Col. 1 Is Not About The Genesis Creation - Change My Mind

[TibiasDad]

I just read it and whom is the object. Like you say above whom is a referent of the subject and not the subject. The whom can not be both the subject and the object. Prove with your definition the Son is the subject and not the object?

Nathan, I honestly mean no offense, nor do I seek to degrade your intelligence or ability to understand English (for perhaps English is not your native language), but you are plumbing the depths ignorance to the point of frustration.

Again,

1. Whom, is the objective case of the pronoun Who;
2. Pronouns are "any of a small set of words (such as I, she, he, you, it, we, or they) in a language that are used as substitutes for nouns or noun phrases and whose referents are named or understood in the context." (Webster) In other words, the pronoun is equal to and the same as the nominative noun last referenced;
3. Whom is used only in certain grammatical situations, where the pronoun is receiving the action of the verb to which it is predicated, such as in Matt 12:18:

Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.

Here, the nominative/subject is "my servant", which literally is " the servant of me". The two instances of "whom" which follow, are both the same identity as the subject, my servant ", though the grammatical function is highlight the action of the verb upon or toward the subject of the sentence. (The phrase, " the one I love", is literally "the beloved of me" or "my beloved", and is an adjectival description of "my servant". The other two pronouns, him and he, are also referring to "my servant", the nominative noun/subject of the sentence.

Conclusion? The objective case of Who, which is Whom, while not a grammatical nominative noun in usage, is equivalent in identity to the nominative noun it represents. This is precisely what my previous example, "Cindy is my wife, for whom my love is reserved." reflects, just like "...my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved, in whom I delight..." (Perhaps my example would better reflect Matthew's wording if it were "Cindy is my wife, whom I have chosen, and for whom all my love is reserved." The words "my wife" and "whom", are both referring to the nominative noun " Cindy".)


Doug

 

[TibiasDad]

I typed in "who is the subject at Colossians 1:14" on Google and some of them partly agree with you. But they also say it could or should be rendered that way and not that it is the way it has to be rendered. We have some work to do in finding out what it means because we are not going to get the answers in one or a few conversations. In the meantime we will have to use an official definition and do the best we can.

It doesn't matter who the subject is in 1:14, because 1:15 has "the Son" as the nominative noun/subject and all the pronouns and adjectival descriptions through 1:18 are all logically and grammatically referring to "the Son", including "in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." God the Father is not referenced in Col 1:15-18, and cannot be the creative entity described in this context.

This is indisputable fact, Nathan, and to use 1:14 to discredit this is not going to gain you any credit.

Doug

 

[Nathan P]

It doesn't matter who the subject is in 1:14, because 1:15 has "the Son" as the nominative noun/subject and all the pronouns and adjectival descriptions through 1:18 are all logically and grammatically referring to "the Son", including "in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." God the Father is not referenced in Col 1:15-18, and cannot be the creative entity described in this context.

This is indisputable fact, Nathan, and to use 1:14 to discredit this is not going to gain you any credit.

Doug

Colossians 1:15 says he is the image of the invisible God or he is an image of the subject. I notice you do not want to discuss Colossians 1:14 since I proved the subject was the Father and not Jesus? You are cherry picking and starting at the vs you want to start at instead of taking them all into context from vs 12.

 

[Nathan P]

It doesn't matter who the subject is in 1:14, because 1:15 has "the Son" as the nominative noun/subject and all the pronouns and adjectival descriptions through 1:18 are all logically and grammatically referring to "the Son", including "in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." God the Father is not referenced in Col 1:15-18, and cannot be the creative entity described in this context.

This is indisputable fact, Nathan, and to use 1:14 to discredit this is not going to gain you any credit.

Doug

Try https://enwikipedia>nominative_ case and generally the noun that is doing something is in the nominative. It is referring to the Father because he is the one doing something there. I can find proof real good in English

 

[Nathan P]

It doesn't matter who the subject is in 1:14, because 1:15 has "the Son" as the nominative noun/subject and all the pronouns and adjectival descriptions through 1:18 are all logically and grammatically referring to "the Son", including "in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." God the Father is not referenced in Col 1:15-18, and cannot be the creative entity described in this context.

This is indisputable fact, Nathan, and to use 1:14 to discredit this is not going to gain you any credit.

Doug

The indisputable fact is the Father is the subject at Colossians 1:15. You are reading it how you want to read it and not looking at the whole picture
When I find it again I will give you the address but it has been debated for ages like it says, but when it says he is the image of the invisible God then God has to be the subject there because when it says humans were made in the likeness of God then God is the subject. You can not say in this one case he is the image of the invisible God then the he is the subject, but in all other cases when it says something like humans are the likeness of God then God is the subject and humans are in his image

 

[TibiasDad]

Colossians 1:15 says he is the image of the invisible God or he is an image of the subject. I notice you do not want to discuss Colossians 1:14 since I proved the subject was the Father and not Jesus? You are cherry picking and starting at the vs you want to start at instead of taking them all into context from vs 12.

Nathan, do you understand Greek? I am assuming you don't, for you are misconstruing the intent and usage of the objective case of Who in English. The pronoun, regardless of the grammatical position in the sentence, always refers to and is synonymous with, the nominative noun established in the immediate context.
Therefore, since the "the Son" (the Greek is Ὅς, which is the pronoun "he", and refers back to "the Son" in verse 13), in 1:15, is indisputably the nominative case noun, all of the adjectival descriptions which follow through verse 1:18 are solely about the Son, not the Father. No self-respecting student or respected teacher of either Greek or English would say anything different. It can't be read/interpreted in any other way. It is literally impossible!

Doug

 

[Nathan P]

Nathan, do you understand Greek? I am assuming you don't, for you are misconstruing the intent and usage of the objective case of Who in English. The pronoun, regardless of the grammatical position in the sentence, always refers to and is synonymous with, the nominative noun established in the immediate context.
Therefore, since the "the Son" (the Greek is Ὅς, which is the pronoun "he", and refers back to "the Son" in verse 13), in 1:15, is indisputably the nominative case noun, all of the adjectival descriptions which follow through verse 1:18 are solely about the Son, not the Father. No self-respecting student or respected teacher of either Greek or English would say anything different. It can't be read/interpreted in any other way. It is literally impossible!

Doug

Like I just proved to the other one when it says humans are in the likeness of God or something similar everyone says God is the subject. Or you can not say in only this one case when it says he is the image of the invisible God then the he is the subject, but in all other cases when it says humans are in the likeness of God then God is the subject.

 

[Nathan P]

Nathan, do you understand Greek? I am assuming you don't, for you are misconstruing the intent and usage of the objective case of Who in English. The pronoun, regardless of the grammatical position in the sentence, always refers to and is synonymous with, the nominative noun established in the immediate context.
Therefore, since the "the Son" (the Greek is Ὅς, which is the pronoun "he", and refers back to "the Son" in verse 13), in 1:15, is indisputably the nominative case noun, all of the adjectival descriptions which follow through verse 1:18 are solely about the Son, not the Father. No self-respecting student or respected teacher of either Greek or English would say anything different. It can't be read/interpreted in any other way. It is literally impossible!

Doug

No it does not refer back to the Son in vs 13 and instead it is talking about what the Father did there. It says he has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of his love in whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins. It is talking about what the Father did through the Son.

 

[TibiasDad]

No it does not refer back to the Son in vs 13 and instead it is talking about what the Father did there. It says he has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of his love in whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins. It is talking about what the Father did through the Son.

Nathan,

I am trying to be as fair to you as I possibly can, and I’m I am hoping that you are not a native English speaker, for that is the only thing that helps me explain your seeming inability to grasp the simple things of the English language.

A pronoun cannot refer back to an action done. A pronoun can only refer to a noun or another pronoun. It can only refer to the last noun or pronoun mentioned.

So the “He” at the beginning of 1:15 (translated as “The Son” in the NIV) refers directly back to the “whom” in verse 14, which we both agree is Jesus, the son God loves.

Besides, the “He” in 1:15 cannot be the Father because the “he”, is “the image of the invisible God”, ie, the Father. It makes no sense to say the Father is the image of God. Add to this that Hebrews 1:3 clearly says, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word”, which paints the same picture as “the image of the invisible God”!

Doug

 

[Nathan P]

Nathan,

I am trying to be as fair to you as I possibly can, and I’m I am hoping that you are not a native English speaker, for that is the only thing that helps me explain your seeming inability to grasp the simple things of the English language.

A pronoun cannot refer back to an action done. A pronoun can only refer to a noun or another pronoun. It can only refer to the last noun or pronoun mentioned.

So the “He” at the beginning of 1:15 (translated as “The Son” in the NIV) refers directly back to the “whom” in verse 14, which we both agree is Jesus, the son God loves.

Besides, the “He” in 1:15 cannot be the Father because the “he”, is “the image of the invisible God”, ie, the Father. It makes no sense to say the Father is the image of God. Add to this that Hebrews 1:3 clearly says, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word”, which paints the same picture as “the image of the invisible God”!

Doug

You are reading it backwards so it says what you want it to say. From vs 12-14 it is what the Father does through the Son. Meaning at vs 15 he is an image of the subject who is the Father at vs 15. It is me who is being fair to get you to read it the way it is to be read and not how you want to read it.
Also at https:grammar://www.yourdictionary.com the subject of a sentence is the noun that is doing or being something. The Father is the one doing something from vs 12-14 and thus the Father is the subject.

 

[Nathan P]

You are reading it backwards so it says what you want it to say. From vs 12-14 it is what the Father does through the Son. Meaning at vs 15 he is an image of the subject who is the Father at vs 15. It is me who is being fair to get you to read it the way it is to be read and not how you want to read it.
Also at https:grammar://www.yourdictionary.com the subject of a sentence is the noun that is doing or being something. The Father is the one doing something from vs 12-14 and thus the Father is the subject.

https://grammar.yourdictionary.com>grammar>sentences Or just type in on Google is the subject the noun that is doing something and it will show up instead of going through all that to find what you want.

Also there the direct object is receiving the action of the verb and the direct object there is is receiving the action of the verb.

 

[Nathan P]

Nathan,

I am trying to be as fair to you as I possibly can, and I’m I am hoping that you are not a native English speaker, for that is the only thing that helps me explain your seeming inability to grasp the simple things of the English language.

A pronoun cannot refer back to an action done. A pronoun can only refer to a noun or another pronoun. It can only refer to the last noun or pronoun mentioned.

So the “He” at the beginning of 1:15 (translated as “The Son” in the NIV) refers directly back to the “whom” in verse 14, which we both agree is Jesus, the son God loves.

Besides, the “He” in 1:15 cannot be the Father because the “he”, is “the image of the invisible God”, ie, the Father. It makes no sense to say the Father is the image of God. Add to this that Hebrews 1:3 clearly says, “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word”, which paints the same picture as “the image of the invisible God”!

Doug

Exactly it says he is the image of the invisible God. If I say "of the one I want" which one is the subject one or I?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

If we simply compare what Paul wrote in Eph 1 and Col 1 there’s no denying he’s writing about the same thing in both epistles. Both take place after the resurrection, not the genesis creation. Here are just some of the many similarities and note that with a couple exceptions, they flow in almost exactly the same order:

Eph. 1:16 “I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers”
Col. 1:9 “we have not ceased to pray for you”

Eph. 1:16 “may give you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him”
Col. 1:9 “may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding”

Eph. 1:18 “what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints”
Col. 1:12 “to share in the inheritance of the saints in light”

Eph. 1:19 “the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might”
Col. 1:11 “being strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might”

Eph. 1:20 “when he raised him from the dead”
Col. 1:15/18 “the firstborn of all creation” / “the firstborn from the dead”

Eph. 1:10 “to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth ”
Col. 1:16 “for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth” (The Greek word εν should be translated as in not by)

Eph. 1:21 “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion”
Col. 1:16 “whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities”

Eph. 1:22 “and he put all things under his feet”
Col. 1:17 “and he is before (above) all things”


Eph. 1:22 “and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body”
Col. 1:18 “and he is the head of the body, the church”

Eph. 1:23 “the fullness of him who fills all in all”
Col. 1:19 “for in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”

Even the immediate paragraph following begins extremely similar:

Eph. 2:1 “and you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked”
Col. 1:21 “and you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds”

So its quite clear Paul isn’t saying Jesus is the genesis creator in Col 1 but rather he is talking about his exaltation after the resurrection. The evidence is honestly overwhelming but you’re welcome to change my mind…

But what He IS saying is that the WORD (who was with God, and who WAS God) is the Creator, and subsequently was incarnated as the HUMAN MAN Jesus. Jesus didn['t exist until Mary became pregnant with Him. The WORD is eternal.

 

[JNelson]

But what He IS saying is that the WORD (who was with God, and who WAS God) is the Creator, and subsequently was incarnated as the HUMAN MAN Jesus.

The word is not spoken of in Col. 1 which parallels the verses shown in Eph. 1.

John 1:1-3 is not speaking about the same thing Paul speaks of in Col. 1/Eph. 1 nor is John 1:1-3 about Jesus.

Jesus didn['t exist until Mary became pregnant with Him. The WORD is eternal.

I agree since Jesus is a human who didn’t exist until he was conceived and God is eternal which means his word is also eternal, though not a distinct person.

 

[Dizerner]

So its quite clear Paul isn’t saying Jesus is the genesis creator in Col 1 but rather he is talking about his exaltation after the resurrection. The evidence is honestly overwhelming but you’re welcome to change my mind…

So you think a similar context and flow of thought violates the plain meaning of words?

That's not how exegesis works. There is no reason Paul cannot include/exclude a fact from one or the other epistle in a similar context.

The Colossians were facing a specific heresy—and we can feel an emphasis throughout the book that is not in Ephesians.

Col. 1:16 “for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth”

All you're doing is special pleading for your position.

 

[aeg4971]

If we simply compare what Paul wrote in Eph 1 and Col 1 there’s no denying he’s writing about the same thing in both epistles. Both take place after the resurrection, not the genesis creation. Here are just some of the many similarities and note that with a couple exceptions, they flow in almost exactly the same order:

Eph. 1:16 “I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers”
Col. 1:9 “we have not ceased to pray for you”

Eph. 1:16 “may give you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him”
Col. 1:9 “may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding”

Eph. 1:18 “what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints”
Col. 1:12 “to share in the inheritance of the saints in light”

Eph. 1:19 “the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might”
Col. 1:11 “being strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might”

Eph. 1:20 “when he raised him from the dead”
Col. 1:15/18 “the firstborn of all creation” / “the firstborn from the dead”

Eph. 1:10 “to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth ”
Col. 1:16 “for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth” (The Greek word εν should be translated as in not by)

Eph. 1:21 “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion”
Col. 1:16 “whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities”

Eph. 1:22 “and he put all things under his feet”
Col. 1:17 “and he is before (above) all things”


Eph. 1:22 “and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body”
Col. 1:18 “and he is the head of the body, the church”

Eph. 1:23 “the fullness of him who fills all in all”
Col. 1:19 “for in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell”

Even the immediate paragraph following begins extremely similar:

Eph. 2:1 “and you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked”
Col. 1:21 “and you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds”

So its quite clear Paul isn’t saying Jesus is the genesis creator in Col 1 but rather he is talking about his exaltation after the resurrection. The evidence is honestly overwhelming but you’re welcome to change my mind…

Only pagans would conclude Paul is saying that God gave God powers to a creature. after birth after death and after resurrections, . Christ would not have done any of this ,save for being mediator and the Eternal Form of God.

....... Alan

 

[johnny guitar]

The word is not spoken of in Col. 1 which parallels the verses shown in Eph. 1.

John 1:1-3 is not speaking about the same thing Paul speaks of in Col. 1/Eph. 1 nor is John 1:1-3 about Jesus.

I agree since Jesus is a human who didn’t exist until he was conceived and God is eternal which means his word is also eternal, though not a distinct person.

The Word who IS God at John1:1 is very definitely a PERSON.

 

[JNelson]

So you think a similar context and flow of thought violates the plain meaning of words?

Never said it does. You’re the one ignoring the entire context and assuming that just because Paul used the word creation it has to be the genesis creation which is wrong.

That's not how exegesis works. There is no reason Paul cannot include/exclude a fact from one or the other epistle in a similar context.

Again, I never said both epistles were exactly the same but just because one has a few more details than the other or that he uses slightly different wording doesn’t mean its two different events.

The Colossians were facing a specific heresy—and we can feel an emphasis throughout the book that is not in Ephesians.

That still doesn’t change the fact that the verses I cited are referring to the same event.

Col. 1:16 “for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth”

I agree with Paul and the context of both Eph. 1 and Col. 1 clearly show it’s about Jesus being exalted to the right hand of God not the genesis creation.

All you're doing is special pleading for your position.

No special pleading here, the context in Col. 1 alone is enough to prove it’s not about the genesis creation. Eph. 1 just further supports this truth.

 

[JNelson]

Only pagans would conclude Paul is saying that God gave God powers to a creature.

So God gave powers to God?? If Jesus was God he would ones anyone to give him powers or authority.

after birth after death and after resurrections,

Yes, scriptures teaches this. Jesus himself teaches this “All authority in heaven and on earth has been GIVEN to me”.

Christ would not have done any of this ,save for being mediator and the Eternal Form of God.

You just refuse to believe what scriptures plainly state.

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst”

According to your logic Peter and the 3,000 saved that day were pagans

 

[aeg4971]

So God gave powers to God?? If Jesus was God he would ones anyone to give him powers or authority.

Yes, scriptures teaches this. Jesus himself teaches this “All authority in heaven and on earth has been GIVEN to me”.

You just refuse to believe what scriptures plainly state.

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst”

According to your logic Peter and the 3,000 saved that day were pagans

Since this man the Christ and Son of God is manifesting God, then God is not giving any ol creature God powers, but appointed this particular man, heir. That appointment is in the Son existence as the mediator . So NO God is not giving powers to God . This man the Christ cannot receive all power and authority save for God hypostasis in Himself. Even if you call it the fully indwelling spirit . That would be the underlying reality which supports all else. Still by way of Hypostasis.

I refuse to believe given means according to your logic ,"God turning to a son handing him God powers of authority. Its ridiculous. To be Commanded and to obey , to be given and to receive must need be an order to this man Jesus the Christ very being as He is the mediator between God and men. Just as you said above ,"All authority in heaven and on earth has been GIVEN to me”. “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst”.

The only point of contention you can possibly argue is that, we tend to be so eager to grasp the Son equality with the Father , when He Himself do not consider it something to grasp, for He was in the form of a servant, a man depending on God and His Father.

Once again I do not refuse to believe what the scriptures plainly state. I do however refuse your modern humanistic resolve of what the scriptures plainly state.

.......Alan