Col 1 Son Preexistent Creator

[TheLayman]

Greetings:

In Colossians chapter 1, Paul does everything he can to make it clear the Son created all things. He says it every way it can be said and yet, Oneness Pentecostals try in vain to make this explicit teaching go away. Let’s take a look:

12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

I bolded all of those pronouns like “whom, His, and Him,” because I wanted to point out the obvious which is, their antecedent is “the Son of His [the Father’s] love.” In short, they refer to the Son. Once again, this passage so explicitly states that the Son created all things and existed before all things it is always a wonderment that anyone could attempt to deny it. I suppose the first thing to ask someone who would attempt to do so is what do you think create means? For in, through, and for Him (the Son) were all things created, ALL things. Paul even lists the all things. ALL things created in, through, and for the Son (list all things). There is nothing ambiguous and in fact Paul is emphatic!

And if that wasn’t enough Paul finishes by saying, “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Once again, before as in time. The Son existed before “all things” which were created in, through, and for Him. And in Him [the Son] they “consist,” i.e. hold together in all ways.

Trinitarians affirm and proclaim the truth of this passage. Oneness dogma must deny that all things were created in the Son, that all things were created through the Son, and that all things were created for the Son. Oneness dogma must deny that the Son existed before (in time) all things, and that in the Son all things (literally) hold together, consist. First, would you please tell me what it says. Then would you please tell me what you think it means and how you are able to deny what it explicitly states.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[tellmehow]

Greetings:

In Colossians chapter 1, Paul does everything he can to make it clear the Son created all things. He says it every way it can be said and yet, Oneness Pentecostals try in vain to make this explicit teaching go away. Let’s take a look:

12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

I bolded all of those pronouns like “whom, His, and Him,” because I wanted to point out the obvious which is, their antecedent is “the Son of His [the Father’s] love.” In short, they refer to the Son. Once again, this passage so explicitly states that the Son created all things and existed before all things it is always a wonderment that anyone could attempt to deny it. I suppose the first thing to ask someone who would attempt to do so is what do you think create means? For in, through, and for Him (the Son) were all things created, ALL things. Paul even lists the all things. ALL things created in, through, and for the Son (list all things). There is nothing ambiguous and in fact Paul is emphatic!

And if that wasn’t enough Paul finishes by saying, “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Once again, before as in time. The Son existed before “all things” which were created in, through, and for Him. And in Him [the Son] they “consist,” i.e. hold together in all ways.

Trinitarians affirm and proclaim the truth of this passage. Oneness dogma must deny that all things were created in the Son, that all things were created through the Son, and that all things were created for the Son. Oneness dogma must deny that the Son existed before (in time) all things, and that in the Son all things (literally) hold together, consist. First, would you please tell me what it says. Then would you please tell me what you think it means and how you are able to deny what it explicitly states.

Blessings,
TheLayman

First, I want to know if.... you believe in ONE GOD?

[ Layman: This statement saying......
Trinitarians affirm and proclaim the truth of this passage. Oneness dogma must deny that all things were created in the Son, that all things were created through the Son, and that all things were created for the Son. Oneness dogma must deny that the Son existed before (in time) all things, and that in the Son all things (literally) hold together, consist. First, would you please tell me what it says. Then would you please tell me what you think it means and how you are able to deny what it explicitly states.]

[complete]

tellmehow (http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/member.php?u=3894)
1-800-Jesus-help me WRITES:

First, I want to know if.... you believe in ONE GOD? Yes.

[warmbee]

:rolleyes:

[MawMaw]

First, I want to know if.... you believe in ONE GOD?

I do! I do! :):)

People actually believe in more than 1??? :icon_craz

[Rulkiewicz]

I believe in one God. Because that's what the bible says.

[Rulkiewicz]

The bible also says that there is no god beside my God. Nor does he KNOW of any others. God is not divided, nor schizophrenic. He is ONE and HIS name ONE.

[Victorious]

The Bible doesn't say that God is one Person.

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. I didn't realize that God had to qualify the word one wiith the word person. I thought one was pretty self- explanatory. Where exaxctly does God say He's three persons? :naughty:

[Pressing-On]

Greetings:

In Colossians chapter 1, Paul does everything he can to make it clear the Son created all things. He says it every way it can be said and yet, Oneness Pentecostals try in vain to make this explicit teaching go away. Let’s take a look:

12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

I bolded all of those pronouns like “whom, His, and Him,” because I wanted to point out the obvious which is, their antecedent is “the Son of His [the Father’s] love.” In short, they refer to the Son. Once again, this passage so explicitly states that the Son created all things and existed before all things it is always a wonderment that anyone could attempt to deny it. I suppose the first thing to ask someone who would attempt to do so is what do you think create means? For in, through, and for Him (the Son) were all things created, ALL things. Paul even lists the all things. ALL things created in, through, and for the Son (list all things). There is nothing ambiguous and in fact Paul is emphatic!

And if that wasn’t enough Paul finishes by saying, “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Once again, before as in time. The Son existed before “all things” which were created in, through, and for Him. And in Him [the Son] they “consist,” i.e. hold together in all ways.

Trinitarians affirm and proclaim the truth of this passage. Oneness dogma must deny that all things were created in the Son, that all things were created through the Son, and that all things were created for the Son. Oneness dogma must deny that the Son existed before (in time) all things, and that in the Son all things (literally) hold together, consist. First, would you please tell me what it says. Then would you please tell me what you think it means and how you are able to deny what it explicitly states.

Blessings,
TheLayman
It is because with all the pronouns we understand the point - "For in HIM dwelleth (to house permanently) all the FULLNESS (completion) of the Godhead (divinity) BODILY (physically)." Col 2:9

[coadie]

The Bible doesn't say that God is one Person.


The bible also doens't say God is 3 persons.. Take the Word at face value and use scripture to interpret scripture. We are incredibly clear on the doctgrines and the dates of origin from the romish religions.

[Inspired-Eyes]

Greetings:

In Colossians chapter 1, Paul does everything he can to make it clear the Son created all things. He says it every way it can be said and yet, Oneness Pentecostals try in vain to make this explicit teaching go away. Let’s take a look:

12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

I bolded all of those pronouns like “whom, His, and Him,” because I wanted to point out the obvious which is, their antecedent is “the Son of His [the Father’s] love.” In short, they refer to the Son. Once again, this passage so explicitly states that the Son created all things and existed before all things it is always a wonderment that anyone could attempt to deny it. I suppose the first thing to ask someone who would attempt to do so is what do you think create means? For in, through, and for Him (the Son) were all things created, ALL things. Paul even lists the all things. ALL things created in, through, and for the Son (list all things). There is nothing ambiguous and in fact Paul is emphatic!

And if that wasn’t enough Paul finishes by saying, “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Once again, before as in time. The Son existed before “all things” which were created in, through, and for Him. And in Him [the Son] they “consist,” i.e. hold together in all ways.

Trinitarians affirm and proclaim the truth of this passage. Oneness dogma must deny that all things were created in the Son, that all things were created through the Son, and that all things were created for the Son. Oneness dogma must deny that the Son existed before (in time) all things, and that in the Son all things (literally) hold together, consist. First, would you please tell me what it says. Then would you please tell me what you think it means and how you are able to deny what it explicitly states.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Dear Layman.........THE WORD.......always was........The word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision......... The word of the Lord commanded Joshua.
The word of God came unto Shemaiah
The word of God was made flesh and dwelt among us.
God spoke the Word and there was light.
THE WORD ALWAYS WAS AND ALWAYS IS.
Jhn 1:1 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html#1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=2&version=kjv#2)The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=3&version=kjv#3)All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jhn 1:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=4&version=kjv#4)In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Jhn 1:5 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=5&version=kjv#5)And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Jhn 1:6 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=6&version=kjv#6)¶There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.
Jhn 1:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=7&version=kjv#7)The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe.
Jhn 1:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=8&version=kjv#8)He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.
Jhn 1:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=9&version=kjv#9)[That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Jhn 1:10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=10&version=kjv#10)He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Jhn 1:11 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=11&version=kjv#11)He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

Jhn 1:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=12&version=kjv#12)But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Jhn 1:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=13&version=kjv#13)Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jhn 1:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Jhn&chapter=1&verse=14&version=kjv#14)¶And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Col 1:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Col/Col001.html#15) Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Gen 1:3 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen001.html#3) And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 1:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gen&chapter=1&verse=4&version=kjv#4)And God saw the light, that good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

He who has an ear let him hear.

Rev 19:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev019.html#13) And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. [I]13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

[Ghostrider]

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

In my opinion, this verse is the focus of the passage. He [the Son] is the image [created likeness or representation of the original] of the invisible God [un-seeable eternal God], the firstborn [first male child born to a family, and heir apparent] over all creation [no one in creation is equal to Him].

This verse says several things:

1. The Son is being represented as a created being, albeit as the firstborn, it’s still a temporal event; meaning He is not eternal.

2. He is the created presence [image] representing the eternal God within Creation.

3. He is the heir to all creation.

Ghostrider

[TheLayman]

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

In my opinion, this verse is the focus of the passage. He [the Son] is the image [created likeness or representation of the original] of the invisible God [un-seeable eternal God], the firstborn [first male child born to a family, and heir apparent] over all creation [no one in creation is equal to Him].

This verse says several things:

1. The Son is being represented as a created being, albeit as the firstborn, it’s still a temporal event; meaning He is not eternal.

2. He is the created presence [image] representing the eternal God within Creation.

3. He is the heir to all creation.

Ghostrider

Perhaps if you used the quote button on the original posts of thread it would assist you in responding to the topic post. At any rate, it is interesting that you say verse 15 is the focus of the passage, especially in that Paul begins verse 16 with a term of conclusion, i.e. "For..." In other words, the reason what he just said in verse 15 is explained in verse 16 (and forward). And Paul states that the reason he said what he said in verse 15 is because "all things were created by, through, and for "Him" (the beloved Son of the Father). And verse 17 states that He (the beloved Son of the Father) was before (in time) all things, and that in Him (the beloved Son of the Father) all things exist.

This is why I ended my original post with this request:

Trinitarians affirm and proclaim the truth of this passage. Oneness dogma must deny that all things were created in the Son, that all things were created through the Son, and that all things were created for the Son. Oneness dogma must deny that the Son existed before (in time) all things, and that in the Son all things (literally) hold together, consist. First, would you please tell me what it says. Then would you please tell me what you think it means and how you are able to deny what it explicitly states.
You will note that once again you didn't actually respond to the topic. But since I have just a moment, it is interesting that you say the passage represents the Son as a created being when in fact the passage states explicitly that the Son "created ALL things." You go on to say that He (the beloved Son of the Father) is the created image within creation representing God, yet there is nothing in the passage saying the beloved Son is a created anything. And as I pointed out above, verse 17 states the Son is before all things (in time).

But thank-you for providing your exegesis and interpretation. As I explained to Mizpeh, I will be gone for at least a week so I won't be around to continue the conversation.

TheLayman

[Ghostrider]

Hello Layman,

The "firstborn" over all creation also connotes a caused beginning. If the Son had a beginning, then He was created, and couldn't have been eternal. Since He is not eternal and is created, as the verse also implies, He is the first creature in all of Creation.

I think you must know that Oneness believers believe there is only one undivided eternal God/Spirit manifested in one divine person. The divine nature of Christ is the one eternal God/Spirit incarnated in hypostatic union with Christ's created human spirit. As such, it’s logical to attribute certain things to one or the other of Christ’s individual natures.

Is it possible that He was created before time? I don’t think so. I think time would have begun when the first created being came into existence to witness its passage. Is it possible that the Son’s created human spirit was joined in hypostasis with the uncreated God/Spirit, before the incarnation? I think it’s possible in light of this passage of Scripture.

For some time now, I’ve believed a variation of what the early Church writers believed; that the Deity (God/Spirit) of Christ (In the case of the writers; the second person of the Trinity) was joined with the humanity of Christ at the moment of conception. Now, I think it is possible that the spiritual realm was created before the physical realm, and the hypostatic union occurred in the created spiritual realm before the incarnation. This makes sense to me.

As I have stated in previous posts, I believe all of Creation came into existence – was created—during the genesis. I also believed this was a timeless event. Now I’m considering the possibility that only the creation of the spiritual realm was timeless, and the pre-incarnate Christ, by the power of the God/Spirit with whom He was united, created the physical realm from inside of the spiritual realm.

We don’t know how time is measured by, or affects, spiritual beings; though we know heaven and hell were created and will pass away. Therefore, time has some undefined meaning within the spiritual realm. This understanding explains a lot of
Scriptures.

Layman, I may also be able to affirm your thesis, and maintain my Oneness beliefs.

God Bless, Ghostrider

[TheLayman]

Hello Layman,

The "firstborn" over all creation also connotes a caused beginning. If the Son had a beginning, then He was created, and couldn't have been eternal. Since He is not eternal and is created, as the verse also implies, He is the first creature in all of Creation.

I think you must know that Oneness believers believe there is only one undivided eternal God/Spirit manifested in one divine person. The divine nature of Christ is the one eternal God/Spirit incarnated in hypostatic union with Christ's created human spirit. As such, it’s logical to attribute certain things to one or the other of Christ’s individual natures.

Is it possible that He was created before time? I don’t think so. I think time would have begun when the first created being came into existence to witness its passage. Is it possible that the Son’s created human spirit was joined in hypostasis with the uncreated God/Spirit, before the incarnation? I think it’s possible in light of this passage of Scripture.

For some time now, I’ve believed a variation of what the early Church writers believed; that the Deity (God/Spirit) of Christ (In the case of the writers; the second person of the Trinity) was joined with the humanity of Christ at the moment of conception. Now, I think it is possible that the spiritual realm was created before the physical realm, and the hypostatic union occurred in the created spiritual realm before the incarnation. This makes sense to me.

As I have stated in previous posts, I believe all of Creation came into existence – was created—during the genesis. I also believed this was a timeless event. Now I’m considering the possibility that only the creation of the spiritual realm was timeless, and the pre-incarnate Christ, by the power of the God/Spirit with whom He was united, created the physical realm from inside of the spiritual realm.

We don’t know how time is measured by, or affects, spiritual beings; though we know heaven and hell were created and will pass away. Therefore, time has some undefined meaning within the spiritual realm. This understanding explains a lot of
Scriptures.

Layman, I may also be able to affirm your thesis, and maintain my Oneness beliefs.

God Bless, Ghostrider

So you answer is an attempt at time paradoxes again even though nothing in the passage indicates any such thing. And you still have not reconciled your time paradox to what the passage actually says. In my last post to you, which responded to here, I said:

Perhaps if you used the quote button on the original posts of thread it would assist you in responding to the topic post. At any rate, it is interesting that you say verse 15 is the focus of the passage, especially in that Paul begins verse 16 with a term of conclusion, i.e. "For..." In other words, the reason what he just said in verse 15 is explained in verse 16 (and forward). And Paul states that the reason he said what he said in verse 15 is because "all things were created by, through, and for "Him" (the beloved Son of the Father). And verse 17 states that He (the beloved Son of the Father) was before (in time) all things, and that in Him (the beloved Son of the Father) all things exist.

This is why I ended my original post with this request:

Trinitarians affirm and proclaim the truth of this passage. Oneness dogma must deny that all things were created in the Son, that all things were created through the Son, and that all things were created for the Son. Oneness dogma must deny that the Son existed before (in time) all things, and that in the Son all things (literally) hold together, consist. First, would you please tell me what it says. Then would you please tell me what you think it means and how you are able to deny what it explicitly states.You will note that once again you didn't actually respond to the topic. But since I have just a moment, it is interesting that you say the passage represents the Son as a created being when in fact the passage states explicitly that the Son "created ALL things." You go on to say that He (the beloved Son of the Father) is the created image within creation representing God, yet there is nothing in the passage saying the beloved Son is a created anything. And as I pointed out above, verse 17 states the Son is before all things (in time).

But thank-you for providing your exegesis and interpretation. As I explained to Mizpeh, I will be gone for at least a week so I won't be around to continue the conversation.

TheLayman

You just did it again. You are not directly dealing with the passage or the questions. Firstborn is also position of rank and blessing (usually given to the firstborn) and you can't believe that every creature gave birth to Jesus. But you assert that the Son was created when the passage clearly states that the Son created all things (that is also to say the Son was not created by the Father or anyone else). So you are in conflict with Scripture (and Paul explains why he calls Jesus the Firstborn in verse 16). And with regard to your "time paradox" Scripture clearly states that the Son exists before (in time) all things.

But I note something else in your comments. In though you are in direct conflict with what the passage states, you refer to the Son of the Father's love as a created thing, meaning the Son (however you define the word) is not God, for God is not "created." Secondly, you mention natures, and natures do not create, love, pray, etc., only persons do.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[Mike]

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

In my opinion, this verse is the focus of the passage. He [the Son] is the image [created likeness or representation of the original] of the invisible God [un-seeable eternal God], the firstborn [first male child born to a family, and heir apparent] over all creation [no one in creation is equal to Him].

This verse says several things:

1. The Son is being represented as a created being, albeit as the firstborn, it’s still a temporal event; meaning He is not eternal.

2. He is the created presence [image] representing the eternal God within Creation.

3. He is the heir to all creation.

Ghostrider

Very close. When we understand Son and Logos are synonomous here Oneness doctrine can receive its necessary correction.

[Ghostrider]

Hello Layman,
It’s good to see you back. I hope you are well.

I think you, and virtually all who study theology disregard the element of time and timelessness when it should be considered a significant factor in the development of some hermeneutical theories. It’s an important aspect that should be considered if one is to gain better understanding of the eternal God’s relationship with His creation. This is especially true when dealing with subjects such as the Creation, Incarnation, Godhead and Eschatology.

Layman, several times you have referred to my explanation of the element of time or timelessness in my exegesis as “time paradoxes”. They would only be paradoxes if we were discussing temporal events that affected only temporal beings. First of all, it is and always will be impossible for a temporal being to travel backward or forward in time; therefore, no potential for the creation of a paradox really exists. What we are discussing is a timeless being that has an eternal existence which transcends all space and all time of the Creation. God is not traveling back and forth or here and there; He is, always has been, and always will be everywhere and every when. This is a most significant factor.

Layman, you wrote this: “Firstborn is also position of rank and blessing (usually given to the firstborn).” That is true of the term firstborn, but you are disregarding other qualities it denotes; it also denotes the first of a generation of something; the first of a group of like beings. It denotes a coming into being – a creation. If the Son was “the firstborn over all creation” the term firstborn describes the Son as the first to be born into creation. Trinitarians tend to limit the term firstborn to its reference to the legal status of an heir. That is only part of its meaning. The rest of its meaning is contradictory to Trinitarian Theology. The Greek word “prototokos” translates the same literal meaning as the English word firstborn; the difference being, the reduced emphasis on the heir denotation of the English word in modern times because of the obsolete legal status of the firstborn.

So my previous statement that the "firstborn" over all creation also denotes a caused beginning, in other words, that the Son was created, is true. If the Son had a beginning, and He was begotten of the Father, then He was created. To say He was begotten and was co-eternal with the Father is a logical contradiction since He is not eternal and is created. As the verse implies, He is the first creature in all of Creation. That is the meaning of the verse.

The first part of the verse: “He is the image of the invisible God”. Logically, the term image denotes a creation that represents the likeness of the original, but is not the original. The Greek term “eikon” carries the same meaning in English. If the original begot the image, then logically the begetter predated the begotten. That must be true; therefore, the Son is created in time by the creator in eternity. He is the Alpha – the first created thing.

My theory is being refined as we discuss this subject. The pre-incarnate Son was the first created thing. As the passage of Scripture suggests, He then created all things other than Himself, and has dominion over all that He created. I think there is a great deal of Scriptural evidence that supports the creation of the spiritual realm, including the angels, before the physical realm.
I believe the eternal God was hypostasized with the created human spirit of the Son in eternity before the Son created all things. The eternal God, in His hypostasis with the created spirit of the Son, is still eternal and omnipresent; therefore, “in Him all things consist.”

No matter where your hermeneutic goes from here, the things discussed above are foundational to any Christological belief and must be dealt with; otherwise you are building on a faulty foundation. Trinitarian Theology doesn’t address these contradictions. In Oneness Theology, they are not contradictions.

God Bless, Ghostrider

[jpr7]

Greetings:

In Colossians chapter 1, Paul does everything he can to make it clear the Son created all things. He says it every way it can be said and yet, Oneness Pentecostals try in vain to make this explicit teaching go away. Let’s take a look:

12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

I bolded all of those pronouns like “whom, His, and Him,” because I wanted to point out the obvious which is, their antecedent is “the Son of His [the Father’s] love.” In short, they refer to the Son. Once again, this passage so explicitly states that the Son created all things and existed before all things it is always a wonderment that anyone could attempt to deny it. I suppose the first thing to ask someone who would attempt to do so is what do you think create means? For in, through, and for Him (the Son) were all things created, ALL things. Paul even lists the all things. ALL things created in, through, and for the Son (list all things). There is nothing ambiguous and in fact Paul is emphatic!

And if that wasn’t enough Paul finishes by saying, “And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.” Once again, before as in time. The Son existed before “all things” which were created in, through, and for Him. And in Him [the Son] they “consist,” i.e. hold together in all ways.

Trinitarians affirm and proclaim the truth of this passage. Oneness dogma must deny that all things were created in the Son, that all things were created through the Son, and that all things were created for the Son. Oneness dogma must deny that the Son existed before (in time) all things, and that in the Son all things (literally) hold together, consist. First, would you please tell me what it says. Then would you please tell me what you think it means and how you are able to deny what it explicitly states.

Blessings,
TheLayman

The Son pre-existed as the Word of God. Elohim created all things through His Word. The Word was became flesh (John 1:14). He is known as the Son.

[TheLayman]

Hello Layman,
It’s good to see you back. I hope you are well.

I think you, and virtually all who study theology disregard the element of time and timelessness when it should be considered a significant factor in the development of some hermeneutical theories. It’s an important aspect that should be considered if one is to gain better understanding of the eternal God’s relationship with His creation. This is especially true when dealing with subjects such as the Creation, Incarnation, Godhead and Eschatology.

What you think (or guess as the case may be) is irrelevant to the topic.

Layman, several times you have referred to my explanation of the element of time or timelessness in my exegesis as “time paradoxes”. They would only be paradoxes if we were discussing temporal events that affected only temporal beings. First of all, it is and always will be impossible for a temporal being to travel backward or forward in time; therefore, no potential for the creation of a paradox really exists. What we are discussing is a timeless being that has an eternal existence which transcends all space and all time of the Creation. God is not traveling back and forth or here and there; He is, always has been, and always will be everywhere and every when. This is a most significant factor.

First of all a "time paradox" is any paradox involving time (don't rely on Wikipedia). Further, far from having disregarded the "element of time" of keep pointing out that specific "times" are referred to in passages and it is your "hermeneutic" that continues to attempt to rationalize them out of existence. And lastly, what we are supposed to be discussing is an actual Biblical text.

Layman, you wrote this: “Firstborn is also position of rank and blessing (usually given to the firstborn).” That is true of the term firstborn, but you are disregarding other qualities it denotes; it also denotes the first of a generation of something; the first of a group of like beings. It denotes a coming into being – a creation. If the Son was “the firstborn over all creation” the term firstborn describes the Son as the first to be born into creation.

That quite simply is not at all what it says and I defy you to find the words which say what you have just said. Incidentally, being "created" and "being born" are two different things, but it is irrelevant.

Trinitarians tend to limit the term firstborn to its reference to the legal status of an heir. That is only part of its meaning. The rest of its meaning is contradictory to Trinitarian Theology. The Greek word “prototokos” translates the same literal meaning as the English word firstborn; the difference being, the reduced emphasis on the heir denotation of the English word in modern times because of the obsolete legal status of the firstborn.

This is going to be about the third time of I have said this: Verse 16 begins with a term of conclusion, the word "for." Paul himself tells you why the Fathers beloved Son is the firstborn over all creation and it does not agree with you (you see, I on the other hand am just accepting what Paul said). I repeat, verse 16 begins with a term of conclusion and Paul himself tells you why he calls the beloved Son of the Father the firstborn over all creation.

So my previous statement that the "firstborn" over all creation also denotes a caused beginning, in other words, that the Son was created, is true.

Paul disagrees with you, and I accept what Paul wrote and what Scripture states.

If the Son had a beginning, and He was begotten of the Father, then He was created.

First, the text we are dealing with states the the Father's beloved Son created all things, it does not say the Father's beloved Son was created. Secondly, that which is created is not God, so the Son according to you is a created being that is not God.

To say He was begotten and was co-eternal with the Father is a logical contradiction since He is not eternal and is created.

Would you do me a personal favor and not appeal to logic unless you are prepared to demonstrate what you are saying. And could you simply deal with the topic of the thread, that would be helpful.

As the verse implies, He is the first creature in all of Creation. That is the meaning of the verse.

What I have watched you do is state:

1. That the Father and Son are two separate beings.
2. That the Son is a created being and therefore not God.
3. That the Father created the Son, and the Son created everthing else (classic Arianism).
4. State that Scripture says exactly the opposite of what it explicitly states: i.e. Scripture states the Son "created all things," and you say the passage says, "the Son was created."

The first part of the verse: “He is the image of the invisible God”. Logically, the term image denotes a creation that represents the likeness of the original, but is not the original. The Greek term “eikon” carries the same meaning in English. If the original begot the image, then logically the begetter predated the begotten. That must be true; therefore, the Son is created in time by the creator in eternity. He is the Alpha – the first created thing.

Let me cut through the rationalizations. The term "eikon" has absolutely nothing to do with time, absolutely nothing. You put the definition of this term on the board and there will be nothing in its meaning regarding time, nothing. But I'm about to ask you if you're really a JW.

My theory is being refined as we discuss this subject. The pre-incarnate Son was the first created thing. As the passage of Scripture suggests, He then created all things other than Himself, and has dominion over all that He created. I think there is a great deal of Scriptural evidence that supports the creation of the spiritual realm, including the angels, before the physical realm.

This is why I'm about to ask you if you're really a JW as they say exactly this regarding Col 1: The Father created the Son, and the Son created all other things. In fact, it is in the NWT (their Bible). They need to be constantly reminded that it does not say this in English or Greek.

I believe the eternal God was hypostasized with the created human spirit of the Son in eternity before the Son created all things. The eternal God, in His hypostasis with the created spirit of the Son, is still eternal and omnipresent; therefore, “in Him all things consist.”

No matter where your hermeneutic goes from here, the things discussed above are foundational to any Christological belief and must be dealt with; otherwise you are building on a faulty foundation. Trinitarian Theology doesn’t address these contradictions. In Oneness Theology, they are not contradictions.

God Bless, Ghostrider

What is foundational to this discussion is Col 1:12-17.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[TheLayman]

The Son pre-existed as the Word of God. Elohim created all things through His Word. The Word was became flesh (John 1:14). He is known as the Son.

Well jpr7, you are again making a distinction between the "Word" and "the Son" meaning one is not the other. So let me quote myself from the topic post of this thread again:

12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

I bolded all of those pronouns like “whom, His, and Him,” because I wanted to point out the obvious which is, their antecedent is “the Son of His [the Father’s] love.” In short, they refer to the Son.
So the antecedent if "the Son of His love," not "the Word." I believe you are attempting to claim it is an anachronism. If so know that an anachronism can be demonstrated so if indeed this is your claim, you will need to do so. And please do not demonstrate it by talking about President Bush and a lemonade stand. You will need to demonstrate the anachronism in the text rather than just assert one exists.

TheLayman

[jpr7]

Well jpr7, you are again making a distinction between the "Word" and "the Son" meaning one is not the other. So let me quote myself from the topic post of this thread again:12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

I bolded all of those pronouns like “whom, His, and Him,” because I wanted to point out the obvious which is, their antecedent is “the Son of His [the Father’s] love.” In short, they refer to the Son.
So the antecedent if "the Son of His love," not "the Word." I believe you are attempting to claim it is an anachronism. If so know that an anachronism can be demonstrated so if indeed this is your claim, you will need to do so. And please do not demonstrate it by talking about President Bush and a lemonade stand. You will need to demonstrate the anachronism in the text rather than just assert one exists.

TheLayman

Hi, Layman,

You're asserting that the antecedent of the pronouns is "the Son of His love." I certainly agree with most of that. However, the "by Him" and subsequent pronouns need not refer to the Son. They can refer to "the invisible God" (tou theou tou aoratou)--there is nothing in the Greek grammar to prevent this.

It would certainly be awkward to read this when one comes to verse 18. But the reading can be reconciled when considering the context that the fullness dwelt in the Him (vv 15 and 19). In other words, through His indwelling in the Son, God could said to be the head over the church, and reconcile all things to Himself by the cross.

jpr7

[mizpeh]

Well jpr7, you are again making a distinction between the "Word" and "the Son" meaning one is not the other. So let me quote myself from the topic post of this thread again:

12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

I bolded all of those pronouns like “whom, His, and Him,” because I wanted to point out the obvious which is, their antecedent is “the Son of His [the Father’s] love.” In short, they refer to the Son.


So the antecedent if "the Son of His love," not "the Word." I believe you are attempting to claim it is an anachronism. If so know that an anachronism can be demonstrated so if indeed this is your claim, you will need to do so. And please do not demonstrate it by talking about President Bush and a lemonade stand. You will need to demonstrate the anachronism in the text rather than just assert one exists.

TheLaymanIt seems a anachronism is the obvious explantion since a man with flesh and blood and is an 'image' of the invisible God did not exist before the creation of the world (except from the POV of an eternal God).

In that the beloved Son created all things and in Him all things consist, AND since we know Jesus Christ was not called the Son of God until his birth Luke 1:35, this verse is speaking of someone who is now called the Son at the time of the writing but during the events of creation He was God (Elohim)Gen1:31 or later known as YHWH Ps 148:5. There is no physical Son at creation or in the OT but is always spoken of as a future Son through prophecy. And even at the present with all things consisting in Him which shows that God is immanent in the flesh (the Son) and at the same God is transcendently existing (the Father) with all things consisting in Him (Acts 17:28) because all things cannot consist within a man.

[TheLayman]

Hi, Layman,

You're asserting that the antecedent of the pronouns is "the Son of His love." I certainly agree with most of that. However, the "by Him" and subsequent pronouns need not refer to the Son. They can refer to "the invisible God" (tou theou tou aoratou)--there is nothing in the Greek grammar to prevent this.

It would certainly be awkward to read this when one comes to verse 18. But the reading can be reconciled when considering the context that the fullness dwelt in the Him (vv 15 and 19). In other words, through His indwelling in the Son, God could said to be the head over the church, and reconcile all things to Himself by the cross.

jpr7

Greetings jpr7:

You know, I have never heard anyone attempt to make the claim you have made and I'll bet you haven't either. Something you might consider is that if you are offering a grammatical explanation you haven't heard before there's usually a reason for it.

At any rate, you are most definitely incorrect. The term of conclusion which begins verse 16 should have given you a big hint. The bottom line is that in verse 15 "He is the image" is the subject/predicate nominatives and "of the invisible God" is an adjective phrase which modifies the predicate nominative "image" (i.e. tells you the type of image). An adjective phrase which modifies a nominative doesn't suddenly become the antecedent for the pronouns, no way and no how. So now what do you say it says?

TheLayman

[TheLayman]

It seems a anachronism is the obvious explantion since a man with flesh and blood and is an 'image' of the invisible God did not exist before the creation of the world (except from the POV of an eternal God).

In that the beloved Son created all things and in Him all things consist, AND since we know Jesus Christ was not called the Son of God until his birth Luke 1:35, this verse is speaking of someone who is now called the Son at the time of the writing but during the events of creation He was God (Elohim)Gen1:31 or later known as YHWH Ps 148:5. There is no physical Son at creation or in the OT but is always spoken of as a future Son through prophecy. And even at the present with all things consisting in Him which shows that God is immanent in the flesh (the Son) and at the same God is transcendently existing (the Father) with all things consisting in Him (Acts 17:28) because all things cannot consist within a man.

Two things quickly Mizpeh:

1. Once again you have not dealt directly with the text but have instead given me your dogma. I am not interested in your dogma, the topic is a passage of Scripture so if you aren't directly dealing with the passage you should know you are off topic.

2. I said if one assert an anachronism one must be able to demonstrate the anachronism. You promptly wrote a post merely asserting an anachronism rather than demonstrating one. I will not help you with this other than to say I can assure you that no anachronism exists. However, if you really know what an anachronism is and you want me to believe that there is one in the passage, you will need to back up your assertion by demonstrating the anachronism.

TheLayman

[jpr7]

Greetings jpr7:

You know, I have never heard anyone attempt to make the claim you have made and I'll bet you haven't either. Something you might consider is that if you are offering a grammatical explanation you haven't heard before there's usually a reason for it.

At any rate, you are most definitely incorrect. The term of conclusion which begins verse 16 should have given you a big hint. The bottom line is that in verse 15 "He is the image" is the subject/predicate nominatives and "of the invisible God" is an adjective phrase which modifies the predicate nominative "image" (i.e. tells you the type of image). An adjective phrase which modifies a nominative doesn't suddenly become the antecedent for the pronouns, no way and no how. So now what do you say it says?

TheLayman

Thanks for pointing that out, Layman. I overlooked the estin. Because of the limited time I'll have to continue my response later, but do you happen to have any resources you can recommend to me concerning Koine Greek syntax (not grammar)? Thanks.

jpr7

[jpr7]

Well jpr7, you are again making a distinction between the "Word" and "the Son" meaning one is not the other. So let me quote myself from the topic post of this thread again:
12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

I bolded all of those pronouns like “whom, His, and Him,” because I wanted to point out the obvious which is, their antecedent is “the Son of His [the Father’s] love.” In short, they refer to the Son.
So the antecedent if "the Son of His love," not "the Word." I believe you are attempting to claim it is an anachronism. If so know that an anachronism can be demonstrated so if indeed this is your claim, you will need to do so. And please do not demonstrate it by talking about President Bush and a lemonade stand. You will need to demonstrate the anachronism in the text rather than just assert one exists.

TheLayman

Lol, President Bush and a lemonade stand? I've never heard of that one before.

The point Paul makes here concerning creation begins with verse 15. Paul's use of eikon means that Jesus' deity is God. Paul then begins a string of statements using the aorist tense, the perfect tense, and the temporal pro, all of which focus on His pre-existence as deity.

Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created (literally, "have been created") through Him and for Him.

Colossians 1:17 And He is before (Gk., pro, focusing on before the creation) all things, and in Him all things consist (literally, "have consisted).

jpr7

[TheLayman]

Lol, President Bush and a lemonade stand? I've never heard of that one before.

Greetings jpr:

Yes, usually when someone claims an anachronism they will say something like it's the same as saying: President Bush had his first business when he was 7 years old and it was a lemonade stand. Obviously George Bush wasn't the President when he was 7 years old. And that's all very well and good, but President Bush isn't his own beloved son either. So, as I said, if someone is going to claim an anachronism they need to demonstrate it in the passage, not with something other than the passage.

The point Paul makes here concerning creation begins with verse 15. Paul's use of eikon means that Jesus' deity is God. Paul then begins a string of statements using the aorist tense, the perfect tense, and the temporal pro, all of which focus on His pre-existence as deity.

Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created (literally, "have been created") through Him and for Him.

Colossians 1:17 And He is before (Gk., pro, focusing on before the creation) all things, and in Him all things consist (literally, "have consisted).

jpr7

jpr:

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about or what your point is as it regards the topic. Could you point out where "the Son of His love" becomes something other than "the Son of His love?" I just finished pointing out that the antecendent remains the same.

So here we are once again with you saying Scripture is incorrect. Wait, yes you are and I'll show you. You define your terms. As I said to you somewhere else, you are obviously making "the Word" and "the Son" mutually exclusive terms. So define these words in detail so I understand clearly the difference in them as you are using them:

the Son:
the Word:

Once you do that we will insert the phrase "the Word" in place of the pronouns and the phrase "the Son" in place of the pronouns and you will see exactly what I mean.

Lastly, you said eikon speaks of Jesus' deity as God. What do you mean by this? What do you mean by "his deity?" And what do you suppose Paul meant by the word "HE" in verse 15: "15 He is the image of the invisible God,..."

TheLayman

[jpr7]

Greetings jpr:

Yes, usually when someone claims an anachronism they will say something like it's the same as saying: President Bush had his first business when he was 7 years old and it was a lemonade stand. Obviously George Bush wasn't the President when he was 7 years old. And that's all very well and good, but President Bush isn't his own beloved son either. So, as I said, if someone is going to claim an anachronism they need to demonstrate it in the passage, not with something other than the passage.

Thanks for expounding on that.

jpr:

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about or what your point is as it regards the topic. Could you point out where "the Son of His love" becomes something other than "the Son of His love?" I just finished pointing out that the antecendent remains the same.

So here we are once again with you saying Scripture is incorrect. Wait, yes you are and I'll show you. You define your terms. As I said to you somewhere else, you are obviously making "the Word" and "the Son" mutually exclusive terms. So define these words in detail so I understand clearly the difference in them as you are using them:

the Son:
the Word:

Once you do that we will insert the phrase "the Word" in place of the pronouns and the phrase "the Son" in place of the pronouns and you will see exactly what I mean.

Layman,

I'm not denying that the antecedent is "the Son." I'm not taking that anachronism route either because the Word doesn't appear in the text. However, what does appear (and this is the point I'm getting at) is that Paul's focus in vv. 15-17 is one Jesus' pre-existence as God.

Lastly, you said eikon speaks of Jesus' deity as God. What do you mean by this? What do you mean by "his deity?" And what do you suppose Paul meant by the word "HE" in verse 15: "15 He is the image of the invisible God,..."

TheLaymanI'll have to get back to you on these questions.

jpr7

[mizpeh]

TheLayman,

Is there a Son of God in the OT that is clearly the Son of God actively interacting with creation? Or is reference to the Son of God prophetic?

If there is no evidence of the Son of God in the OT except in visions and prophecies then the use of an anachronism is a viable option to explain how the Son can be explained as having done something in the past before His birth.

This passage speaks of the Son as a man with blood, a body, and as being an image of the invisible God. The human Son was not around during creation. God didn't exist as a man before the birth of Christ. This passage also speaks of the Son as creating all things. There are two conflicting facets of the Son here, one which is temporal and one which is eternal and existed before the temporal and created. In the next chapter Paul tells us.... and not according to Christ. For in him all the fullness of deity livesin bodily form, This fullness of deity is the eternal aspect of the Son and is who the Son was prior to the incarnation. So when the Son is spoken of as existing in the past before His birth, it is an anachronism. Because there is no Son in the OT interacting with creation. Can you show me a verse in the OT that speaks of the Son of God doing this or that?

[TheLayman]

I apologize, I didn’t notice this post.
TheLayman,
Is there a Son of God in the OT that is clearly the Son of God actively interacting with creation? Or is reference to the Son of God prophetic?
I think you are attempting to somehow make an argument from silence. It would be completely irrelevant to what this passage actually says which of course you haven’t directly addressed (and as is your custom, I’m sure you will not address).
If there is no evidence of the Son of God in the OT except in visions and prophecies then the use of an anachronism is a viable option to explain how the Son can be explained as having done something in the past before His birth.
Ummmm, what you just said made absolutely no sense. If you can somehow make an argument from silence then it is okay to claim an anachronism? What??? Mizpeh, I’ve told you several times since I mentioned the word, an anachronism can be demonstrated. You have not done so but I will take the time to demonstrate why none exists.
This passage speaks of the Son as a man with blood, a body, and as being an image of the invisible God.
The passage under discussion speaks of the “the Son of His (the Father’s) love. The passage does not say that blood and body of the Son of His love are the image of the invisible God (you’ve got to be kidding me).
The human Son was not around during creation. Don’t know of anyone who believes He was, and I didn’t that (straw man, Red Herring).[/quote]
God didn't exist as a man before the birth of Christ.
I didn’t say anything about God existing as man before the birth of Christ (another straw man, and another Red Herring).
This passage also speaks of the Son as creating all things. There are two conflicting facets of the Son here, one which is temporal and one which is eternal and existed before the temporal and created.
You got it a little bit correct Mizpeh. It actually says the Son of the Father’s love (a term of personal identity) created all things, and it says the Son of the Father’s love existed before all things. There are two personal subjects in view throughout this passage, and one is not the other (which is why there is no anachronism).
In the next chapter Paul tells us.... and not according to Christ. For in him all the fullness of deity livesin bodily form, This fullness of deity is the eternal aspect of the Son and is who the Son was prior to the incarnation.
As usual, when you are trying to add to and take away from Scripture, you refuse to directly address the subject passage and go to another passage. Two things:

1. Apparently Col. 2:9 doesn’t mean what you think it means. The word “deity” used in 2:9 is not a who, it is a what (whether you like it or not, that’s what the word means). And it simply means that the Son was not a man who was simply infused with divine attributes, it means that He was in very nature God.

2. More importantly, and as has been explained to you in other threads regarding other passages of Scripture, Col. 2:9 will not change what Col. 1 says, it won’t negate it, it won’t go away. So not only does 2:9 completely agree with chapter 1, but as usual you haven’t directly dealt with the topic passage. And as I was saying, somehow (and your attempt is lost on me) you are trying to negate what the topic passage in Col 1 explicitly states with (your misunderstanding) of Col. 2:9. Indeed, in that “not according to Christ” is not even part of 2:9 but you including it in your 2:9 quote, I think you were attempting to somehow infer that Col 1 didn’t mean what it says.
So when the Son is spoken of as existing in the past before His birth, it is an anachronism. Because there is no Son in the OT interacting with creation. Can you show me a verse in the OT that speaks of the Son of God doing this or that?
Mizpeh, I just showed you a NT passage that explicitly states that the Son created the “all things” and existed before all things. I know you just don’t like the NT and apparently don’t think it was inspired or the Holy Spirit suddenly lost the ability to express what meant. Once again, you are somehow trying to “negate” the passage (you wanted me to point these things out to you). Here is the meaning of the term explicit:

Explicit: fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal:

It is truly remarkable to watch you try to make passages go away even when you know what they explicitly say (in fact that’s why you so desperately try to make them just go away without directly dealing with them). At any rate, here’s the problem with your anachronism: the passage two different personal subjects, there is a subject/object (and subject indirect object) distinction. You see:

For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son,

So the Father rescued and transferred us to where? To His Kingdom? Nope. To the Kingdom of His beloved Son. So, in the very simplest language I have to explain this, the Father and His beloved Son are not the same person, they have different personal identities. What that also means is that Scripture means exactly what it explicitly states:

He (the Father’s beloved Son) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

For by Him (the Father’s beloved Son) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him (the Father’s beloved Son) and for Him (the Father‘s beloved Son).

And He (the Father’s beloved Son) is before all things, and in Him (the Father’s beloved Son) all things consist.

Let’s try the old Oneness “President Bush went to Yale” anachronism. It is said that George Bush wasn’t President when he went to Yale, so it is an anachronism. So how does that work? Because when G.W. became the President, President became another name for him, it could refer to the office, or it could refer to his personal identity (which is true of the anachronism). But if you tried to say:

President Bush rescued us and transported them to the ranch of his beloved Son.

Well in that case there is no anachronism. The only thing you can have is President Bush Sr. rescuing and transporting people to his son’s ranch (G.W. Bush). This can’t be talking about G.W. rescuing and transporting people to his own ranch as it doesn‘t say his own ranch and he doesn‘t have a son (and if he did have a son, it wouldn't be an anachronism). Understand? So, Oneness point to this anachronism (President Bush went to Yale) with President Bush and a single person’s identity, and then simply assert an anachronism exists in Col 1 (and Heb. 1 and so on). There is no anachronism.

But if you still want to assert it I’ve showed you how to demonstrate it (but none exists). You have a Father and a His (genitive case) Son, not a Father who is a Son. Just to help you understand again, President Bush went to Yale because you have two “names” identifying one personal subject, the name President being given after Yale. In Col. 1 you actually have two names identifying two different personal subjects. But like I said, if you think you can demonstrate it, please, by all means, it should be entertaining.

However, what the passage does explicitly state is that the Father’s beloved Son created all things and was before (in time) all things. Now I know you desperately want this passage to go away and you want to erase God’s Son from creating and existing before all things. I know it’s probably pointless to ask, but can you actually deal directly with the passage under discussion while doing so?

TheLayman

[OriginalPraxeas]

Off topic, but if the word Deity can there refer to a what can it refer to a who in other places?

[TheLayman]

Off topic, but if the word Deity can there refer to a what can it refer to a who in other places?

How are you doing Praxeas?

[rant mode on]You know, I'm sure I'm not alone in this but if this is one word in the NT that needs to be changed every time it appears it is the word "Godhead." It appears 3 times and is actually a different word each of the three times, and what does "Godhead" mean anyway? God's head? [rant mode off]

The word used here (which means it is used a total of 1 time in the NT) for Godhead, (theotēs) means, simply:

1) deity
a) the state of being God, Godhead

I like the way Thayer explains it (because it short, understandable, and to the point). He says:

Deity differs from divinity as essence differs from quality or attribute.

As I said, it is used only once in the NT but it means "the state of being God," being in very essence or nature God. So it would not be used for a name if that is what you mean.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[mizpeh]

How are you doing Praxeas?

[rant mode on]You know, I'm sure I'm not alone in this but if this is one word in the NT that needs to be changed every time it appears it is the word "Godhead." It appears 3 times and is actually a different word each of the three times, and what does "Godhead" mean anyway? God's head? [rant mode off]

The word used here (which means it is used a total of 1 time in the NT) for Godhead, (theotēs) means, simply:

1) deity
a) the state of being God, Godhead

I like the way Thayer explains it (because it short, understandable, and to the point). He says:

Deity differs from divinity as essence differs from quality or attribute.

As I said, it is used only once in the NT but it means "the state of being God," being in very essence or nature God. So it would not be used for a name if that is what you mean.

Blessings,
TheLaymanThis is a great explanation!

But of course I have a question, why does Paul use the wording 'all the fullness' with the word, theotes? Is there a measure of being God? I've understood this to mean everything that God is in all His completeness (but not quantity).

It kind sounds similar to Jesus having the Holy Spirit 'without measure'.

(I know these are two different things because in Colossians Paul is speaking about the identity of Jesus and in the gospel the writer is speaking about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Jesus.)

[TheLayman]

This is a great explanation!
But of course I have a question, why does Paul use the wording 'all the fullness' with the word, theotes? Is there a measure of being God? I've understood this to mean everything that God is in all His completeness (but not quantity).

It kind sounds similar to Jesus having the Holy Spirit 'without measure'.
(I know these are two different things because in Colossians Paul is speaking about the identity of Jesus and in the gospel the writer is speaking about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Jesus.)
Well, here Paul is speaking not just about “who” Jesus is but about the very “nature” of who He is. It is good to note that Paul did not merely say, “the fullness of deity” but rather “all the fullness.” Why did Paul say “all the fullness.” Well, simply, it leaves no doubt as to what he is saying (or shouldn’t). It doesn’t view Jesus as a dwelling which can simply be “filled” meaning that He was a full a as a body could be. No, it says “all the fullness” meaning that He lacks nothing, everything that deity is resides in Him bodily. This is not a man with divine attributes, this is not a man indwelled by God or given the spirit without measure, this person is deity itself residing in bodily form.

It also dismissed the stoics and their pantheistic ideas of God being in everything. And it rejects Docetism (an early gnostic heresy) which said that the Son only appeared to have a body, but didn’t really come in flesh (dwelleth is a compound verb, and it means bodily). It rejects another early gnostic teaching called Cerinthianism which held that the logos descended on Jesus at baptism and left Him on the cross (all the fullness of deity, everything that is “deity,” the “state of being God” resides in Him bodily). He is in very nature God. In short, Paul it seems to me, was absolutely clear in his meaning.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[mizpeh]

Well, here Paul is speaking not just about “who” Jesus is but about the very “nature” of who He is. It is good to note that Paul did not merely say, “the fullness of deity” but rather “all the fullness.” Why did Paul say “all the fullness.” Well, simply, it leaves no doubt as to what he is saying (or shouldn’t). It doesn’t view Jesus as a dwelling which can simply be “filled” meaning that He was a full a as a body could be. No, it says “all the fullness” meaning that He lacks nothing, everything that deity is resides in Him bodily. This is not a man with divine attributes, this is not a man indwelled by God or given the spirit without measure, this person is deity itself residing in bodily form.

It also dismissed the stoics and their pantheistic ideas of God being in everything. And it rejects Docetism (an early gnostic heresy) which said that the Son only appeared to have a body, but didn’t really come in flesh (dwelleth is a compound verb, and it means bodily). It rejects another early gnostic teaching called Cerinthianism which held that the logos descended on Jesus at baptism and left Him on the cross (all the fullness of deity, everything that is “deity,” the “state of being God” resides in Him bodily). He is in very nature God. In short, Paul it seems to me, was absolutely clear in his meaning.

Blessings,
Finally we have something we can agree on!


This is not a man with divine attributes, this is not a man indwelled by God or given the spirit without measure, this person is deity itself residing in bodily form. I agree with you when you say that "this person is deity itself residing in bodily form" but do you believe that not only is this person deity itself residing in bodily form but He is also given the Spirit without measure to work the works of God ie: the Spirit of the Lord is upon me Luke 4:18, and, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you Acts 2:22, and, And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan

[TheLayman]

Finally we have something we can agree on!

:eek::clap3::clap::yay!::icon_woohoo:

I agree with you when you say that "this person is deity itself residing in bodily form" but do you believe that not only is this person deity itself residing in bodily form but He is also given the Spirit without measure to work the works of God ie: the Spirit of the Lord is upon me Luke 4:18, and, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you Acts 2:22, and, And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan


Now we return to our regularly scheduled communication... :wall:

Mizpeh, the topic is Col. 1:12-17. We have gone from there to Col. 2:9. I answered your question regarding 2:9 and now you ask a completely off topic question: but do you believe that not only is this person deity itself residing in bodily form but He is also given the Spirit without measure to work the works of God. Work with me a little Mizpeh. Look at the topic and look where you are now. Mizpeh, I can not have conversations that are all over the place like that, they are in my view virtually pointless. So I have strayed as far from the topic for you as I will go.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[jlw515]

Here are my comments on the subject: (you can read my full exeget of John 1:1f on the Godhead forum)

ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANYTHING MADE THAT WAS MADE (1:3)

The masculine pronoun “him” in this verse answers back to the masculine noun “Logos” in verse 1. The masculine pronoun “him” no more suggests that the “Logos” (Word) is a separate person in the Godhead or that the “Logos” was the physical “form, body” of God, than the feminine pronouns “she/her” suggests that Wisdom and Understanding had a physical form or body.

“Doth not wisdom cry? And understanding put forth her voice? She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors” (Proverbs 8:1-3).

The context of John 1:3 is: “All things were made by (the Word); and without (the Word) was not anything made that was made.” Again, as we have already seen in John 1:1, this takes the reader back to the creative narrative of the Old Testament. Psalm 33:6-9 states:

“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.”

The word “Word” in the Greek Septuagint text of Psalm 33:6 is “Logos” the same word used in John 1:1. Thus, the heavens and earth were made by the “Word” (Logos) of the Lord. The word “Logos” (“word”) in this passage does not refer to a separate personage in the Godhead, or to a physical bodily “form” of God. Rather, “Logos” refers to the “spoken word.” Notice the context of the passage, by the “Word” (Logos) of the Lord were the heavens made, for he SPAKE, and it was done. Therefore, “he” in John 1:3 i.e. the Word (Logos) refers to the “creative” Word spoken in Genesis 1:3-29: “And God said, Let there be light;” etc.

Some have suggested that the phrase “by him” implies that God created the heavens and earth through the agency of another person or even a bodily “form.” When we examine the creative narrative of John in the light of the Old Testament, we see that this is not so. The Old Testament allows only attributes of God as agents by which God created.

“The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. By his knowledge the depths are broken up, and the clouds drop down dew” (Proverbs 3:19).

“I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me” (Jer. 27:5).

“He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion” (Jer. 10:12).

It is interesting that in speaking of other personages, beings, separate individuals, physical “forms,” etc., that creation was done by the LORD alone and by himself.

“O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth” (Isa. 37:16).

“Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself” (Isa. 44:24).

“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else” (Isa. 45:18).

These passages emphatically deny that God the Father used “intermediate agents” of personages in the creation.

cont...

[jlw515]

The word “by” in the phrase “by him” is the Greek word “dia” which is the typical Greek word of intermediate agency. However, dia does not demand the agency of a separate person or bodlily “form.” As we have already pointed out, God created all things “alone,” through the agency of His spoken Word (logos). There are other New Testament passages, however, that do speak of the Father creating the heavens and the earth by the Son.


“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by (dia) Jesus Christ” (Eph. 3:9).

“Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son … for by (en) him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by (dia) him and for (eis) him” (Col. 1:13-16).

“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by (en) his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by (dia) whom also he made the worlds” (Heb. 1:2).

These passages can be explained one of two ways:

First they can be understood as simply stating that the One who later became the Son created the world. For example, when we say, “President Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Arkansas,” we do not mean that he was president at the time he was born. Rather, the one who later became president was born there. In the same manner, these verses are not saying He was the Son when He created the worlds. Rather the One who later became the Son created the world.

A second way of explaining these passages (which fits the context better) is that God created the worlds for the cause of the Son, or with the Son in view. The word “dia” does not always refer to “intermediate agency.” The word “dia” is used for both “agency” (through) and “cause” (reason). If “dia” always refers to “intermediate agency,” then for whom is God the Father the intermediate agent?

“For of him (God the Father vs. 32-34), and through (dia) him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36).

“For it became him, for whom are all things, and by (dia) whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10).

“Intermediate agency” implies “subordination.” To whom is God the Father suboridinate?! All five standard Greek-English Lexicons of the New Testament (Thayer, Robinson, Abbott-Smith, Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich, & Perschbacher) list “efficient cause” as a definition of “dia” used with the genitive case. Both Thayer and Abbott-Smith list such passages as: Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10; Gal. 4:7; Rom. 1:8; 7:25; & Col. 3:17 under the definition of “efficient cause”. Thayer explained the last few verses in this list, which use the phrase “through (dia) Jesus Christ” as meaning:

“Ro. i.8; vii.25; Col. iii.17, - because the possibility both of glorifying God and of giving thanks to him is DUE to the kindness of Christ” (Joseph Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, p. 133).

Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2, pp. 66-68 gives the following definition of “dia”:

“DIA” “4. Instrumental: a. with gen. of cause: ‘by means of,’ ‘with,’ ‘through’; b. with gen. of person: ‘through the mediation of.’ … 5. Causal: a. of the cause: ‘in consequence of,’ ‘on the basis of,’ ‘on account of’; b. of the author: ‘from,’ ‘for the sake of.’ This gives rise to the most urgent problem from the standpoint of biblical theology. Schettler emphasises this causal use, and explains the formula dia Christou [‘through Christ’ jlw] exclusively in terms of the pneumatic Christ, whereas Paul surely saw an inseparable unity between the pneumatic Christ and the historical. Yet there are elements of truth in his presentation as compared with the traditional notion that Christ is to be regarded as the Mediator of the religious expression of man (sense 4b). … It is in the light of these that we are primarily to understand the distinctive Christian formula ‘through Christ’ in its various nuances. … The whole Christ is the Author of apostolic authority: … Hence constructions like eucharistein, charis, Theo, doxazein ton Theon dia Iesou Christou [‘thank God through Jesus Christ’ or ‘glory to God through Jesus Christ’ (jlw)](Ro. 1:8; 7:25; 2 C. 1:20; 1 Pt. 4:11; R. 16:27) … (Heb. 13:15; cf. 1 Pt. 2:5), etc. DO NOT MEAN that Christ interposes as an intermediary between God and man, or, to put it in other words, that ‘Christ is set in motion by an act of man, but rather that an act of Christ underlies the existence and action of the Christian, the initiative always being with Christ’.”

In other words the phrase “through Jesus Christ” does not mean that Jesus Christ is the “intermediate agent” through whom our praise, prayer, etc. is given (like a writer writes through the pen); rather it means that our praise is “in consequence of,” “on the basis of,” or “for the sake of” Jesus Christ. Thus, the Greek preposition “dia” even when used with the genitive case can mean, “because of,” “on account of,” or “on the basis of.” Therefore such passages as Eph. 3:9, Col. 1:13-16 & Heb. 1:2 are best explained as God created the worlds “on the basis of” the Son. That is, God based all creation on the future incarnation and atonement. Although He did not take upon humanity until the “fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4), the Incarnation was in the mind of God (“the Word was with God” Jn 1:1) from the beginning. Rev. 13:8 speaks of the Lamb who was “slain from the foundation of the world.” 1 Pet. 1:19-20 says that Christ the Lamb “was foreordained before the foundation of the world.” Thus, God created the worlds on the basis of the Son of God dying for our sins.

Bro. Jason

[mizpeh]

:eek::clap3::clap::yay!::icon_woohoo:




Now we return to our regularly scheduled communication... :wall:

Mizpeh, the topic is Col. 1:12-17. We have gone from there to Col. 2:9. I answered your question regarding 2:9 and now you ask a completely off topic question: but do you believe that not only is this person deity itself residing in bodily form but He is also given the Spirit without measure to work the works of God. Work with me a little Mizpeh. Look at the topic and look where you are now. Mizpeh, I can not have conversations that are all over the place like that, they are in my view virtually pointless. So I have strayed as far from the topic for you as I will go.

Blessings,
TheLayman
Okay, this time I intentially strayed from the topic. My question has nothing to do with who the Son is or the passage in question. I apologize. Carry on. :angel2:

[BroRutledge]

Everybody on this thread is invited to continue the Trinity-Oneness discussions on the new Site that we have just built. We also invite you to stay with the GNC and work with us in our new format.

Our new site is http://www.godchatcafe.com

On this new site everybody can have full liberty of expression with no fear of admins banning you or even reprimanding you regardless of how strong you post. Trinitarians have full liberty to teach your doctrines over there as well as oneness and all other beliefs. Anybody can post anything they believe on the new site and even debate and get rough with the person that does not agree if that is your style of posting.

On the new site I will be joining in on many of these discussions, and I have some very strong views that I wish to express, so that will be the place where I will take my liberty also.

God bless
BroRutledge