ASV Colossians 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; 17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; 20 and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens.

The "logic" of Paul in this entire passage is that Christ is BOTH first in time AND the pre-eminent one of all creation.

In verse 15 Paul states that Jesus is the image of God, the firstborn in time. However Paul does not merely teach that the Christ possesses only a portion of the status which accompanies the image of God as firstborn. Certainly it would be possible for one to have temporal priority without being the most pre-eminence, but Paul inextricably links both attributes to the Christ in the entirety of this passage.

In verse 16 Paul argues for pre-eminence in addition to temporal priority because of the role of the Christ.

In verse 17 Paul teaches BOTH temporal priority and pre-eminence for AUTOS ESTIN PRO PANTWN.

In verse 18 he again combines the two attributes. The Christ is the first member of the Christian congregation and also the most pre-eminent part of it – the head. The Christ is also the firstborn of those who will be raised to heavenly life and also the most pre-eminent because he will raise the rest of the group. Yet he remains part of the group. The partitive theme is prominent.

Paul sums up this argument in the later part of verse 18 – hINA GENHTAI EN PASIN AUTOS PRWTEUWN –in order that he might become (GINOMAI) the one having first place in all things. PRWTEUWN in Lou-Nida is “to be in the first position, with the implication of high rank and prominence” in addition to having first place.

To argue that PRWTOTOKOS merely means pre-eminent one is to miss Paul’s argument, at least half of it!

There are two main attributes of PRWTOTOKOS, temporal priority and pre-eminence. Paul emphasizes one (15), then the other (16), then both (17-18) but BOTH are prominent in Paul’s argument. In addition it should be noted that it is not just 16 which follows 15. Verse 17 and 18 start with KAI so that those thoughts are ALSO included in his argument as to how the Christ is both first and pre-eminent.

I have outlined a number of ways that Paul describes the Christ as part of a group that he is pre-eminently a member. This view has the advantage of completely retaining the immediate context of verse 15 and a coherent view all the way to the end of the passage.


Kind Regards,
Cal

Dear Cal,

Would you please explain what you mean by "temporal priority."

I would agree with your concept that Christ has an eternal pre-eminence, but I would argue that Christ has an eternal priority as well being begotten from eternity consistent with the Creeds. The Second Council of Constantinople expressed it as "twice begotten" to deal with the logical expression for the two natures and maintain conformity to the doctrine of Economic Appropriation.

He is the image of the invisible God, thus Adam was made in His image, just as we are remade in His image as new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17).

I see a potential Christological problem in your position, a presupposition that may result in a denial of the Economic Appropriation, and hence reduce Christ to history and divide the incarnation. But it may just be an expression and misunderstanding of your intent.

Cordially,

Thomas

Thomas

Cal is a JW or holds to a similar Arian heresy. So no wonder he butchers Col. 1:15. The New World Translation gratuitously adds "other" in that passage.

Soc

Yesterday @ 09:08 PM post located here
Thomas2003:

Dear Cal,

Would you please explain what you mean by "temporal priority."

I would agree with your concept that Christ has an eternal pre-eminence, but I would argue that Christ has an eternal priority as well being begotten from eternity consistent with the Creeds. The Second Council of Constantinople expressed it as "twice begotten" to deal with the logical expression for the two natures and maintain conformity to the doctrine of Economic Appropriation.

He is the image of the invisible God, thus Adam was made in His image, just as we are remade in His image as new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17).

I see a potential Christological problem in your position, a presupposition that may result in a denial of the Economic Appropriation, and hence reduce Christ to history and divide the incarnation. But it may just be an expression and misunderstanding of your intent.

Cordially,

Thomas

Dear Thomas,
I am a simple bible student who holds the teachings of the bible writers above man-made creeds.

The doctrine of the two natures was derived from the "science" of Aristotle and expressed in the Medieval Scholastic Theology. This "science" considered all things to be composted of earth, wind, fire and ether.

It was by this "science" that the Medieval Scholastic theologians were able to prove that the two natures could exist together without mixing.

These "scientists" actually taught that if a drop of wine were added to a large quanity of water that the water would turn into wine. They had no concept of dilution.

Thomas Aquinas believed that the fetus of the human was the same as the fetus of animals because of their appearance and taught that God gave the human a time later than conception. This teaching was used by Darwin for his evolution model.

If you would like to comment on the Scriptures that I used which prove that Paul taught that Jesus both had temporal priority (i.e firstborn of those who were created) as well as pre-eminence I will be glad to consider them.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Socrates,

Thank you, that answered my question and suspicion in the affirmative. That explains all the greek nonsense in several other posts I've read since then.

Thanks

Thomas

Yesterday @ 04:52 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:




The "logic" of Paul in this entire passage is that Christ is BOTH first in time AND the pre-eminent one of all creation.

In verse 15 Paul states that Jesus is the image of God, the firstborn in time. However Paul does not merely teach that the Christ possesses only a portion of the status which accompanies the image of God as firstborn. Certainly it would be possible for one to have temporal priority without being the most pre-eminence, but Paul inextricably links both attributes to the Christ in the entirety of this passage.

In verse 16 Paul argues for pre-eminence in addition to temporal priority because of the role of the Christ.

In verse 17 Paul teaches BOTH temporal priority and pre-eminence for AUTOS ESTIN PRO PANTWN.

In verse 18 he again combines the two attributes. The Christ is the first member of the Christian congregation and also the most pre-eminent part of it – the head. The Christ is also the firstborn of those who will be raised to heavenly life and also the most pre-eminent because he will raise the rest of the group. Yet he remains part of the group. The partitive theme is prominent.

Paul sums up this argument in the later part of verse 18 – hINA GENHTAI EN PASIN AUTOS PRWTEUWN –in order that he might become (GINOMAI) the one having first place in all things. PRWTEUWN in Lou-Nida is “to be in the first position, with the implication of high rank and prominence” in addition to having first place.

To argue that PRWTOTOKOS merely means pre-eminent one is to miss Paul’s argument, at least half of it!

There are two main attributes of PRWTOTOKOS, temporal priority and pre-eminence. Paul emphasizes one (15), then the other (16), then both (17-18) but BOTH are prominent in Paul’s argument. In addition it should be noted that it is not just 16 which follows 15. Verse 17 and 18 start with KAI so that those thoughts are ALSO included in his argument as to how the Christ is both first and pre-eminent.

I have outlined a number of ways that Paul describes the Christ as part of a group that he is pre-eminently a member. This view has the advantage of completely retaining the immediate context of verse 15 and a coherent view all the way to the end of the passage.


Kind Regards,
Cal

Yesterday @ 04:13 PM post located here
Socrates:

Thomas

Cal is a JW or holds to a similar Arian heresy. So no wonder he butchers Col. 1:15. The New World Translation gratuitously adds "other" in that passage.

Soc

Soc,
There are a few places in your signature citation where you need to replace what appears to be an omega with a line above it, with a capital V for the final sigma.

SwkrathV

En arch hn ‘o LogoV, kai ‘o LogoV hn proV ton Qeon kai QeoV hn ‘o LogoV. OutoV hn en arch proV ton QeoV. Panta di autou egeneto kai cwriV autou egeneto oude en ‘o gegonen. —Euaggelion kata Iwannhn 1:1–3.

07-05-2003 @ 04:52 PM post located here
Cal_Minian:




The "logic" of Paul in this entire passage is that Christ is BOTH first in time AND the pre-eminent one of all creation.

In verse 15 Paul states that Jesus is the image of God, the firstborn in time. However Paul does not merely teach that the Christ possesses only a portion of the status which accompanies the image of God as firstborn. Certainly it would be possible for one to have temporal priority without being the most pre-eminence, but Paul inextricably links both attributes to the Christ in the entirety of this passage.

In verse 16 Paul argues for pre-eminence in addition to temporal priority because of the role of the Christ.

In verse 17 Paul teaches BOTH temporal priority and pre-eminence for AUTOS ESTIN PRO PANTWN.

In verse 18 he again combines the two attributes. The Christ is the first member of the Christian congregation and also the most pre-eminent part of it – the head. The Christ is also the firstborn of those who will be raised to heavenly life and also the most pre-eminent because he will raise the rest of the group. Yet he remains part of the group. The partitive theme is prominent.

Paul sums up this argument in the later part of verse 18 – hINA GENHTAI EN PASIN AUTOS PRWTEUWN –in order that he might become (GINOMAI) the one having first place in all things. PRWTEUWN in Lou-Nida is “to be in the first position, with the implication of high rank and prominence” in addition to having first place.

To argue that PRWTOTOKOS merely means pre-eminent one is to miss Paul’s argument, at least half of it!

There are two main attributes of PRWTOTOKOS, temporal priority and pre-eminence. Paul emphasizes one (15), then the other (16), then both (17-18) but BOTH are prominent in Paul’s argument. In addition it should be noted that it is not just 16 which follows 15. Verse 17 and 18 start with KAI so that those thoughts are ALSO included in his argument as to how the Christ is both first and pre-eminent.

I have outlined a number of ways that Paul describes the Christ as part of a group that he is pre-eminently a member. This view has the advantage of completely retaining the immediate context of verse 15 and a coherent view all the way to the end of the passage.


Kind Regards,
Cal

Well, Cal, I very much appreciate your spirit in this forum, as well as your inputs. But, I disagree strongly on one point.

If I use Romans 1as a guide, I can learn the things of God through the things that are made. The things that are made, that we can witness, were all created during creation week. That is the biblical record.

Given that, consider the following:
1) Trillions of beings were begotten (born) subsequent to creation week.

2) Not one creature was born during creation week.

3) Therefore not a single creature, on this plane of existence, was created via being begotten. All were created via Adam being created.

Does this teach us anything about the Son of God?

It would seem to me, to apply a parallel (keeping in mind Romans 1) that Christ, if created, was created at the starting point of HIS lineage. But, wait a second! His lineage does not trace back to a created being! It traces back to God, His Father. Thus Christ was not created.

This may seem a logical quandary, but I suggest the following.

"To be" need not be synonymous with "to be created." I suggest it is synonymous with the inception of conscious existence. After all, I lacked a conscious existence when I was created and furthermore, I came "to be" (to have a conscious existence), when begotten. Well, we're splitting hairs here, it might have preceded birth.

The Son came to be when He was born, but He was never created. I suggest that creation refers to the essence of which He was composed. That He was composed of divine essence, having proceeded from His Father (and not of created material), He was never created since that essence always was.

Now, it says that Christ is firstborn of all creation. I see harmony in that He was indeed firstborn and is "of" all creation in that He is the agent through which His Father created all.

Anyway, I am somewhat perplexed that you do not rigorously parallel Romans 1 with Christ. If you are correct about Christ being created when born, He is the lone exception among trillions and Romans 1 is severely lacking, as a God-given parallel, in that regard.

Oh, one other thing. Do you believe, as a result of Christ being born of God, that He acquired all the attributes of His Father, on that basis? Just as a human would possess human attributes on the very same basis? Of course, I am speaking of Christ's pre-incarnate existence here.


May God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Today @ 04:57 PM post located here
o2bwise:

Well, Cal, I very much appreciate your spirit in this forum, as well as your inputs. But, I disagree strongly on one point.

If I use Romans 1as a guide, I can learn the things of God through the things that are made. The things that are made, that we can witness, were all created during creation week. That is the biblical record.

Given that, consider the following:
1) Trillions of beings were begotten (born) subsequent to creation week.

2) Not one creature was born during creation week.

3) Therefore not a single creature, on this plane of existence, was created via being begotten. All were created via Adam being created.

Does this teach us anything about the Son of God?

It would seem to me, to apply a parallel (keeping in mind Romans 1) that Christ, if created, was created at the starting point of HIS lineage. But, wait a second! His lineage does not trace back to a created being! It traces back to God, His Father. Thus Christ was not created.

This may seem a logical quandary, but I suggest the following.

"To be" need not be synonymous with "to be created." I suggest it is synonymous with the inception of conscious existence. After all, I lacked a conscious existence when I was created and furthermore, I came "to be" (to have a conscious existence), when begotten. Well, we're splitting hairs here, it might have preceded birth.

The Son came to be when He was born, but He was never created. I suggest that creation refers to the essence of which He was composed. That He was composed of divine essence, having proceeded from His Father (and not of created material), He was never created since that essence always was.

Now, it says that Christ is firstborn of all creation. I see harmony in that He was indeed firstborn and is "of" all creation in that He is the agent through which His Father created all.

Anyway, I am somewhat perplexed that you do not rigorously parallel Romans 1 with Christ. If you are correct about Christ being created when born, He is the lone exception among trillions and Romans 1 is severely lacking, as a God-given parallel, in that regard.

Oh, one other thing. Do you believe, as a result of Christ being born of God, that He acquired all the attributes of His Father, on that basis? Just as a human would possess human attributes on the very same basis? Of course, I am speaking of Christ's pre-incarnate existence here.


May God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Dear Tony,
I have never drawn a parallel between what is described as creation in Romans 1:20 (if that is the verse to which you refer) and the creation of those who inhabit the spirit realm.

I'll give it some thought, but in the mean time, Romans 1:20 appears to qualify creation to be that which is in the world.

ASV Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived
through the things that are made, even his everlasting
power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

Do you interpret KOSMOS here to include angels?

Kind Regards,
Cal

Today @ 11:08 AM post located here
Cal_Minian:

Dear Tony,
I have never drawn a parallel between what is described as creation in Romans 1:20 (if that is the verse to which you refer) and the creation of those who inhabit the spirit realm.

I'll give it some thought, but in the mean time, Romans 1:20 appears to qualify creation to be that which is in the world.

ASV Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived
through the things that are made, even his everlasting
power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

Do you interpret KOSMOS here to include angels?

This verse does NOT say, "IN the world", it is using the creation of the world as a reference point, "since the creation of the world." Then from that point, "the invisible things of him are clearly seen,"

Very Kindest Regards,
Carlos

Hey Cal,

There is this Japanese woman in my church that is very young in her faith. She has zero trappings via orthodoxy. Anyway, we got to talking about the Trinity and she opened up Proverbs 8 and said, "Look! It's right there!" and proceeded to describe how Jesus was literally born of God.

Anyway, she shared with me how the Japanese rendering has an english spelling that is identical, but the Japanese rendering can be one of two.

One is: to make.

The other is: To make, as in to be begotten, born.

Just a couple of simple, direct questions.

1. Was the Son of God literally born of God?

2. After coming to be, by virtue of being begotten, was Jesus composed of divine essence?

Thanks In Advance!

Tony (o2)

Today @ 06:05 AM post located here
o2bwise:

Tony:
Hey Cal,

There is this Japanese woman in my church that is very young in her faith. She has zero trappings via orthodoxy. Anyway, we got to talking about the Trinity and she opened up Proverbs 8 and said, "Look! It's right there!" and proceeded to describe how Jesus was literally born of God. Anyway, she shared with me how the Japanese rendering has an english spelling that is identical, but the Japanese rendering can be one of two.

One is: to make.
The other is: To make, as in to be begotten, born.

Just a couple of simple, direct questions.

Cal:
Dear Tony,
I can understand the attraction of using one's own native language in exegesis, however one must remember that there are no living persons who speak the KOINH of the Greek New Testament or even the ancient Hebrew of the Old Testament.

I do not know what bible your Japanese friend was reading and I do not know Japanese. However her bible was produced in one of two ways. It was either translated directly from Hebrew into Japanese or to another language first and then into Japanese. I am sure you can see that what she read could give an incorrect understanding (or not!) depending on the choice of words used by the translators and whether or not they correctly translated the Hebrew idiom into the target language. The only real way to test an exegesis for these passages is by going directly to the original languages.

Tony:
1. Was the Son of God literally born of God?

Cal:
Before I answer that question I would like to remind you of something I shared with you earlier. It has to do with the words "create" and "beget." Biblical language does not make the same distinction between these two words as some now do.

Let's take your example from Proverbs 8. The Jews translated this from Hebrew to Greek in the Septuagint sometime after 300BC.

Begotten or Created - is there a difference?

At Proverbs 8:22,25 the phrase created me in the Greek (EKTISEN ME, created me) is used in parallel with the phrase begets me (GENNA ME) thus showing that the Jews who translated the Hebrew into Greek did not make a distinction between the two words at the time this was translated.

• 22 The LORD created me at the beginning [ 1 ] of his work, [ 2 ] the first of his acts of long ago. [1] Or me as the beginning [2] Heb way 25 Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth-- (NRSV)
  
  22 The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. 25 before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begets me. (Brenton LXX)
  
  22 KURIOJ EKTISEN ME ARXHN ODWN AUTOU EIJ ERGA AUTOU 25 PRO TOU ORH EDRASQHNAI PRO DE PANTWN BOUNWN GENNA ME (LXX)

At Psalm 90:2 it is said of the mountains that they were born using the same word as Proverbs 8:25 GENAW. However we know that mountains are created.

• 2 Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (NAB)
  
  2 PRO TOU ORH GENHQHNAI (GENAW) KAI PLASQHNAI THN GHN KAI THN OIKOUMENHN KAI APO TOU AIWNOJ EWJ TOU AIWNOJ SU EI (LXX)

Tony:

2. After coming to be, by virtue of being begotten, was Jesus composed of divine essence?

Thanks In Advance!

Tony (o2)

Cal:
I always prefer to use biblical language to describe God and Jesus. In John 4:24 we are told that God is spirit, or God is a spirit depending on your preferred translation. The Greek is PNEUMA. Angels are spirits (Heb. 1:13-14) Even demons are called spirits (Rev 18:2).

If this is what you mean by being composed of “divine essence” then I would answer yes, but I would prefer to use Scriptural language like “spirit.”

We as humans cannot know what it means to be a “spirit” any more than a man born blind knows what a “color” is. The word PNEUMA is also rendered wind, and as such it reflects what we cannot see but which can do work or have influence.

In conclusion, the distinction between "begotten" and "created" is not Scriptural. The false distinction was first made in the centuries after the last apostle died and used to bolster the Trinity. "Begotten not made" was a common distinction in these centuries but never one that was made in Scripture.

Kind Regards,
Cal

Hi Cal,

In conclusion, the distinction between "begotten" and "created" is not Scriptural.

Wait a second!

It is most certainly scriptural IF part of the process of extracting truth from scripture is use of deduction!


Genesis 2:1-4
1 Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,


Creation of this world finished and NO ONE was begotten yet! Do you think, Cal, that deduction has a place here?

No distinction? Scripture implies a total distinction!


Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,


Can I understand what it is like for God to "be a Dad" (an invisible attribute for me) by how this world operates? I suggest the following.

1. God is older than His Son.

2. The Son literally proceeded forth from His Father.

3 His Son is composed of like essence as His Dad.

4 The very existence of His Son is via the prerogative of God to have a Son.

5. He was not created as His lineage (and His essence) traces back to an uncreated being (God).


This is simple deduction.


You mentioned Christ's essence as being "spirit." To be candid, where I am relying on the Word, I don't care if His essence was 1 part concrete, two parts rubber cement.

If a bat has an offspring, I DEDUCE that the offspring has the nature of a bat. If a frog has an offspring, I conclude that the nature of the offspring is that of a frog. If a human has an offspring, I DEDUCE that the offspring has the nature of a human.

In fact, for all of the above cases, I see zero probability that the offspring of a frog would have the nature of a bat.

So, what would deduction tell us about Christ if a literal offspring of God? (And we haven't even included the idea that God created all things through His Son).

Call it what you want, Cal. I do not even need to qualify it where this post is concerned, except to say that Christ acquired the nature of His Dad - for obvious reasons.


I'm being real direct and candid here. I sense a resistance to these ideas and the only basis for such resistance that I can "conjure up" is the same resistance Trinitarians have. Institutional bias where one is in bondage for that reason, and thus resistant to embrace the truth.

This is just too simple for one of your intelligence.


May God Bless,

Tony (o2)

Hi Tony,
I am trying to understand your beliefs. Do you believe in the Trinity? It seems like you don't so I was wondering what your view of God is. Do you think Jesus has equal authority to his Father? It seems you think he is not as old or eternal. So what is your view of Jesus?

Thanks

Hi Reasonable,

No, don't believe in the Trinity.

I believe God literally had a Kid. Best we can come to fathom it, is He begat one. He gave birth to one. Thus, Christ is the Son of God by BIRTH. He acquired divine attributes by birth.

God then created all through the Son. That is, the Son did all the creating, but as the Son is "of" God, one can say in a sense that God ultimately created as well.

I believe the Son laid aside divine attributes forever when He was incarnated. Somehow, He had faith at the get-go and walked perfectly by faith. I wonder if Jesus had faith according to the intimacy of the relationship He enjoyed before the incarnation. Still, this Jesus is that same Person who is the only begotten Son of God.

When Jesus died, all of Him died.

I believe the Holy Spirit is a divine influence and not a person.

I believe Trinitarians, in meaning, deny that Christ is the Son of God.

I am beginning to think Cal Minion does as well.

To confess Christ to be the Son of God (as in the only begotten), to me, is to confess that He is a Son kind of like we are children of our parents. One acquires the nature he does by inheriting it from his parents.

God is "the one true" (original - see hebrews 8:2). Jesus is not the original. He is the Son of the one true God.


God Bless,

Tony (o2)