Who is the first born of all creation? Christ? or the Sun God?

Saint Paul always upsets me when he said this in his letters,

Colossians 1:15 He(Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him.…

I was upset because in the Rig Veda it says it is the Sun God, Hiranyagarbha which is the first-born of all creation. 

Rig Veda (10.121) 1 In the beginning rose Hiranyagarbha, born Only Lord of all created beings.He fixed and holdeth up this earth and heaven. What God shall we adore with our oblation? (Translated by Griffith)

So how can there be two deities at the beginning of creation and each one claiming to be the first-born over all creation? Now any non-believer will say that this is not surprising at all as Saint Paul took a lot of his themes from the pagan mystery religions. To me, that's like undermining Christianity even before addressing the real problem and such a view should not be tolerated and encouraged at all because these morons are ignorant of one aspect of Saint Paul that he had a genuine apostolic Christian tradition behind him named Valentinianism who claimed to have had authentic esoteric interpretation of Pauline Letters and a continuity of genuine apostolic tradition. As Einar Thomassen says Valentinians were the great Paulinists and we will not let anyone criticize our most revered Saint so easily and get away just like that.

Isn't it a irony that the person whom the orthodox Church quotes to fight against the Gnostics and the Gnostic ideas is in fact the person whom the Gnostics claim to be their sole initiator into the mysteries of gnosis. Both atheists and orthodox Christians have underestimated Saint Paul and the gnosis of the Valentinian Christians and they are going to pay for it big time.

So who is the first born of all creation? Christ? or the Sun God? The reasonable explanation will be that unity appeared as Christ to Christians and at the same time the same unity appeared as Sun God to Vedic Aryans. Well this is a typical pagan attitude isn't it showing tolerance and pluralism towards religions of other nations and their deities. Yes for I am a pagan first and then a Christian. Also I know what its like to have gnostic visionary experiences and it is absolutely arrogant and foolish to assume that only we had genuine experiences and think that the divine revealed itself only to us and not to the people of other nations especially when both of our visions are explaining the same reality word to word having differences only in our linguistic description of the divine. 

2nd century Gnostic Christians shouldn't be indebted to Greeks, Neoplatonists, the Persians or the Aryans because the knowledge of the divine is no one's intellectual property and I hope Plotinus and anyone who thinks like that understands it clearly. Any philosopher who expects credit in the matters of the divine and shouts at others for plagiarising his teaching is not a true philosopher and he doesn't really know anything about the divine. If the Vedic rishis had copyrighted all their teachings then every Greek, Egyptian and Persian philosopher and theologian would have nothing to boast about.