatal argument to
your point? This is not recommended. Deal with it, Ray. Ray
cont: the WT Soceity through their reference Bible puts us on the same
page as far as tracing the "firstborn" through Psalms 89:27
thru...Hebrews 1:2... through Psalms 2:7-8... and then back through
Psalms 2:7-8 to Christ's Messianic role as our Kinsman
Redeemer...Thus...Matt. 3:17 (baptism) also Heb. 1:5, and Acts 13:33
(Resurrection). Wes
replies: Yes. Your point? Wes
had said: Therefore, none of your examples meet the test where any of
them show that the firstborn of a group is not a member of the group.
Ray, why not simply accept what the natural language indicates, that
Jesus is a member of group creation? You can redefine
"creation" as they tried to do at Nicaea but you cannot
exclude him from the group. Ray
replied: I'm afraid I must disagree friend. It is your examples based on
men's customs that don't pass the smell test because they are the
opposite of what "Jehovah God made clear". What my examples
show is exactly what Jehovah God made clear, as even the WT
acknowledged. They show that one doesn't NEED to be the first member of
a group to deserve the designation "firstborn" (Ephraim..David...Christ).
Wes:
Dear Ray, I warmly appeal to you to back up and prayerfully consider
your points in the light of what I wrote. This is an important topic
beyond academia. You built a strawman and tore it down with misapplied
scriptures as in Jer 31 and Job 18). Wes:
In conclusion, Ray, the examples in the LXX stand and demonstrate that
your interpretation of Col 1:15 is forced by your theology. Col 1:15,
taken at face value, clearly shows Jesus to be a member of creation
*and* all examples of non-metaphorical uses from the LXX with a genitive
demonstate that the firstborn is first in time. You have not
demonstrated a single example that has withheld scrutiny. Wes:
The natural reading demonstrates that Jesus was God first creature, the
firstborn of all creation. I see nothing in the text that warrants a
redefinition of "creation" since 1:17 says that Jesus is
*before* all things, clearly a reference to time in the context. Sincerely,
Wes Williams ******************** Posted
by RayG on March 16, 19101
at 17:52:05: 24.140.14.155 In
Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15
posted by Wes Williams on March 15, 19101 at 12:50:31:
Ray
replies: Hello Wes: First I must say that I appreciate the attitude that
you put on display and you set a good example for the other witnesses.
That of course doesn't mean that I'm going to agree with you :-) My time
is fragmented too so I can understand your busy schedule. You mention
Martin Smart and Kaz, and I've recently been engaged with Dan Parker and
Kaz, unless you mean to say that Dan Parker is really Martin Smart. If
so then I'm not surprised by Dan's attitude and those guys need to teach
each other some manners :-) And I'm not referring to Kaz either, for he
seems like a genuinely nice and sincere guy. OK, I'll just intersperse
my comments between yours. Here goes... Wes
had said: Here are a few comments on your reply: Ray
says: As to the "partitive" argument, what I showed in my
article is that this is nothing but a strawman anyway since both sides
agree that Christ was a member of the group. As to whether one needed to
be the first in the group, I also showed that most if not all your
examples had to do with men's customs and expectations, and the WT
Organization agrees with me that Jehovah was not bound by such customs
and traditions of men in the making of his choices. Note what they
themselves said right in the midst of discussing Jacob's gaining of the
birthright over Esau. Wes
breaks in: Ray, it is NOT a strawman -- it is THE argument since the
partitive word PRWTOTOKOS puts Jesus as a member of
"creation." Most pop-advocates of the Trinity do *not* believe
this as Robert Bowman, Jr argued against your point on this board two
years ago, and as the NIV and NKJ argue: "the firstborn *over* all
creation". Also Louw-Nida: Ray
replies: Mercy, Wes, I know your time is fragmented but you really need
to relax and read clear through my article again, only this time pay
close attention to the final section called: "Closing
Thoughts". I don't disagree with those whom you mentioned, though
it wouldn't make any difference to me anyway. I'll make it easy this
time, I'll just paste it here for you...but I think this illustrates
clearly that detractors aren't really READING the material of others,
they're merely searching through it, and there is a big difference
between these two things. Here are my words: “Closing
thoughts… Ray
continues: And so that you will not entertain the notion that I just
made this up or made this change recently, let me just quote myself in
my debate with Wrench...note the date please. "Following
is an excerpt from my letter to Wrench dated 2-21-00 to show that I did
not accept outright the partitive genitive, but adopted it for the sake
of the argument..." **********
Ray
said: "(((Next comes the expression 'firstborn of all creation' in
Col 1:15. I began by pointing out that my position doesn't require me to
deny the partitive meaning for the genitive case. That doesn't mean that
I think it's demanded. In fact I recognize that some take it as comparative.
So I'm merely going along here to illustrate that even if we do accept
the partitive meaning, it still would not satisfy the burden of proof
for you. Your burden is to prove that he was the FIRST creature in the
series (numerically), as you set forth at the outset of this
treatise.)))"........... So
Wes, this was not something I adopted on the spur of the moment or even
along the way, but deliberately and with specific design. Yet if you had
really read my article instead of just searching thru it you would have
seen this. Ray
continues: Now why do I say this is a strawman? Not to be mean or
arrogant as Kaz or Dan Smart thinks:-) (or is it Martin Parker?), but
simply because both sides ALREADY agree that Christ was truly human and
as such possessed the nature of a creature. Hence, then, to labor this
point is like running in place. It wears you out, but you don't really
go anywhere. In other words detractors are boxing the air...wasting time
trying to prove a point that nobody denies anyway. So if anyone wanted
to know what a strawman is, this is a perfect example of it. Wes
quotes needlessly: 87.47 PRWTOTOKOS, on: pertaining to existing superior
to all else of the same or related class - 'superior to, above all.'
PRWTOTOKOS Wes
then says: Your argument about Jacob and Esau is meaningless and it
shows that you miss the point, which causes you to rail out against
those who you consider to be in error. JHWH's selection of Jacob to gain
the *right* of firstborn did not make Jacob the PRWTOTOKOS! Esau
remained the PRWTOTOKOS because he was born first in time. This never
changed and is why your argument is fatal. You have constructed a
strawman. Ray
replies: No I did not miss the point, I think you did. The
passage itself shows that Jacob was considered "firstborn" in
Jehovah's eyes, that's why the WT refers to it as "Jehovah's
choice". You just can't seem to shake your reliance on men's
customs, for it was only according to men's customs that Esau was the
firstborn. Secondly, you failed to really READ my article or you would
have seen the reason I gave for citing the passage. I didn't cite the
passage to prove that Jacob was called firstborn, but to show that
Jehovah was not bogged down with men's customs in making his choices of
individuals for certain purposes. And with that point even the WT
Society agrees with my assessment. Again, Wes, you should go back and
really read my article when you have the time to pay attention. Now,
that being said, notice that Esau was NOT Jehovah's choice, Jacob was.
Hence, if you make ur decisions based on men's customs or expectations,
you are acting in a way contrary to Jehovah's way, as acknowledged by
the WT Society! Jehovah was not "bound" to such customs and
neither should we be when dealing with the question of whether one NEEDS
to be the first in a group to deserve the designation
"firstborn". The Scripture demonstrates otherwise. Wes
continues: Ray, can you admit that Jacob did not become the PRWTOTOKOS
by gaining the *right* (a different Hebrew word)? Ray
replies: Wes, can you admit that Jacob was Jehovah's choice? Would you
argue that Jehovah regarded Esau as his choice as "firstborn"?
Hunker down now. But we can illustrate elsewhere where one who was not
first numerically was nevertheless explicitly called
"firstborn" by Jehovah (Ephraim and David), hence we know that
when Jehovah regards one as deserving of the status he does apply the
term "firstborn" and does not base his decisions on men's
customs of numerical order. Are you willing to admit that David was
called "firstborn" even though he wasn't the first of
anything, just Jehovah's choice? And are you willing to admit that
David's being placed as "firstborn" anticipated Christ's human
experience? You see, friend, you are simply overlooking the difference
between men's customs and Jehovah's way. Your view requires you to rely
on men's customs, and these become your examples, whereas I'm more
inclined to recognize and rely on what Jehovah God made clear, and in
doing so the WT Society agrees with me. Ray
quoted the Society: "By this means Jehovah God made clear that his
choice of individuals for certain uses is not bound by the usual customs
or procedures conforming to men's expectations." Wes
replied: True, but meaningless to the point at hand. You have built a
strawman. Ray
replies: But hold the phone, how can you suggest that ANYTHING Jehovah
does anywhere, is meaningless to the point at hand? This clearly
illustrates your mindset to anyone reading these posts. We are (or at
least SHOULD BE) looking to what Jehovah made clear as we reason on
these matters. So if Jehovah demonstrates that numerical order doesn't
bog him down, how can we consider this as "meaningless"? It
was NOT meaningless that all of David's older brothers were one at a
time rejected until finally David was fetched from the field, and then
Jehovah told Samuel, "get up, anoint him for he is the one".
That was not meaningless, was it Wes? It was not meaningless that
Jehovah DIDN'T choose King Saul as "firstborn, most high of the
kings of the earth" either, right? I can hardly believe you said
this, but as I said, it does illustrate how tightly bound you are to
men's customs and traditions that you remain oblivious to Jehovah's
choice. Even after Jehovah made his choice clear you continue clinging
to Esau as the firstborn. Can the reader not see the fallacy in this? It
should help us understand the way God looks at things, instead of trying
to base our interpretive decisions on men's expectations like you've
been doing. You've got your priorities in the wrong place, friend, you
really do. Don't take it wrongly, Wes, take it the way I intend it, as
friendly constructive criticism. Ray
had said: Hence, then, in Jehovah's eyes numerical order was not the
most important thing to consider. This is just one of several examples
in the OT which show that Jehovah was not bogged down in the
straight-jacket of men's customs when he made his choices. Wes
replied: True, but you err when *you assume* that Jacob became the
PRWTOTOKOS. He did not. He only received the birthright. Once again, you
are tearing down your own strawman built from your own straight-jacket. Ray
replies: Again hold on, look once more at my words. I said, "in
Jehovah's eyes numerical order was not the most important thing to
consider". I said nothing about Jacob becoming the PRWTOTOKOS
according to men's customs or expectations. I merely point out that
Jehovah was not bound by such customs, and we shouldn't be either.. in
making our interpretive decisions, yet you've shown that you are! You've
been relying on men's customs all along, even when you quoted all those
examples from the LXX. This is where you have erred in your exegesis,
and such a method is bound to lead you in the opposite direction from
the truth. You should swallow your pride, Wes, and admit this. Ray
had said: Another example which really shows how the most prominent in
Jehovah's eyes was actually called "my firstborn" is recorded
in Jeremiah 31:9 with reference to Ephraim. Although Manasseh was
actually the first numerically (Genesis 41:50-52), yet Jehovah's choice
was Ephraim and so he says "as for Ephraim, he is my
firstborn" (Jer. 31:9). Note that Jehovah's choice of Ephraim over
Manassah actually went clear back to the literal sons of Joseph, and
this is when the choice was actually made, and made over the initial
protest of Joseph even. After giving Ephraim the precedence Jacob
predicts that the younger will be greater than the older and so we read:
"thus he kept putting Ephraim before Manasseh" (Genesis
48:20). Not only did he gain the prominence over Manasseh but in
Jehovah's eyes he was the "firstborn" not Manasseh. This was
not metaphorical, Wes, nor is it an example of men's traditions like you
cited. Would you please tell me what you think of the WT's
acknowledgment cited above? Wes
replied: Ray, you really should be more careful with your exegesis.
Jeremiah's reference to Ephraim is to the 10-tribe kingdom that was
headed by the *tribe* of Ephraim, *not* the person of Ephraim. The
PRWTOTOKOS here is *God's* firstborn and *not* the firstborn of *Jacob*.
Did you note that? Ray
replies: Wes, we've already seen at least two clear examples of your
careless reading earlier in this response, and now you're going for a
third. Can you show me where I said that Ephraim was "Jacob's
firstborn"? In fact Jacob was not even Ephraim or Mannaseh's
literal father, Joseph was! You see, friend, I'm wondering if you really
read my article or my previous post, or if you just searched through
them. I actually quoted the passage like this: "And as for Ephraim,
he is my firstborn". Now isn't that what I did? In fact I even said
that the choice was made over the protest of Joseph, didn't I? This
shows once again that you have got yourself so bogged down with men's
customs that this is preventing you from being alert to JEHOVAH'S ways
and thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9) I merely pointed to the actions of Jacob to
show where Jehovah first made his choice. Jacob's actions here with
Joseph's two sons reflected Jehovah's choice just as earlier his action
of gaining the birthright from his own brother reflected Jehovah's
choice. Ephraim the tribe makes no difference to the argument, Jehovah's
choice STILL reaches back to the literal sons of Joseph (Gen 48), as I
said. Jehovah was not bound by men's customs of numerical order, he
wasn't bound when Jacob crossed them earlier, and he wasn't bound in the
Jeremiah passage. Jehovah was not bound period! But you've shown that
you are. Ray
replies: Wes, you are a piece of work, LOL! Your question comes rather
comically from someone who belongs to the popbook of the year club,
namely the WTBTS. But on a more serious note, so far in these posts
you've shown yourself to be the careless reader. Not only that but I
would imagine that Martin Parker's about ready to knock about two inches
off the top of your head for giving him away ;-)) Wes
continued: In any case, the Jer 31 reference is to the 10-tribe kingdom,
making the reference to PRWTOTOKOS metaphorical. The reason you rail
against your detractors is because of a faulty understanding of these
basic points. Ray
replies: Have we not just seen who has a faulty understanding, when you
accuse me of saying that Ephraim was the firstborn of Jacob, when Joseph
was his father and not Jacob? And all the while I was focusing on
Jehovah's choice. Need I say more? :Ray
replied: As to the metaphorical use, check above. Wes
replied: Yes, Ray, I have. You need to review your fundamental
assumptions since they are not in harmony with the scriptures. Ray
answers: First I'm not even sure you know what your own fundamental
assumptions are, much less mine. I would recommend that you go back and
read my article again though, but just make sure to read it ALL before
you start slinging your accusations around. Ray
had said: Actually the examples show various uses for the same Hebrew
word, thus literal (men's customs/numerical order)...literal/Jehovah's
choice (Ephraim) Wes
replied: (error as per above. Ephraim was never the PRWTOTOKOS - you err
when you assume that Jer 31 refers to that) Ray
replies: Wow, I can't believe this is the same Wes Williams I talked to
a couple years ago. This was Jehovah's literal choice, and when you say
"you err when you assume that Jer 31 refers to that", your
mind has taken a logical leap in the dark. Refers to what? Why do you
think I said it "goes clear back to the literal (note the words
literal sons) sons of Joseph"? Let me give you a clue. It's because
I KNEW we were not dealing with the literal sons of Joseph in the
Jeremiah passage, but I had BOTH in my mind when writing because in the
Jeremiah passage it's the same Jehovah, and the tribe started with the
literal person Ephraim, didn't it? Here is a clear example of the cult
tendency to compartmentalize and isolate things in their minds. This is
how the Scriptures are mangled in the kingdom of the cults. Do you think
Jehovah forgot what happened as recorded in Genesis 48 or that he had
not been aware of it? Are you meaning to suggest that Jehovah didn't
mean what he said, or didn't mean it literally? Notice I didn't say
"numerically" now, did I? You see, friend, you are confusing
the terms, literal and numerical, taking for granted that they MUST go
hand in hand. On the other hand, and I mean no disrespect to you as a
person Christ died for, it takes a mind given to exegetical
compartmentalization to miss the connection between Genesis 48 and
Jeremiah 31:9. Maybe the WT Society can help me make this point since I
know you don't think of them as your enemy. Note what they say in the
Insight Vol. #1, page 753... "On
his deathbed, Jacob, IN EFFECT, adopted his grandsons Ephraim and
Manasseh and appointed them to be equals of his direct sons (Gen. 48:5).
Their Father Joseph, who received the right AS FIRSTBORN among Jacob's
sons, received two parts of his father's inheritance by means of the
tribal inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh...In blessing Ephraim and
Manasseh, the patriarch Jacob gave the preference to Ephraim and
prophetically indicated that HE would become the greater.--Ge.
48:13-20"... Now
let's think this over for a minute. Note that Joseph received the right
AS FIRSTBORN. Now let me ask you a question, Wes. Can you at least admit
that Joseph was the firstborn in Jehovah's eyes due to the seed line? Or
would you say that Jehovah rejected Joseph? If he didn't reject Joseph,
would he then regard Joseph AS FIRSTBORN because he had received the
right as such? Please answer friend. Now to Jacob's actions with
Joseph's sons, would you assume that Jehovah was unaware of Jacob's
actions or that Jacob acted contrary to Jehovah? I don't think even you
would go that far, would you? Then with Jehovah's words in Jeremiah 31:9
in mind, would you deny that Ephraim was Jehovah's choice back when
Jacob crossed them and gave Ephraim the precedence? Notice I didn't ask
if Ephraim was Joseph's or even Jacob's firstborn according to the
customs of men...no no, I only asked you if you think Jehovah made HIS
choice back then? Or did he suddenly wake up from a season of idleness
and declare in the middle of the Jeremiah passage "You know, Come
to think of it, now's a good time to make Ephraim my firstborn" :-)
OK,
now let's think of David. Remember the drill? Samuel goes to Jesse's
place and each of his brothers older were one at a time brought before
him and rejected...(this is so instructive). Jehovah himself rejected
them...I won't go thru them all, but the first one, "Eliab",
was brought before Samuel and Jehovah said "Do not look at his
appearance and at the height of his stature, for I have rejected him.
For NOT THE WAY MAN SEES [is the way God sees]", so finally David
was fetched from the field. And what did Jehovah tell Samuel when David
walked in? He said "get up, anoint him for this is he". Isn't
that what he said, Wes? Yet he was called by Jehovah the firstborn in
Psalms 89:27. Do you think Jehovah may have regarded David as
"firstborn" way back then? You betcha! It was already true in
Jehovah's mind, though the outworking of it may have occurred later. And
because he did regard him as such he later made a covenant with David
for a dynasty of kings, said the WT Society. Yet in doing this David was
in no way the first, not in Jesse's household and not even in the line
of Israel's kings. And yet that made no difference whatsoever to
Jehovah, did it? Nope, for Jehovah's choice was already sealed in
heaven. Let me encourage you, Wes, to recognize and turn away from the
tendency to look to men's customs in order to "prove" your
doctrines, and start looking instead to Jehovah's pattern. He will not
lead you astray. Just as David was Jehovah's choice way back when, you
should NOT assume or try to run away from the same thing with reference
to Ephraim. Nor should you try to compartmentalize and isolate the
person Ephraim from the tribe. Remember whose choice it was. Ray
had continued:...double and pictorial or anticipatory (David)...and
figurative such as Job 18:13 which is similar to the example I cited
from Polycarp right after the apostolic age where it shows that the term
even with a genitive had gained a stereo-typical usage (whosoever). :
The least important of these uses would be the opposite of what Jehovah
made clear according to the WT Society, and that would be the examples
you cited of men's customs of numerical order. Wes
replied: Since you have built a strawman based on your own assumptions,
I really recommend you revisit the scriptures. Ray, do some serious work
with the *text.* None of your proposed exceptions are exceptions.
Therefore, your proposal lacks foundation. Ray
replies: I'm perfectly willing to submit these posts to the readers for
their judgment as to who's given the best account of the Scriptures. The
opposite of what Jehovah made clear, men's customs, would certainly be
the least important, wouldn't it? And you've shown yourself to be
helplessly bound to such customs in your thinking, Wes, and I would
invite the readers to examine these posts and see for themselves how
often you misread what I said, both in my article and in my previous
post. There's no doubt in my mind that they will have no trouble seeing
this if they are willing to be honest with themselves. Wes
had said: Jesus really *is* the PRWTOTOKOS PASHS KTISEWS
("firstborn of all creation"). To use your metaphorical
examples of where nations are called "firstborn" or the one
who YHWH *placed* as his firstborn (he is not *really* the firstborn,
that is why he is *placed* as such), or where is genitive noun is an
abstraction (like "death" in the Job example), you are not
using scriptures with accurate judgment. :
Ray replied: No doubt the title is applied, but Paul rules out any
thought of "first created" in words as plain as language can
make it. He gives as the grounds for the application of this title that
Christ was hands on responsible for all creation in the first place and
hands on responsible for it's reconciliation in the last place. He makes
it plain that "he is before all things", and that is the same
thing John tells us in John 1:3, right after identifying him as "theos".
John says everything came into existence through "theos" and
that there were no exceptions to this...oude hen...not even one thing.
This means that even the first thing that ever came into existence did
so through him. Wes
replied: We agree that the firstborn is *before* (PRW) "all
things." But once again, you *assume* that "all things"
has the same reference as "all creation." Your assumption rips
apart your argument. Ray
replies: Of course, Wes, it's perfectly proper to assume that the bible
means what it says until someone proves differently. In this case it's
the JWs who are claiming that it means "all but one" instead
of what it says. The same expression "ta panta" is translated
"all things" in Eph. 3:9, so would you argue that it doesn't
mean all things with reference to all creation there, or that it means
all but one? I'm sure you wouldn't, but the NWT crosses this to Col.
1:16, so why then shouldn't we take it to mean "all things"
like it does in the Ephesians passage? At the very least the burden is
yours to prove otherwise. The motive for not taking it the same way is
exceedingly transparent, friend, for to take it the same way in Col.
1:16 would distinguish Christ from all creation in the same way it
distinguishes God from all creation in Eph. 3:9. hmmm...... Now who's
assumption is ripping apart their argument? Remember, Wes, that it
wasn't the Trinitarians who couldn't take it the way Paul said it. Wes
said: Both verbs in Col 1:16 and John 1:3 have passive verbs. Therefore,
SOMEONE ELSE created "all things" EN ("in", or
"by means of") the firstborn (cf 1:12 where the Father is the
subject of the passage). Jesus is thus presented as the Father's agent
of creation. The Firstborn is naturally excluded from the very things
that were brought into existence by means of his agency! Ray
replies: The mere appearance of a passive verb would not establish
agency or necessarily imply another behind the action of the verb. But
when agency is established the subject of the passive verb would receive
the action directly FROM the agent. You seem to be flailing around like
a fish out of water trying to find some grammatical way to emphasize the
party behind the agency. Agency is established by preposition, case, and
context. Yet this is not an instrumental impersonal dative where we
might think that "Jehovah's walks with a cane", assuming that
Christ is the cane" :-), but Christ is the direct personal agency.
That's why we often describe his role as "hand's on" as
clearly shown in Hebrews 1:10. Yet no one denies credit to God as
distinguished in function from the intermediate anyway. Besides that, in
John 1:3 the verb "egeneto" is deponent (listed in Friberg's
as a middle dep), and I think all forms of ginomai are deponent except
the perfect. As it is, being deponent it means quite literally
"became...or "came to be". In John 1:3 we get the agency
you're trying to emphasize from the preposition together with the
genitive case. But what makes you think the intermediate doesn't share
the credit for the action? We should honor the Son (intermediate)
"just as" we honor the Father (John 5:23). Just like in the
context of salvation, those who are saved "OWE" their
salvation not only to the one sitting on the throne, but also to the
Lamb (Rev. 7:10)...the intermediate! What you fail to comprehend, Wes,
is that God INCLUDES the intermediate, hence only Jehovah is our Saviour
but Jesus is our Saviour...only God created, but the Logos created
(recall Heb 1:10..."works of your hands"). No wonder we're
supposed to honor this one "just as" we honor the Father.
Detractors cannot see the forest thru the trees, but there are none so
blind.. :-)) Wes
Continued: As Lohse stated on Col 1:16: Ray
replies: What makes you think this suggests any kind of a problem for
us, or any kind of an
advantage for you? Are you thinking that I'm overlooking Christ's
intermediate role in the creation of all things? Of course "He is
and remains the creator", but he's not the creator without the
intermediate, because God has chosen to do things that way. Jehovah does
it with an intermediate with regard to the new creation, and he did it
also with the original creation and with the same intermediate. Yet only
Jehovah saves and only Jehovah creates. See how easy this is? Wes
continued: Ray, did you miss the import of the preposition EN here as
referring to agency? Ray
replies: What makes you think I missed anything, or is the question
intended for someone else's consumption? Ray
had earlier said: Yet getting back whether Christ was placed as
"firstborn" in Col. 1:15, we know that Christ was
"appointed heir of all things" (Heb.1:2) which is placed in juxtaposition
with "the end of these days", and this is crossed back to
Psalms 2:8 in the NWT's big reference Bible (page 1438), and if you take
this WT lamp and shine it on Psalms 2:7-8 guess what we find? We find a
reference to Christ's Messianic role as our Kinsman Redeemer! Included
here is a reference to Matt. 3:17 (baptism) Heb. 1:5, John 1:14 (birth),
and Acts 13:33 (resurrection). And yet, Wes, these references are REALLY
interesting because also referenced here is Psalms 89:27 where David in
anticipation of Christ is called "firstborn". Looks pretty
clear to me, friend. David was "placed" and Christ was
"appointed"...and really how much difference is there between
them? Hardly enough to deny the clear connection in the exegetical
circle tracked in the NWT Reference Bible! You should take the time to
trace these references, OK? I'm not surprised, then, that Greg Stafford
admitted a possible "figurative" fulfillment here, although he
did try to retrieve himself at the last minute with the complaint that
Col. 1 doesn't "say" that Christ was placed. However, as I
pointed out, what's the difference between being "placed" and
being "appointed"? Wes
replied: Ray, what do you *assume* that the references are for? The
publishers explain the purposes of the references in their forward. Do
you *assume* that they mean something more than their intended purpose?
Could it be, Ray, that you are READING TOO MUCH into the references? Ray
replies: I'll tell you what I get out of the references...Your own
organization thunk'm up and thus the passages suggested the same
connections to them that they did to me. Hence you'd be hard put to
accuse me of reading INTO the text what isn't there naturally. For
example, the WT Society tells us in the Insight Volumes that Christ
underwent a "spiritual begetting" at his baptism, right? They
also include a reference to his birth (Jn 1:14) and His Resurrection
(Acts 13:33)) at Psalms 2:7-8...and all of this they themselves
reference to Psalms 89:27 which anticipates Christ's human experience
for us, and so it is in THIS context that David is called
"firstborn" in anticipation of Christ's human experience. Now
if the WT makes these associations how can you accuse me of reading into
the passages what isn't there naturally? See my point? What suggested
these connections to the WT, Wes? Don't run away now, please deal with
it, OK? Wes
said: Jesus' being "appointed heir of all things" *after his
resurrection* (Mt 28:18) has nothing to do with his *being* the
PRWTOTOKOS of all creation *before* "all things" that came
into existence by means of his agency. He *is* the "firstborn of
all creation. He was not "appointed* to such. You are going around
the bull's horn to force an importation of theology that is not present
in the text. The reference to Heb 1:2 is to note that God create the
AIWNES *through* the Son, similar language at 1:16 and John 1:3. Ray
replies: You have misread the above passages, and although such
confusion may mix well in it's own sauce, it's not going to do you any
good here. First it does not say he was "PRWTOTOKOS" before
all things, it says he IS prwtotokos because he pre-existed all things.
In other words Paul says he deserves the designation because he
pre-existed all creation in the first place. Nor does Mt 28:18 place the
time of the appointment mentioned in Heb. 1:2, for Jesus had already
said in John 5:22 that all judgment had been committed to the Son, so
the appointment itself had been a fact, and you've just confused the
appointment with the outworking of it. Notice it's placed in
juxtaposition to "the end of these days", but it also adds
"through whom he made the ages", and recall that throughout
Jesus' earthly ministry he often referred to himself as the "sent
one", did he not? The Logos was on a mission when be became flesh,
and his whole human experience reflects that mission. But with regard to
being "placed" or "appointed heir", let me quote
your own words against you: "(he is not *really* the firstborn,
that is why he is *placed* as such). Thank you for finally admitting
this, Wes. We're making some progress now, for even the WT admitted that
David pre-figured Christ's human experience. Look at your admission
here. This is the crux of the whole matter, and you just gave the farm
away, for the placing of David prefigures the placing of Christ. Wes
had said: There is no language at Col 1:15 to indicate that God's Son is
*placed* or *set* as firstborn. Ray
replies: See above. There doesn't need to be...Hebrews 1:2 as crossed
through the NWT Reference Bible to Psalms 2:8 and Psalms 89:27 makes it
clear enough. Check it out. Wes
had said: But really, Ray, what I emphasize is that the PRWTOTOKOS is
*part* of the group *creation*. This is indubitable. Ray
replied: Trinitarians agree with this, we just notice that Paul rules
out any thought of him being the FIRST member of the group by placing
him before all creation. We also recognize the Messianic focus in this
context...which reaches back to David's being called
"firstborn" in anticipation of Christ's human experience for
our sakes. Paul merely points out that he is most deserving of such
recognition because he pre-existed all creation in the first place; it
came into existence through him and for him, and is held together by
him. It's really not that difficult to see. Wes
responded: Your assertion is based on your assumption that "all
things" has the same reference as "all creation." The
"all things" are reconciled to God in 1:19. Are you sure that
you want to do this Ray? Ray
replies: No, friend, it's based on what it says in plain words. It's
your burden to prove it can't mean what it says. Think about it. And
your appeal to 1:19 fails to prove that "all things" doesn't
have the same meaning here as in Eph. 3:9. The argument is illogical,
Wes, for it's like arguing that others have murdered in this
neighborhood and therefore the defendant must have murdered because he's
also in the neighborhood. You'd lose the verdict based on that kind of
thinking. The earlier use includes everything, says Paul, but the later
use is restricted to that which is reconcilable. Is Paul saying that
only all other reconcilable things were made through Christ in 1:16? Or
is he being more inclusive? You see friend, we have two distinct uses
here, one is all inclusive and the other isn't, and it is your burden to
prove that it CANNOT mean the same in 1:16 as in Ephesians 3:9 since
your own organization cross referenced them to each other!
Ray
replies: Our conclusion agrees with what is says, he pre-existed all
things, and it's up to you to prove it doesn't mean what it says here.
As long as it can mean "all things" like it means in Ephesians
3:9, you've proven nothing with this passage. Recall that the NWT
crosses ta panta in Eph 3:9 to Col. 1:16? hmmm....check it out, Wes. Wes
had said: In passing, Meyer advocated the teaching of the Trinity but
had to admit on Col 1:15 "PRWTOTOKOS never means _the most
excellent,_ and can only have this sense _ex adjuncto_ (as at Ps 89:27;
Rom. 8:29), which in this passage is not by any means the case, as the
context (see ver. 16, and PRO PANTWN in ver. 17...) brings prominently
forward the relation of _time._ Ray
replied: I'm not concerned with what Meyer advocated, Wes
replied: Oh, why are you waving away a potentially fatal argument to
your point? This is not recommended. Deal with it, Ray. Ray
replies: LOL, Wes, you are simply assuming that I'm in a cult like
Jehovah's Witnesses where everyone has to agree with the prophet or
"slave". But we're not running a cult here, friend, and we can
disagree on some points. In fact, unless you're part of the anointed
"class" the WT doesn't even consider you qualified to
interpret the Bible. That is the unique job of the Faithful and Discreet
Slave, isn't it? According to the drill, if God wants to reveal or teach
something he uses the Slave to do it, and you're not to run ahead of the
Slave. In fact when the Slave places something before you, you are to
accept it as from the Lord and true FIRST, rather than check it out
first. Otherwise according to them, you're being "suspicious"
of the Lord's channel. Such is the reality within the cults. So
with regard to Meyer's opinion on that particular point, I reject it,
and I can cite plenty of authorities who would agree with me, including
the WT Society. Although they of course add the "first in
series" meaning to the term, they also acknowledge that it carries
the preeminent meaning at Col. 1:15 as well (Aid to Bible Understanding,
page 584, and Insight Vol #1, page 836.) So you need to get back in line
with Brooklyn Wes :-)) Ray
had said: : the WT Society through their reference Bible puts us on the
same page as far as tracing the "firstborn" through Psalms
89:27 thru...Hebrews 1:2... through Psalms 2:7-8... and then back
through Psalms 2:7-8 to Christ's Messianic role as our Kinsman
Redeemer...Thus...Matt. 3:17 (baptism) also Heb. 1:5, and Acts 13:33
(Resurrection). Wes
replies: Yes. Your point? Ray
answers: So they saw the same in David's being "firstborn" as
we see, anticipatory of
Christ's human experience, and
yet just as David was not numerically the first, so
likewise Christ whom he anticipated was not the first member of creation
either, but as Paul said, he pre-existed all creation. Remember, Wes, it
wasn't the Trinitarians who couldn't take it the way Paul said it,
right? Wes
had said: Therefore, none of your examples meet the test where any of
them show that the firstborn of a group is not a member of the group.
Ray, why not simply accept what the natural language indicates, that
Jesus is a member of group creation? You can redefine
"creation" as they tried to do at Nicea but you cannot exclude
him from the group. Ray
replied: I'm afraid I must disagree friend. It is your examples based on
men's customs that don't pass the smell test because they are the
opposite of what "Jehovah God made clear". What my examples
show is exactly what Jehovah God made clear, as even the WT
acknowledged. They show that one doesn't NEED to be the first member of
a group to deserve the designation "firstborn" (Ephraim..David...Christ).
Wes
says: Dear Ray, I warmly appeal to you to back up and prayerfully
consider your points in the light of what I wrote. This is an important
topic beyond academia. You built a strawman and tore it down with
misapplied scriptures as in Jer 31 and Job 18). Ray
answers: Dear Wes: I appreciate your warm appeal and I also warmly
appeal to you to reread my article when your time isn't so fragmented,
so that you can pay closer attention to what I said. Be willing to put
your pride in the backseat for a moment, friend, and consider that you
have accepted the strawman here by assuming that one has to actually be
the first in a series to deserve the designation "firstborn",
and your evidence is based on men's customs and traditions rather than
on what "Jehovah God made clear", as the WT acknowledged. Wes
concludes: In conclusion, Ray, the examples in the LXX stand and
demonstrate that your interpretation of Col 1:15 is forced by your
theology. Col 1:15, taken at face value, clearly shows Jesus to be a
member of creation *and* all examples of non-metaphorical uses from the
LXX with a genitive demonstate that the firstborn is first in time. You
have not demonstrated a single example that has withheld scrutiny. Ray
replies: Let me remind you that you could do nothing with Jehovah's
calling David "firstborn" without regard for numerical order
(men's customs). You even gave the farm away with your admission
"(he is not *really* the firstborn, that is why he is *placed* as
such)", of course you overlooked that the WT itself sees David's
being "firstborn" as anticipatory of Christ's human
experience! Also you could do nothing with regard to Jehovah's calling
Ephraim "my firstborn" without regard for numerical order
(men's traditions), and the reason you could do nothing with them is
because you are out of sync with Jehovah's ways and thoughts (Is.
55:8-9). Jesus himself warned about being bogged down with the
traditions of men, he said that by doing that they made the Word of God
of none effect (nullified it). Then again, it seems clear that anyone
who would accept and try to further a lie about our Saviour Jesus Christ
would need to adopt such a methodology in order to get the job done.
This appears to be ur case, Wes, and somehow you find yourself being
looked up to by your fellow witnesses and feel obligated to "carry
the mail", but the mail won't carry unless men's customs can be
made to sound good. For you there is no other way. But let me remind the
witnesses who are reading these posts that Jehovah's ways and thoughts
are higher than ours, and men's customs are opposite to Jehovah's ways.
Following Jehovah's ways will set you free, but relying on men's
traditions will put you in bondage. The path to destruction is strewn
with the carcasses of those who would not put away their human pride and
accept Jehovah's ways, but remained in bondage to men's traditions. This
is sad but it is nevertheless true. Wes
continued in conclusion: The natural reading demonstrates that Jesus was
God first creature, the firstborn of all creation. I see nothing in the
text that warrants a redefinition of "creation" since 1:17
says that Jesus is *before* all things, clearly a reference to time in
the context. Ray
concludes: Let me remind you again, Wes, that it wasn't the Trinitarians
who couldn't take Paul's words the way he expressed them. No, the NWT
translators regarded Paul's wording as a theological emergency that they
*needed* to fix, and so they did. Let the reader beware! In conclusion,
please say hi to my friend Dan Smart for me, will you? So long...
Sincerely, Wes Williams Sincerely,
RayG ************************************ Posted
by Wes Williams on March
16, 19101 at 19:45:09: 64.58.0.22 In
Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15
posted by RayG on March 16, 19101 at 17:52:05: Dear
Ray, Let
me correct the following comment: :understand
your busy schedule. You mention Martin Smart and Kaz, and I've recently
been engaged with Dan Parker and Kaz, unless you mean to say that Dan
Parker is really Martin Smart. Wes
says: I've noticed that Martin and Dan and Kaz are busy on the board. I
erred when I referred to Martin instead of Dan. Ray,
there are too many points to cover in the thread. Let us focus on a
single point and stick with it: :
Wes replies: Your argument about Jacob and Esau is meaningless and it
shows that you miss the point, which causes you to rail out against
those who you consider to be in error. JHWH's selection of Jacob to gain
the *right* of firstborn did not make Jacob the PRWTOTOKOS! Esau
remained the PRWTOTOKOS because he was born first in time. This never
changed and is why your argument is fatal. You have constructed a
strawman. :
Wes says: Ray, can you admit that Jacob did not become the PRWTOTOKOS by
gaining the *right* (a different Hebrew word)? :
Ray replies: Wes, can you admit that Jacob was Jehovah's choice? Would
you argue that Jehovah regarded Esau as his choice as
"firstborn"? Wes
notes that Ray did not answer the question. :
Ray replies: But hold the phone, how can you suggest that ANYTHING
Jehovah does anywhere, is meaningless to the point at hand? Wes
notes that Ray has twisted Wes' words. :
Ray replies: Wow, I can't believe this is the same Wes Williams I talked
to a couple years ago. Wes
notes that he has never talked to anyone named Ray G. So, Wes further
infers that someone is hiding himself. Is this "Dean"?? So,
who are you, Dean or Ray or/and someone else? Maybe a Modalistic
Trinity??!! I was wondering where you went "Dean"!
:
"On his deathbed, Jacob, IN EFFECT, adopted his grandsons Ephraim
and Manasseh and appointed them to be equals of his direct sons (Gen.
48:5). Their Father Joseph, who received the right AS FIRSTBORN among
Jacob's sons, received two parts of his father's inheritence by means of
the tribal inheritence of Ephraim and Manasseh...In blessing Ephraim and
Manasseh, the patriarch Jacob gave the preference to Ephraim and
prophetically indicated that HE would become the greater.--Ge.
48:13-20"... Ray
("Dean"? or whoever you are), this agrees precisely with what
I have been saying. Only the *right* was transferred to Joseph. REUBEN
was STILL THE PRWTOTOKOS!!! Please read the above again. In
application, your reference from Jer. 31 is a metaphor to a nation since
Ephraim did not become the PRWTOTOKOS, he only received the right. It is
true that he was Jehovah's *choice*, but this did not make him the
PRWTOTOKOS. This
would retain the "first-in-time" meaning of the word
"firstborn," for which there are no exceptions sans metaphor. Ray
(or, "Dean"), DO
YOU DENY THAT REUBEN WAS THE FIRSTBORN EVEN AFTER THE *RIGHT* WAS
TRANSFERRED TO JOSEPH? If
you do deny it, post the evidence right here where *JOSEPH* is called
the PRWTOTOKOS of Jacob. Let's
take this one step at a time and keep the posts short. Sincerely, ****************************** Posted
by RayG on March 16, 19101
at 22:41:01: 24.140.14.155 In
Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15 - First in
Time posted by Wes Williams on March 16, 19101 at
19:45:09: Hi
Wes: First, Martin Smart hasn't posted to this board for a least two
months, perhaps three, at least under that name.
And I'm sorry I forgot that when I had talked with you a couple
years or so ago I was posting with my first name "Harvey", and
about a year ago I decided to use my middle name "Ray". As
far as the rest, I'm not willing to get into a piecemeal shell game with
you, Wes. Just take ur time and respond to my post point for point as I
did yours, then I will reply. Neither of us have to be in a big hurry.
Sincerely, RayG *************************** Posted
by Wes Williams on March
17, 19101 at 01:03:46: 64.58.0.22 In
Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15 - First in
Time posted by RayG on March 16, 19101 at 22:41:01: :
Hi Wes: First, Martin Smart hasn't posted to this board for a least two
months, perhaps three, at least under that name. Harvey,
I
have not been to this board for about two _years_ and do not plan to
stay. I briefly looked at the John 1:1 board and saw Martin Smart posts
everywhere. THere are some who have an outreach ministry to Jehovah's
Witnesses. Martin has a ministry to those who have a ministry to
outreach to Jehovah's Witnesses, and he is quite effective at it, in my
opinion. Take
a look at the John 1:1 board and you'll see what I mean. Sincerely,
Wes Williams *************************** Posted
by Wes Williams on March
17, 19101 at 00:35:58: 64.58.0.22 In
Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15 - First in
Time posted by RayG on March 16, 19101 at 22:41:01: Dear
Harvey, Thank you for
revealing that you are a.k.a Ray. I
do miss Dean Welsh. There
is no need to go through lengthy point by point exercises because there
is a single key issue that needs resolution so that progress can be
made. Let's
keep it simple. Harvey,
DO YOU DENY THAT REUBEN WAS THE FIRSTBORN EVEN AFTER THE *RIGHT* WAS
TRANSFERRED TO JOSEPH? These
are two distinct Hebrew words: "firstborn" (BeQoWR) and
"birthright" (BeQoRaH). After
this key point, we can progress. Sincerely,
Wes Williams ********************************* Posted
by RayG on March 18, 19101
at 10:30:38: 24.140.14.155 In
Reply to: Re: JWs and Col 1:15 - First in
Time posted by Wes Williams on March 17, 19101 at
00:35:58:
"As
far as the rest, I'm not willing to get into a piecemeal shell game with
you, Wes. Just take your time and respond to my post point for point as
I did yours, then I will reply. Neither of us have to be in a big
hurry." Now
if you want to include this point within your responses to the other
points, do so, then I'll reply. Keep in mind that many of the points
were your own, and I replied to them, now it's your turn...and it's your
choice. You don't get to run away from the other points, friend, nor do you get to set the rules by which this thread
continues. My post is on the board, and I'm perfectly satisfied with it
and willing to submit it to the reader's judgment. Sincerely
RayG *********************** Posted
by Wes Williams on March 18,
19101 at 13:09:30: 64.58.0.22 In
Reply to: No piecemeal, Wes. Reply.
posted by RayG on March 18, 19101 at 10:30:38: : Dear
Harvey, This
is indeed sad that you will avoid the answer to the core question. I
have already responded to your points in my initial response to you. The
only thing that you did in your second response is to repeat your
assertions that were made in the first. In an effort to get you to stop
making theological assertions and deal with the text, you must be forced
to deal with the grammar with KEY points and not hide behind a flurry of
piffel. Therefore,
I ask again and I ask you to focus: Harvey,
DO YOU DENY THAT REUBEN WAS THE FIRSTBORN EVEN AFTER THE *RIGHT* WAS
TRANSFERRED TO JOSEPH? These
are two distinct Hebrew words: "firstborn" (BeQoWR) and
"birthright" (BeQoRaH) and two distinct Greek words PRWTOTOKOS
and PRWTOTOKIA. After
this key point, we can progress. If you fail to focus on the key point
at hand, I must accept your failure to answer as conceding defeat of
your point. Sincerely,
Wes Williams ************************** Ray's
Final Comments: This is where the debate ended. Wes was unwilling to address the points that he himself introduced and I answered. Instead he to wanted to be selective, pressing on which he felt he was in a strong position. I would point out that when he brought all the other points up, they were fine; but when he doesn't want to answer my replies, they are suddenly a “flurry of piffel”. This piecemeal approach is not the way I like to engage in theological dialog. It is too easy to lose sight of one's overall argument when the discussion becomes fragmented. I understand that not everyone agrees with me, but this was the 'style' of Wes' original posts to me. I also understand that not every may have time to engage in a substantial dialog of this nature, but I indicated to Wes that I was in no hurry and that he was free to take whatever time he needed to address each of my points. More importantly, his point here is already dealt with in my post (the post he’s declining to answer). In Jehovah's eyes, Reuben was not the firstborn, Joseph was. I had already made this point concerning Esau and Jacob. Esau was only firstborn according to men’s customs, yet I showed that Jehovah was not bound by such customs and neither should we be. Wes would have seen this, had he simply dealt with each of my points as I had asked. I'm
comfortable that the
posts speak for themselves as to who answered who. |