So, once again 4th time, how would you re-write what Paul wrote so that it corresponds with what he should have written. Once again I will tell you, around two posts ago, last para is what Col 1:15 is saying.
That's how it is or all those other Christians and Bible readers would have the same view as you. No they would not, as I said, most are reading it with a pre-set mind and that being, Jesus pre-existed and several OT scriptures clear say, show that he did not.
They are well aware of the principle of interpreting in the light of other verses etc yet still read those verses as meaning what the words literally say. Being aware of it and applying it, are two different things and that I showed you by presenting non pre-existent verses which CLEARLY they do not take into account, act upon. Did Mary think her son to be pre-existed in a physical form = NO. So naturally, he only pre-existed in the mind and plans of God.
Remember, Paul's letter was addressed to fledgling early Christian converts whose faith was supposedly being challenged by others downplaying the divinity of Jesus.These early followers did not have access to all the NT writings and would most likely not have interpreted OT writings as referring to Jesus. Divinity doesn't have to relate to pre-existing or firstborn of creation. OT writings, they would be aware of Gen, in the beginning created God, heavens and earth and Psa 33:6 by the word of the LORD were the heavens made and all the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth. Hosts of which Jesus would have been to pre-exist, were not the firstborn, literally, of creation = end of story.
Therefore, any rational thinking person should read Col 1:15 as --> In the mind and plans of God, known as glory, Jesus was the first born = of God's inner creation, the beginning of the creation of God Rev 3:14 and pre-slain in the mind and plans of God before the foundation (conception) of the world Rev 13:8. Even without the Rev support verses, you have no option but to come to this conclusion, as well known OT passages show he was not literally first.
What sucks in the likes of Mr G and many others is the John 1:1-2 etc, thinking Jesus is, was the word when clearly Jesus says around 4 times just in John that he was GIVEN The Word. Goodness me, if Jesus was the word, John would have simply said so --> In the beginning was Jesus and Jesus was with God. They totally ignore the likes of Mal 3:1, John's role, first was to prepare the way, make the path straight for God = put people in the picture, what was, what was first and who it was, first key and necessary truths, God and his Word, before God sent forth the prophesied one.
