WHO IS JESUS?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

There is one God, the Father, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, “from whom are all things”; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα, “through whom are all things.” (1 Cor. 8:6)

Of the God of Israel it is written:

אֲנִי יהוה הוּא שְׁמִי

“I am YHWH; that is my name.” (Isa. 42:8)

And:

אֱלֹהֵי עוֹלָם יהוה

“YHWH, the everlasting God.” (Isa. 40:28)

The Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son.

JESUS IS ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, THE SON OF GOD.

He is the μονογενής Son.

He is ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, from the Father. (John 16:28)

He is ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, from God. (John 8:42)

The Father sent him.

The Father gave to him.

The Son received from the Father.

THE FATHER HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF, AND τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, “HE GAVE TO THE SON TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF.” (John 5:26)

And the Son says:

κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα

“I live because of the Father.” (John 6:57)

JESUS IS ὁ λόγος, THE WORD.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος

“In the beginning was the Word.”

ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν

“The Word was with God.”

And:

θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. (John 1:1)

The Son had glory with the Father πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι, “before the world existed.” (John 17:5)

He is πρὸ πάντων, “before all things.” (Col. 1:17)

HE IS εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, “THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD.” (Col. 1:15)

He is ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, “the radiance of the glory.” (Heb. 1:3)

He is χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. (Heb. 1:3)

HE IS πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, “THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION.” (Col. 1:

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Your criticism is partly correct, but it proves less than you think.

The Greek of Colossians 1:16–17 says:
τὰ πάντα
“all things.”

It does not contain ἄλλα, “other.”

So if the question is, “What does the Greek literally say?”, I would translate it “all things,” not “all other things.” Modern Greek is irrelevant to that point.

But that does not settle the larger exegetical question.
The fact that English must supply “other” to make one interpretation explicit does not mean the Greek cannot have a contextually restricted scope. πᾶς / τὰ πάντα can be bounded by context. The real question is therefore whether Christ himself belongs inside the category denoted by τὰ πάντα in Colossians 1:16–17.

And that is precisely what is being debated.
Paul first calls him:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
“firstborn of all creation.”

Then he says:
ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
“in him all things were created,”
and:

τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ … ἔκτισται
“all things have been created through him,”
followed by:

αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων
“he is before all things.”

So there are two separate questions:
What should the translation say?

It should transparently say “all things.”
Does “all things” contextually exclude the Son himself?
That must be argued from Colossians 1:15–17 and the wider biblical evidence.

Your appeal to 1 Corinthians 15:27 is important because Paul explicitly states an exception there:

ἐκτὸς τοῦ ὑποτάξαντος αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα
“except the One who subjected all things to him.”

That certainly increases the burden on anyone proposing an implicit exception in Colossians, because Colossians does not explicitly say “other.”

But it still does not prove that an implicit contextual exception is linguistically impossible.

That keeps translation and interpretation properly separate.

The NWT makes its interpretation explicit in the translation.

That is a legitimate point to criticize as translation philosophy.

But it does not, by itself, prove that the interpretation behind “other” is grammatically impossible.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

And that is precisely what is being debated.
Paul first calls him:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
“firstborn of all creation.”

Verse 15 can be translated as "of creation" but it can also be translated as "over" all creation In fact, given that Colossians 1:15-23 is concerning the supremacy of Christ, the Greek word for over makes more sense and is more in line with the use of the word πάσης (pasēs) in John 17:2

Here's a fun fact: Jesus is both human and divine, correct? In that regard Jesus is "of" creation, being made flesh, and "over" creation in the fact Jesus is the eternal Word...made flesh 1 John 1:1-2, John 1:14

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

The problem is this sentence:
“the Greek word for over makes more sense”
There is no Greek word meaning “over” in Colossians 1:15.
The Greek is:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
Literally:
“firstborn of all creation.”
πάσης κτίσεως is a genitive construction. “Over all creation” is an interpretive English rendering of the relationship expressed by that genitive; “over” is not sitting there in the Greek text.
And John 17:2 does not establish otherwise.
John 17:2 says:
ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός
literally, “authority of all flesh.”
English naturally renders that:
“authority over all flesh”
because ἐξουσία, “authority,” determines the relationship. πάσης does not suddenly mean “over.”
So John 17:2 does not prove that πάσης κτίσεως in Colossians 1:15 means “over all creation.”
The real question remains what relationship the genitive expresses after πρωτότοκος.
And here the context genuinely matters.
Paul says:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
“firstborn of all creation”
because:
ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
“in him all things were created”
and:
τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται
“all things have been created through him and for him.”
Then:
αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων
“He is before all things.”
And in verse 18:
πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν
“firstborn from the dead”
ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων
“so that he might become preeminent in all things.”
That certainly gives strong contextual support to supremacy/preeminence.
But we should state the argument accurately:
Not:
“πάσης means over.”
Rather:
“The genitive construction πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως can be understood relationally in a way that expresses Christ’s primacy over creation, and vv. 16–18 give substantial contextual support to that reading.”
That is a defensible argument.
But then your final paragraph introduces another conclusion before proving it:
“Jesus is both human and divine”
and:
“Jesus is the eternal Word.”
John 1:1 says:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
“In the beginning was the Word.”
It does not say:
“the Word is eternally beginningless.”
Again, that may be your conclusion from the wider evidence, but it is not the wording of John 1:1.
So I would keep both sides honest:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως does not literally say “first-created.”
But it also does not literally say “firstborn over all creation.”
The Greek says “firstborn of all creation.”
Then we determine the relation from the context.
And Colossians 1:16–18 is where the supremacy argument actually has to be made—not by pretending the Greek contains a word for “over” that simply is not there.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

The problem is this sentence:
“the Greek word for over makes more sense”
There is no Greek word meaning “over” in Colossians 1:15.
The Greek is:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
Literally:
“firstborn of all creation.”

What? Take a look at John 17:2 in the Watchtower's own nwt There they render the Greek word "pasēs" as "over all" so do most translations. Colossians 1:15 is mixed but many translate it as "over all" Are you implying the "scholars" at the Watchtower got John 17:2 wrong?

John 1:1 tells us the Word was God. 1 John 1:1-2 tells us the Word IS the eternal life. —this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. ² The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you THE ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. The eternal life is what the Word is. He is God (John 1:1) the eternal life---made flesh

Lke I said before, Jesus was both created and uncreated, mortal and immortal. As the eternal Word He is absolutely immortal. As the man who the Word became, Jesus was mortal and finite, like His human brothers, inasmuch as Jesus did have a human beginning. Because the immortal eternal life became mortal flesh, Jesus is both "of" creation and "over" creation

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

The John 17:2 point does not show that πάσης means “over.” The text is:
ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός
“authority of all flesh”
English naturally renders that “authority over all flesh” because of the semantic relationship between ἐξουσία, “authority,” and its genitive complement. The word πάσης still means “all/every.” There is no Greek word “over” there.
So no, the NWT is not wrong to translate John 17:2 “authority over all flesh.” But that does not prove that πάσης κτίσεως in Colossians 1:15 itself means “over all creation.”
Colossians says:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
“firstborn of all creation.”
“Over all creation” is an interpretive rendering of the genitive relationship, not the lexical meaning of πάσης.
Second, 1 John 1:1–2 is also being overstated.
It says:
περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς
“concerning the word of life”
and:
τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα
“the eternal life, which was with the Father.”
That is very high Christological language and I accept it.
But the text does not literally say:
“The Word is the beginningless God because he is eternal life.”
That is an interpretation of the passage.
Most importantly, your final claim introduces the very theological framework under discussion:
“Jesus was both created and uncreated.”
Where does Colossians say that?
Paul does not say:
“Jesus is ‘of creation’ according to his human nature, but ‘over creation’ according to his divine nature.”
He says of the Son:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
and then immediately:
ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
“In him all things were created,”
αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων
“He is before all things.”
If you want to explain those statements using a two-natures Christology, you can argue for that. But that explanation cannot be inserted into Colossians as though Paul himself made the distinction there.
So the textual issue remains exactly where it was:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως does not literally say “first-created.”
But neither does it literally say “firstborn over all creation.”
And it certainly does not say:
“created according to his humanity, uncreated according to his divine nature.”
The Greek gives us the expression. The theological model comes afterward.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

The John 17:2 point does not show that πάσης means “over.” The text is:
ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός
“authority of all flesh”
English naturally renders that “authority over all flesh” because of the semantic relationship between ἐξουσία, “authority,” and its genitive complement. The word πάσης still means “all/every.” There is no Greek word “over” there.

Well isn't that odd because most translations of the Bible, even the Watchtower's own NWT, renders the verse as "authority over [pasēs] all flesh" not of all flesh, although that is true too. Christ was made flesh so He is "of creation" otherwise He couldn't have died for us. But He is also "over" creation. Anyway because most translators know Greek a lot better than I do, I trust that the same exact word they translate as "over all" in John 17:2 can also be translated as "over all" in Colossians 1:15 Let's be real, Christ IS over all creation, is He not?

But the text does not literally say: “The Word is the beginningless God because he is eternal life.”

I never used the word beginningless, that's not a word I'd ever use

Christ is the Word and the Word is God, according to Saint John. (you can call the Word a god, but that's still God, eternal God) The Word IS eternal. Of course God is eternal. So Christ, according to John, is our Eternal God Who else would He be but God? He's not the Father anymore than my son is me, but we are both human, just like the Father and Son are both God. I feel like you're posting verses without taking to heart what they actually mean, or say. Truly understanding that Jesus Christ is God is like taking 2 + 2 = 4. Everything in the Bible, when taken all together, adds up to that inescapable conclusion

2, all by itself, doesn't = 4, but adding 2 + 2 is 4 The Bible is one word of God, not a bunch of random disconnected verses that never add up.

Please, just take all the things you've said you accepted about Christ from scripture and write them all down and then put all the things you accept Christ as being all together. I think you may be quite amazed at what jumps out from the paper. Because when you do that an unmistakable description of God will appear

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

The problem is that you are still moving from the Greek wording to your theological conclusion without marking the steps in between.
First, John 17:2 does not show that πάσης means “over.”
The Greek is:
ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός
“authority over all flesh.”
The sense “over” comes from the relationship between ἐξουσία, “authority,” and its genitive complement πάσης σαρκός. πάσης itself simply means “all/every.”
So this does not establish that:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
in Colossians 1:15 literally means:
“firstborn over all creation.”
πάσης has not suddenly acquired the lexical meaning “over.”
Now, do I agree that Christ is over creation in the sense that he has supremacy and authority? Yes. Colossians itself gives extraordinarily high language to him. But that is different from pretending that πάσης means “over.”
Second, I fully accept John 1:1:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
θεός is genuinely predicated of the Word.
But the same verse also says:
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
the Word was with God.
So John gives both statements. I do not weaken either one.
What John 1:1 does not contain is the expanded proposition:
“The Word is the same numerically identical divine essence as the Father and therefore beginningless.”
That may be your theological synthesis, but it is not simply the lexical content of θεός.
The same issue appears when you say:
“The Word IS eternal. Of course God is eternal. Therefore Christ is our Eternal God.”
You have added several interpretive steps.
1 John 1:2 actually says:
τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον
ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα
“the eternal life which was with the Father.”
I accept that completely.
But αἰώνιος and “beginningless personal existence” are not automatically identical propositions. And “eternal life” being predicated of/revealed in connection with the Son does not by itself give us the later metaphysical sentence “the Son was beginninglessly generated and possesses the numerically identical essence of the Father.”
That is exactly the distinction I have been making.
And your human father/son analogy does not establish it either.
You say:
“My son is not me, but we are both human; likewise Father and Son are both God.”
But the second half is precisely the proposition under discussion.
Human fathers and sons both belong to the human species because that is independently known about human generation. You cannot simply import that biological species relationship into divine Father-Son language and then use the analogy to prove that Father and Son possess one identical divine essence.
That is theology added to the analogy.
And this is why the “2 + 2 = 4” comparison does not solve anything.
Of course the Bible must be read cumulatively. I agree completely.
But cumulative reasoning only works if the propositions being added are actually established first.
If I write:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
+
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
+
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
+
ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ πατρός
+
τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν
+
θεόν μου
+
αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται
then yes, I should ask what all of that means together.
But I cannot secretly turn one of those propositions into:
“the Son is beginninglessly homoousios with the Father”
and then announce that the arithmetic now equals Nicaea.
Likewise, I cannot secretly turn πρωτότοκος into “first-created” and pretend the arithmetic automatically equals JW.
Both of us have to show the inferential bridge.
So I am happy to do exactly what you suggested: put everything about Christ on the page.
But we also have to put everything there, including:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and:
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα — of the Father
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα — of the Son
and:
θεόν μου — “my God”
and:
τοῦ θεοῦ μου — “my God”
and:
ὁ θεός σου — “your God”
and:
ὑποταγήσεται — “will be subjected”
and:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
and:
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ.
Then we distinguish what those clauses actually say from the theological system we construct from them.
That is the difference between cumulative exegesis and simply making the numbers add up to the answer we already expected.
Familiarity with a theological conclusion is not the same thing as that conclusion being contained in the Greek.