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

cjab

Well-known member
I agree that it relates to 1 Cor. 15:24-27 and so does Col 1. You want to ignore this because you listen to Arius instead of Jesus, Paul and the apostles
I do not listen to Arius as I don't assert that "the Son" was "begotten in heaven" which is an essential requirement on all Arians. Moreover, Jesus, Paul and John disown you as a Soccinian heretic directly denying the very words of Christ e.g. John 17:5. Personally I would excommunicate you.

he was appointed and foreknown but he didn’t exist until his birth
So you repudiate John's gospel. Got it. Why not just say so and be honest about it?
 

JNelson

Well-known member
I do not listen to Arius as I don't assert that "the Son" was "begotten in heaven" which is an essential requirement on all Arians. Moreover, Jesus, Paul and John disown you as a Soccinian heretic directly denying the very words of Christ e.g. John 17:5. Personally I would excommunicate you.
Just like you don’t listen to Arius I don’t listen to Sozzini so you can stop that ridiculous labeling. I follow what scriptures say and only scriptures. John 17:5 doesn’t say what you impose it does. But you rather believe your false doctrine more than what Jesus said just two verses earlier.

So you repudiate John's gospel. Got it. Why not just say so and be honest about it?
I don’t repudiate John’s gospel, I repudiate your false interpretation of it
 

cjab

Well-known member
Just like you don’t listen to Arius I don’t listen to Sozzini so you can stop that ridiculous labeling. I follow what scriptures say and only scriptures. John 17:5 doesn’t say what you impose it does. But you rather believe your false doctrine more than what Jesus said just two verses earlier.
Having been involved in an extensive discussion of the correct Greek translation of John 17:5, in respect of verb tenses, I can assure you that it means exactly what it says. It isn't referring to "predestinated glory" which would require different Greek tenses.

What you personally believe is hardly relevant: rejection of the deity of Christ (i.e. Christ having come down from heaven) is very dangerous, and frequently accompanied by outright apostasy from any regulated doctrined, as is seen with unitarian universalists. Although there are many different types of unitarian, the rejection of Christ's deity, by which I mean the transcendence and permanence of his soul / person, and origination in God, entails crossing a line. It's the gateway into repudiating Christ as the monogenes son of God.

Jogn 17:5 can only refer to the glory that Christ had with the Father before he was born and before the world was.

I have yet to hear any unitarian articulate any credible or coherent belief system. In the end it usually entails philosophical speculation easily as bad and speculative as that of Trinitarianism that it seeks to supplant. It isn't apostolic, had no adherents in the early church, and effectively denies the Son. Most of its adherent have little or no knowledge of the Greek language and are incompetent to exegete the Greek texts.

You yourself have failed to give any rational account of the many verses in Revelation and in John's gospel and in 1 John that allude to Christ's pre-existence.


I don’t repudiate John’s gospel, I repudiate your false interpretation of it
You repudiate the very words of the gospel as exists in print e.g. "Before Abraham was born I AM".
 
Last edited:

Caroljeen

Active member
I have yet to hear any unitarian articulate any credible or coherent belief system. In the end it usually entails philosophical speculation easily as bad and speculative as that of Trinitarianism that it seeks to supplant.

are you a trinitarian?
 

cjab

Well-known member
are you a trinitarian?
Not according to the definition of "one God in three persons." I see this as untrue, because the Father alone is properly denoted as "the God." So there is no "God in the Father." Such nonsense I account to be grevious heresy. Rather the Father is "the God," axiomatically, the son and holy spirit being of God and from God.
 

Caroljeen

Active member
Not according to the definition of "one God in three persons." I see this as untrue, because the Father alone is properly denoted as "the God." So there is no "God in the Father." Such nonsense I account to be grevious heresy. Rather the Father is "the God," axiomatically, the son and holy spirit being of God and from God.
when was the son and spirit "of" and "from" God?
 

cjab

Well-known member
when was the son and spirit "of" and "from" God?
When I say son I also mean the Word - all forms of existence of Jesus in heaven and on earth. So they are "from God" when they go out from God (Word became Jesus, Holy Spirit comes to men). They are of God from eternity.
 

Caroljeen

Active member
They are not different persons of God but they are God. What is your definition of God? Do you ever define God as nature?
When did God become a Father to a Son?
 
Last edited:

Caroljeen

Active member
I'm just trying to figure out what you believe about God. Do you identify with any of the early church heresies?
 

Caroljeen

Active member
When I say son I also mean the Word - all forms of existence of Jesus in heaven and on earth. So they are "from God" when they go out from God (Word became Jesus, Holy Spirit comes to men). They are of God from eternity.
They are not different persons of God but they are God. What is your definition of God? Do you ever define God as nature?
When did God become a Father to a Son?
I'm just trying to figure out what you believe about God. Do you identify with any of the early church heresies?
 

cjab

Well-known member
They are not different persons of God but they are God.
What is meant by "They are God" is difficult matter but IMO it means they represent and act for the Father.

When you say "they are not different persons" - that is a perfectly meaningless statement when referring to things in heaven which are beyond your conceptual grasp. Rather, "they are not human persons," and categorically so. They are Spirit.

I see all the following as true at the same time.

λόγος [ἦν] τοῦ θεοῦ (Genitive) Rev 19:13
λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Accusative) John 1:1b
λόγος ἦν παρά τφ Θεφ (Dative) (same as John 1:1b )
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος John 1:1c (nominative)

Where θεὸς has the article (highlighted) the Father is denoted personally.
Where θεὸς doesn't have the article, the Father is denoted impersonally.
 
Last edited:

Caroljeen

Active member
What is meant by "They are God" is difficult matter but IMO it means they represent and act for the Father.
What was the Father called before the conception of the Son?

Do you understand the Word and the Spirit to be a type of literary device (synecdoche) used by the authors of the Bible to speak of an aspect of God for the whole of God? In this way the Word is actually God but they use it to describe an aspect of God that is in view. God spoke the world into existence by his spoken word, the Logos. So when the Word is used it is referring to God's expression and revelation of himself through spoken words but it is one specific aspect of God being used for the whole of God.

When you say "they are not different persons" - that is a perfectly meaningless statement when referring to things in heaven which are beyond your conceptual grasp. Rather, "they are not human persons," and categorically so. They are Spirit.
I use the word "person" to describe the self of a rational being. I'm not using it in the sense of a human individual.
Whatever is spirit is a spirit, whether, divine, angelic, or human. So would you call the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, one Spirit?
I see all the following as true at the same time.

λόγος [ἦν] τοῦ θεοῦ (Genitive) Rev 19:13
The Word of God (the Word belongs to God)
λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Accusative) John 1:1b
λόγος ἦν παρά τφ Θεφ (Dative) (same as John 1:1b )
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος John 1:1c (nominative)

Where θεὸς has the article (highlighted) the Father is denoted personally.
Where θεὸς doesn't have the article, the Father is denoted impersonally.
How can there be a Father before the conception?
Why are you using pros and para for John 1: 1b? shouldn't it be pros?

The word was with God
The word was God. (Qualitative?) How can the Father be impersonal? Your using the word "person" about in regards to the Father.

sorry , no time to edit
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
What was the Father called before the conception of the Son?
I don't know. Their names are known to themselves Rev 19:12

Do you understand the Word and the Spirit to be a type of literary device (synecdoche) used by the authors of the Bible to speak of an aspect of God for the whole of God?
No

In this way the Word is actually God but they use it to describe an aspect of God that is in view. God spoke the world into existence by his spoken word, the Logos. So when the Word is used it is referring to God's expression and revelation of himself through spoken words but it is one specific aspect of God being used for the whole of God.
The Word (as Jesus) and Spirit go out from God. It is thus wrong to denote either as an aspect of God.

I use the word "person" to describe the self of a rational being. I'm not using it in the sense of a human individual.
Whatever is spirit is a spirit, whether, divine, angelic, or human. So would you call the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, one Spirit?
No, they are not "Spirits" but "spirit." God is beyond human conception. As denoted God is one. As prayed to, God is the Father, where Jesus exercises the Father's power.

The Word of God (the Word belongs to God)

How can there be a Father before the conception?
Father is a term for human consumption I'll agree, but it is also a spiritual term denoting headship (1 Cor 11:3). In this latter sense, the term conveys the sense of the dependency of "the Word" on "the God," a kind of corporate structure by way of analogy, where the Father is the owner of the company and the Word the CEO.

Why are you using pros and para for John 1: 1b? shouldn't it be pros?
I have it good authority (from a Greek professor) that the two phrases are analogous (it was a case of language changing over time or just a different way of saying the same thing). The two constructs seem to be used interchangeably in the bible.

The word was with God
The word was God. (Qualitative?) How can the Father be impersonal? Your using the word "person" about in regards to the Father.

sorry , no time to edit
Trinitarians say qualitative, I say impersonal. The Greek says "God was the Word" meaning that the Word exerts the Father's power (i.e. all things created through Christ). This is about who is acting as God with respect to the world: it is the Word. It isn't primarily about the nature of the Word versus the nature of the Father, but an objective statement: who is our immediate God? It is the Word that is ruler over all creation (Rev 3:14). All we know is that both are in the form of God and that they are one.
 
Last edited:

Caroljeen

Active member
I don't know. Their names are known to themselves Rev 19:12
Why not YHWH?

If God became "Father" at the conception/incarnation of the Word, then I think you might be using the title "Father" anachronistically (which is okay), but might be a little confusing for those of us trying to figure out your theology.
That is how I understand the "Word" as a synecdoche. Because it really isn't a name but more of a thought/plan in the mind and spoken as words. (Greek influence) That is how God created and the apostle John called the Son, Jesus Christ, the "Word" that was with God and was God. John was saying that the Word that was with God was simply an aspect of God himself that was used to create. A specific aspect of God's self spoken of in highlight for the whole. Not another person.
When
The Word (as Jesus) and Spirit go out from God. It is thus wrong to denote either as an aspect of God.
I explained this more specifically above in this post.
Would you compare them to emanations?
No, they are not "Spirits" but "spirit." God is beyond human conception. As denoted God is one. As prayed to, God is the Father, where Jesus exercises the Father's power.
In the OT, the Jews didn't pray to God the Father nor did Jesus exercise the Father's power until he was incarnate. I'm interested in what the Word and Spirit were in the OT. What did they do? Was the Word, the angel of YHWH?
Father is a term for human consumption I'll agree, but it is also a spiritual term denoting headship (1 Cor 11:3). In this latter sense, the term conveys the sense of the dependency of "the Word" on "the God," a kind of corporate structure by way of analogy, where the Father is the owner of the company and the Word the CEO.
Sounds like 2 persons.
I agree that no one can fully comprehend God but we can try to comprehend the inspired written word that he gave us through prophets and apostles.
I have it good authority (from a Greek professor) that the two phrases are analogous (it was a case of language changing over time or just a different way of saying the same thing). The two constructs seem to be used interchangeably in the bible.
Do you prefer one over the other? and why?
Trinitarians say qualitative, I say impersonal. The Greek says "God was the Word" meaning that the Word exerts the Father's power (i.e. all things created through Christ). This is about who is acting as God with respect to the world: it is the Word. It isn't primarily about the nature of the Word versus the nature of the Father, but an objective statement: who is our immediate God? It is the Word that is ruler over all creation (Rev 3:14). All we know is that both are in the form of God and that they are one.
The Greek does say 'God was the Word' in that order. "θεὸς" is without the article so the translators made "ὁ λόγος" the subject of the sentence (in the nominative) instead of "θεὸς". θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος John 1:1c

I don't think the "Word" is as mysterious as you do. Reread Genesis chapter 1.

God is spirit thus making him a spirit, even the unique Spirit of God. So when God's spirit moves or does something in a specific location or upon a specific individual, this is simply God actively doing something in a certain location when in fact the Spirit of God (which is God) is everywhere.

Thank you for explaining what you could.
Now I know not to think of you as a Trinitarian. Are you alone in holding this view of God?
 

cjab

Well-known member
Why not YHWH?
His name to men, but not one used in heaven, surely.

If God became "Father" at the conception/incarnation of the Word, then I think you might be using the title "Father" anachronistically (which is okay), but might be a little confusing for those of us trying to figure out your theology.
Father is a term of address, not a name. There are references to God as spiritual father in the OT (Psa 89:26). Father is related to God-human interaction and covenental relations. I was thinking specifically of Christ as the monogenes son of God, but the term of address is wider.

That is how I understand the "Word" as a synecdoche. Because it really isn't a name but more of a thought/plan in the mind and spoken as words. (Greek influence) That is how God created and the apostle John called the Son, Jesus Christ, the "Word" that was with God and was God. John was saying that the Word that was with God was simply an aspect of God himself that was used to create. A specific aspect of God's self spoken of in highlight for the whole. Not another person.
I could concede that the name "logos" is figurative, but not what it denotes. The gospels aren't about figures of speech. Christ said he had the Father's glory before the world was, which a figure of speech could not have.

Of course God is conceptually unknowable as invisible and there is also no reason not to infer God as complex in respect of life form. They is therefore no reason to disbelieve the literalness of the apostle or to try to superimpose a human gloss on it, like the JWs or Soccinians.

We're talking about concepts way outside the reach of mortals. That is why anyone who says that the Word is not literal life in some sense cannot ever prove it.

I explained this more specifically above in this post.
Would you compare them to emanations?
No. An emanation is something that goes out from God in heaven to form a new God in heaven. Here we're talking about things going from God to earth, i.e. changing jurisidictions. In the jurisdiction of the earth, nothing is God, because God is confined to the highest of heavens. So definitely not an emanation.

In the OT, the Jews didn't pray to God the Father nor did Jesus exercise the Father's power until he was incarnate. I'm interested in what the Word and Spirit were in the OT. What did they do? Was the Word, the angel of YHWH?
No. The Word wasn't the angel of YHWH. The Logos was confined to heaven and God's throne. Everything was put into effect by angels (Heb 1) or by the Spirit of God (Gen 1). The Logos was the origin of the words spoken by the angels and the de facto ruler over creation, weilding the power of the Father (John 1:1). The Spirit of God likewise revealed the words of the Logos to men.

Sounds like 2 persons.
It does, but they are not human persons and conceptually beyond humans to distinguish as in the form of God. Hence the reason for Deut 6:4 (God is one).

I agree that no one can fully comprehend God but we can try to comprehend the inspired written word that he gave us through prophets and apostles.
We can't go beyond what is written like the JWs do and pretend Christ was an angel. We can only make sense of what is written and for that we rely on the apostles without modification or deviation or any sort of gnosticism (life is too short for that).

Do you prefer one over the other? and why?
All the English translations treat the two phrases as substitutable (i.e. λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Accusative) is anglicized as if it read λόγος ἦν παρά τφ Θεφ (Dative)).

They seem to be synonymous: just different conventions.

The Greek does say 'God was the Word' in that order. "θεὸς" is without the article so the translators made "ὁ λόγος" the subject of the sentence (in the nominative) instead of "θεὸς". θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος John 1:1c
And yet because θεὸς comes first in John 1:1c, the emphasis is on θεὸς (irrespective of subject). John is saying God (impersonal) was the Word, rather than making a statement about the nature of the Word, which Trinitarians mistakenly suppose. John 1:1c is making a statement about the ruler of creation, which directly echoes Rev 3:14 (The Word being the ruler over God's creation - cf. my owner / CEO analogy).

I don't think the "Word" is as mysterious as you do. Reread Genesis chapter 1.
The Logos doesn't appear in the OT, ever. It is hidden by Deut 6:4. In Gen 1 it is the Spirit of God who is bringing things into being, in response to the (hidden) command of the Logos, through whom all things were made.

Note: the Logos is not "words" or a "word". It is the seat of God's creative power. The speech in Gen 1 is metaphorical.

God is spirit thus making him a spirit, even the unique Spirit of God. So when God's spirit moves or does something in a specific location or upon a specific individual, this is simply God actively doing something in a certain location when in fact the Spirit of God (which is God) is everywhere.
I don't agree. The Spirit of God is that "part" of God which goes out from heaven to the jurisdiction of creation. Jesus conceded the different jurisdictions in the Lord's prayer. That is why Gen 1 said that the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. It is deferring to the "Spirit of God" (Rev 5:6) that goes out from God, and not to the throne of God. The Spirit of God is the instrument by which creation came about (and the instrument for all sorts of other things too).

Thank you for explaining what you could.
Now I know not to think of you as a Trinitarian. Are you alone in holding this view of God?
No. There are scholars such as Winer and John Alford (biblehub) who hold my views. In fact I think my view of God was very common in the English world, before the currect crop of hyper-trinitarians such as Wallace stole the show (at least in the USA). You have to grasp that there are two camps amongst those who hold to the deity of the Word and the Holy Spirit and the Father.

(1) There are those who concede that the bible accords the Father with the exclusive right to the title "ὁ θεὸς" (Winer, Alford, myself). These are biblical literalists who don't manipulate Sharp's rule of grammar, to fuse God and Jesus into one amorphous Trinitarian synthesis per Origen and the Greek philosophers.

(2) There are the hyper-Trinitarians such as Wallace who communize a Trinity using crankly biblical scholarship, so as to fit in with all the Greek philosophers, and their orthodox Trinitarianism based on the Council of Chalcedon etc.
 
Last edited:

johnny guitar

Well-known member
Not according to the definition of "one God in three persons." I see this as untrue, because the Father alone is properly denoted as "the God." So there is no "God in the Father." Such nonsense I account to be grevious heresy. Rather the Father is "the God," axiomatically, the son and holy spirit being of God and from God.
The Son and Holy Spirit are God.
So says the Bible.
 

Caroljeen

Active member
I could concede that the name "logos" is figurative, but not what it denotes. The gospels aren't about figures of speech. Christ said he had the Father's glory before the world was, which a figure of speech could not have.
I don't mean that the Word is a figure of speech but it useful when speaking of an aspect of God himself such has God's reasoning and plan and the God's self-expression of those things in words. A synecdoche, using a part for a whole, is one of those figures of speech. The "Word" is that aspect of God that expresses God's thoughts and plans in verbally. It is simply saying that the Word is God and focusing of the self-expression of himself. Christ (anachronistically) had glory with God because he was God, the Word of God.
Of course God is conceptually unknowable as invisible and there is also no reason not to infer God as complex in respect of life form. They is therefore no reason to disbelieve the literalness of the apostle or to try to superimpose a human gloss on it, like the JWs or Soccinians.
We're talking about concepts way outside the reach of mortals. That is why anyone who says that the Word is not literal life in some sense cannot ever prove it.
I agree that God is way above our understanding. But nevertheless, He has given us ways of knowing what he is like. Jesus, himself, being his exact representation. After reading Tozer's The Knowledge of the Holy, I wondered how I could know such an amazing being. I was reminded of Jesus Christ. This is what God looks like (not literally) and acts like. If I come to know and understand Jesus, I will know God.
I would never say that the Word is not literal life in every sense because John 1 says He is.
No. An emanation is something that goes out from God in heaven to form a new God in heaven.
That's what I thought you might have been talking about! But the new God would function as a go-between heaven and earth.
Here we're talking about things going from God to earth, i.e. changing jurisidictions. In the jurisdiction of the earth, nothing is God, because God is confined to the highest of heavens. So definitely not an emanation.
So is God, according to your understanding, utterly transcendent and not immanent? God seems to be both to me. He doesn't need intermediaries.

This reminds me of a bunch of classes I listened to by a couple of DTS graduates, Michael Patten and ?, before Patten started the Credo house. He had a nice diagram of it.
No. The Word wasn't the angel of YHWH. The Logos was confined to heaven and God's throne. Everything was put into effect by angels (Heb 1) or by the Spirit of God (Gen 1). The Logos was the origin of the words spoken by the angels and the de facto ruler over creation, weilding the power of the Father (John 1:1). The Spirit of God likewise revealed the words of the Logos to men.
WOW! I've read the Bible from beginning to end many times but never understood it to be teaching what you are describing.

I'll have to come back to respond to the rest. Interesting discussion!
 

jamesh

Active member
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…

I have a question for you? What are you going to do with John 1:1-3, especially verse 3? "All things came into being by (or through) Him, and apart (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being." Do you know the "time line" of these first three verses?

Notice that at John 1:2, beginning that the definite article has been supplied. The actual Greek is en arche-that is, "in beginning." The Word of God" thus was there BEFORE the creation of the space-mass-time of the universe. This means that John's "beginning" even antecedes the Genesis "beginning," extending without an initial beginning into eternity past.

So what's my point? The Genesis "beginning" starts the same way as the John 1:1 beginning so what's the difference? The main thought of the Genesis beginning is on "WHAT HAPPENED" in the beginning. The main thought of the John 1:1 beginning the emphasis is on "WHO EXISTED" in the beginning. That's why John 1:3 explains how all things came into being (without exception) by Jesus Christ who is God.

The Apostle Paul clearly supports this at Colossians 1:16. Also, so does Revelation 3:14. "The Amen the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this." This verse is "NOT" teaching that Jesus Christ is a created being. The Jw's along with Proverbs 8:22 love to latch on to these two verses to prove God the Father created Jesus Christ, not so. In short, I don't think your understanding holds any water in lite of the above.

IN GOD THE SON,
james

The Greek word for beginning in the verse is "arche." In fact, we get our English word "architect" from that word. An architect is a designer of something, the origin of something, the first cause, master builder. Strong's Lexicon #753 has "origin."
 
Top