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

Our Lord's God

Well-known 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…

Exactly correct.

But those sick with idolatry will refuse to see what does not please their fleshly desires.
 

JNelson

Well-known member
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.
Did you study extensively the surrounding context as well? The answer is quite clear when you do.
What you personally believe is hardly relevant:
Same thing goes for you


rejection of the deity of Christ (i.e. Christ having come down from heaven) is very dangerous,
Not a single verse states believing this is necessary for salvation so it’s only dangerous if someone cares about what other men think. I care only what God thinks not men.
and frequently accompanied by outright apostasy from any regulated doctrined, as is seen with unitarian universalists.
It’s actually interesting coming from you since the Catholic Church and all Protestansts consider you a damned heretic as well.

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.
A line men have drawn up not Go
Jogn 17:5 can only refer to the glory that Christ had with the Father before he was born and before the world was.
And what type of glory do you believe this was?
I have yet to hear any unitarian articulate any credible or coherent belief system.
Everyone says the same thing about other beliefs systems except their own. I said the same thing when I was a trinitarian
In the end it usually entails philosophical speculation easily as bad and speculative as that of Trinitarianism that it seeks to supplant.
And you think that yours doesn’t involve any philosophical speculation? I need not remind you that both your doctrine and the trinitarian doctrine are rooted in the same philosophical origin, Greek paganism.
It isn't apostolic,
It’s exactly what Jesus and the apostles taught.
had no adherents in the early church,
False, but either way, I don’t really care for men believed, especially those who came afterwards with Greek philosophical baggage. I only care about what scriptures say.
and effectively denies the Son.
False again.
Most of its adherent have little or no knowledge of the Greek language and are incompetent to exegete the Greek texts.

What you and trinitarians do is called eisegesis not exegesis.
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.
It ultimately doesn’t matter what I say because anything that doesn’t agree with your view is automatically irrational
You repudiate the very words of the gospel as exists in print e.g. "Before Abraham was born I AM".
False again. I agree with those words 100%. You however repudiate the very words that are essential to eternal life and that Jesus uttered “And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”
 

JNelson

Well-known member
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."
John 1:3 is about the word of God as we see in Psalms 33:6 not Jesus.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Did you study extensively the surrounding context as well? The answer is quite clear when you do.
Of course. There is nothing about predestination in Jesus' discourse with his disciples. It is just a human contrivance to introduce predestination to stave off the inevitable meaning of Jesus' transcendence over creation.

Same thing goes for you

Not a single verse states believing this is necessary for salvation so it’s only dangerous if someone cares about what other men think. I care only what God thinks not men.
How can Christ be sinless if he was not from God? Unitarians have failed to come up with any plausible explanation. If you don't see him as sinless, he's no savior, for to be an acceptable sacrifice he had to be without blemish. This is why so many unitarians have a fairly blasé attitude towards sin.

It’s actually interesting coming from you since the Catholic Church and all Protestansts consider you a damned heretic as well.
I'll let them speak for themselves, but few people damn anyone on the basis of Trinitarians views, these days: however classical Soccinians and Arians are a case apart. Of course if you actually preached anti-Trinitarian views as a Catholic priest, you might find yourself excommunicated. But there are plenty of Catholic priests who articulate and stress the humanity of Jesus within a trinitarian context in disregard of his supposed divine person status, and which is tolerated openly by the RCC.

A line men have drawn up not Go
Men cannot be criticized. It is for men to consider what repudiating Jesus actually means, given the reference in Jude to "deny[ing] Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."

The problem without unitarianism is that it is just another form of adoptionism, which was declared heretical so long ago. Such ideas featured in gnostic doctrines (cf. Cerinthus).

And what type of glory do you believe this was?
The glory of Father, as it says.

Everyone says the same thing about other beliefs systems except their own. I said the same thing when I was a trinitarian

And you think that yours doesn’t involve any philosophical speculation? I need not remind you that both your doctrine and the trinitarian doctrine are rooted in the same philosophical origin, Greek paganism.
I disagree. Greek paganism is all about emanations from God. I don't accept any.

It’s exactly what Jesus and the apostles taught.
Hardly. How did the Spirit of Christ exist before he was born if unitarianism is true? 1Pe 1:11

Jesus, Paul, Peter and John all repudiate all who deny Christ's pre-existence in heaven.


False, but either way, I don’t really care for men believed, especially those who came afterwards with Greek philosophical baggage. I only care about what scriptures say.
I think you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Greek philosophy is all about emanations of divinity in heaven. Not so biblical theology. You can dispense with the former, without dispensing with the latter.

False again.


What you and trinitarians do is called eisegesis not exegesis.
I'm not strictly a Trinitaran as I don't see ό Θεός as applying to other than the Father.

It ultimately doesn’t matter what I say because anything that doesn’t agree with your view is automatically irrational
If you enlightened me on something I didn't already know, I would respect your position more. It seems you've got nothing to say on that account accept playing the Trinitarian bogeyman, but I'm not into protest movements. With faith, it's not good enough to simply protest, because that is what atheists do. You have to come up with a viable biblical account, which comprises the whole of scripture, including Christ saying "I am the beginning of the creation of God" which unitarians cannot account for, except by a heretical account of the creation of God being limited to the NT, which position was long the preserve of gnostics in the early church.

False again. I agree with those words 100%. You however repudiate the very words that are essential to eternal life and that Jesus uttered “And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”
If you agree with those words, you agree with Christ's pre-existence as the Logos in heaven.
 
Last edited:

jamesh

Active member
John 1:3 is about the word of God as we see in Psalms 33:6 not Jesus.
Well there it is, a man that said, "Your welcome to try and change my mind." You really mean your mind is already made up proving your not even honest with yourself.

Do you know how many times over last 59 years I've heard that "lame" excuse that John 1:1-3 is really God's spoken word. Here is how the verses would read if you believe that the Apostle John is telling us this is Gods spoken word.

"In the beginning was the spoken Word, and the spoken Word was with God, and the spoken Word is God. Vs2, This spoken Word was in the beginning with God." What human being in his right mind would say, "In the beginning when I was born, my spoken words were with me and my spoken words were in the beginning when I was born were with me." All the things that I did were by my spoken word and apart from my spoken words nothing I could not get anything done.

Oh yea, lets jump down to John 1:14, "And my spoken words became flesh and dwelt within me? :rolleyes: I take the time to explain to you about John 1:1-3 and all you can do is say, "its Gods spoken word, end of story." Tell me, why are you here on CARM?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

Caroljeen

Active member
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.
The Logos wasn't always confined to heaven, He came to earth as the man, Jesus Christ. Do you believe in the incarnation?
I thought all things were made by the Logos and without him nothing was made. Everything in John 1 from vs 1-14 is predicated on the Logos (who is God): Life, Light...He "the Logos" was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He (the Logos) came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him (the Logos), to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.
Why do you think that God (the Father in the NT) cannot be the Logos and the Spirit? I want to understand why you believe God the Father is closed off in the heavenlies away and at distance from his creation because I have a much more immanent view of God (whether, Father, Son, Spirit, Logos...)
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).
The conglomerate view of God. Is that what it's called by Winer and Alford? or did they exist before conglomerates?
From reading the Bible, there are different types of rational beings but they seem to be either God or angels or angels who are now called devils, or humans.
I don't read "God as one" as existing similar to one bunch of grapes because He comes across simply as one mind, one self, one person with his use of singular pronouns when he is speaking of himself. It's kind of shady to speak of oneself in those terms when in actuality one is a plurality.
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).
Sounds good to me.
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 think it echos back to Genesis 1 where God creates the world with his spoken "word".
What does "theos" in John 1:1c mean to you when you say God is "impersonal"? Is it the nature of God? The attributes of God only? or something else?
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.
God is his Logos. God is his spirit. God is one person. "Spirit" speaks to what God is and denotes everything he is not just "nature" but "person" as well.
To me, it sounds like you take what I would call "aspects" of God away from God and designate them as "other". And by "aspects", I'm not saying that parts as though God could be put together with different pieces of himself. But we can speak of different aspects of God, focusing on one thing at the expense of all the other aspects of God without subtracting that aspect from the whole. It's a synecdochal way of speaking.
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.
Sounds like you're talking about God's mind.
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).
I thought the jurisdiction of all things was the throne of heaven.
Would you call the Word and Spirit simply instruments? similar to took in a human's hand?
You say that God is the Father, what is he? Is he made up of instruments?


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.
What is your view called? Biblical literalism?

I did some googling but didn't find information about the 2 camps. "Biblical literalism"- seems like all evangelicals are biblical literalists as opposed to Origen and his allegories and Augustine saying much of Genesis is an extended metaphor- from Wiki.

Besides the Greek NT commentary by Alford, can you recommend writings that speak to what you have said in your last few posts?
 

Caroljeen

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…
If you had simply posted Col 1: 16, expounded on that and started there. I would have had a reason to pause and think harder and longer on your point. But instead, you gave us this comparison between Eph 1 and Col 1 which seemed to be scattered and difficult to discern what your point was. Your comparison simply muddied the waters. You could have used your comparison after you made a point that Col 1:16 is speaking of the resurrected Son (not an "eternal" Son), the image of the invisible God (visible because of his birth into this world), the firstborn over all creation. And that "creation" in this verse means a new creation in the Son ie; the church, his government, etc.

Although, I still wouldn't agree with it for a number of reasons including what CJab wrote about "visible and invisible'.
The reason I'm bringing this up was because of something Jamesh said in one of his posts to you.
 
Last edited:

JNelson

Well-known member
Of course. There is nothing about predestination in Jesus' discourse with his disciples. It is just a human contrivance to introduce predestination to stave off the inevitable meaning of Jesus' transcendence over creation.

The context in 17 clearly shows Jesus is being glorified for the work he accomplished, that how he glorified God and that’s why God will glorify him. It’s also throughout the gospel of John. No where does it ever say Jesus is being restored the glory he had and temporarily gave up.

The phrase “before the foundation of the world” is the key phrase that lets us know it’s a foreordained glory. This is how it’s used in scriptures elsewhere for Jesus like in John 17:24, 1 Pet. 1:20 and Rev. 13:8 but also of believers like in Eph. 1:4.
How can Christ be sinless if he was not from God?
Just like Adam was created sinless, Jesus was created sinless. Unlike Adam though Jesus actually obeyed God and rema
Unitarians have failed to come up with any plausible explanation.
Not sure what’s hard to understand that Jesus was perfectly obedient as scriptures clearly teach.
If you don't see him as sinless, he's no savior, for to be an acceptable sacrifice he had to be without blemish. This is why so many unitarians have a fairly blasé attitude towards sin.
If anyone says he wasn’t sinless then they don’t read their Bibles. I can’t speak for others but I take sin extremely serious.
I'll let them speak for themselves, but few people damn anyone on the basis of Trinitarians views, these days:
The majority of trinitarians will damn you for not believing their view, I’ve been “damned” by countless trinitarians once I stopped believing like they do, even by family members.

however classical Soccinians and Arians are a case apart.
Once again, I’m am not a soccinian, I’m simply a Christian who believes the word of God.
Of course if you actually preached anti-Trinitarian views as a Catholic priest, you might find yourself excommunicated. But there are plenty of Catholic priests who articulate and stress the humanity of Jesus within a trinitarian context in disregard of his supposed divine person status, and which is tolerated openly by the RCC.
The RCC is the one who has killed countless men for heresy though thankfully that practice is gone.

Men cannot be criticized. It is for men to consider what repudiating Jesus actually means, given the reference in Jude to "deny[ing] Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord."
Every man has his own opinion so I could care less what they think. God will judge me through one man alone, Jesus, not anyone else
The problem without unitarianism is that it is just another form of adoptionism, which was declared heretical so long ago. Such ideas featured in gnostic doctrines (cf. Cerinthus).
Unitarianism doesn’t have an ounce of gnosticism. Trinitarianism and oneness arose from gnostic roots. What man declares heretical meaningless to me. Don’t forget that the same people who declared many things heretical also declares you view as heretical.
The glory of Father, as it says.
That’s not what it says. You’re reading your presuppositions into the text.
I disagree. Greek paganism is all about emanations from God. I don't accept any.
It might not be Greek paganism exactly but it’s from greek roots.
Hardly. How did the Spirit of Christ exist before he was born if unitarianism is true? 1Pe 1:11
Again, your reading your theology into it. Does any verse ever say the spirit of Christ entered a human body?

Jesus, Paul, Peter and John all repudiate all who deny Christ's pre-existence in heaven.
No, that’s what you do, not them.
I think you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Greek philosophy is all about emanations of divinity in heaven. Not so biblical theology. You can dispense with the former, without dispensing with the latter.
The apostles were already dealing with Greek philosophy infiltrating the church in their time and unfortunately when they were gone it started taking over the gentile churches. This is when Jesus became a god
I'm not strictly a Trinitaran as I don't see ό Θεός as applying to other than the Father.
θεος can and does apply to others though rare. But yes, the Father is θεος 99.98% of the time
If you enlightened me on something I didn't already know, I would respect your position more. It seems you've got nothing to say on that account accept playing the Trinitarian bogeyman, but I'm not into protest movements. With faith, it's not good enough to simply protest, because that is what atheists do.
If I come with something new then you’d just argue that no one ever said or believed it before hence it can’t be true.
You have to come up with a viable biblical account, which comprises the whole of scripture, including Christ saying "I am the beginning of the creation of God"
The word beginning means ruler as well. That’s where we get the word monarch one (μόνος) ruler (αρχή).
which unitarians cannot account for, except by a heretical account of the creation of God being limited to the NT, which position was long the preserve of gnostics in the early church.
He’s the ruler of all creation both old and new not the creator of them.
If you agree with those words, you agree with Christ's pre-existence as the Logos in heaven.
No, that’s your false interpretation. When he says ‘I am’ he is declaring to be the Messiah as we see in John 4 and Matt. 26 to name a few
 

JNelson

Well-known member
Well there it is, a man that said, "Your welcome to try and change my mind." You really mean your mind is already made up proving your not even honest with yourself.
Disagreeing with you doesn’t mean I can’t change my mind.
Do you know how many times over last 59 years I've heard that "lame" excuse that John 1:1-3 is really God's spoken word.
That’s your problem, anything that doesn’t agree with your view is “lame”.
Here is how the verses would read if you believe that the Apostle John is telling us this is Gods spoken word.

"In the beginning was the spoken Word, and the spoken Word was with God, and the spoken Word is God. Vs2, This spoken Word was in the beginning with God." What human being in his right mind would say, "In the beginning when I was born, my spoken words were with me and my spoken words were in the beginning when I was born were with me." All the things that I did were by my spoken word and apart from my spoken words nothing I could not get anything done.
Did you read Pslams 33:6? It literally says God created everything with the breath of his mouth. In Prov. 8:30 wisdom says regarding creation “then I was beside him, like a master workman”. You fail to see and understand the poetic Hebrew language and thus you fail to understand what John is saying. He might of written in Greek but was drawing from the OT here
Oh yea, lets jump down to John 1:14, "And my spoken words became flesh and dwelt within me? :rolleyes: I take the time to explain to you about John 1:1-3 and all you can do is say, "its Gods spoken word, end of story."
This is the poetic nature of John’s prologue that you are trying to understand in a literal sense. V. 14 is clearly a poetic reference to Jesus’ baptism and to express how God was with us. It not only references Ex. 40:34-35 but also Deut. 18:18.
Tell me, why are you here on CARM?
Why does it matter?
IN GOD THE SON,
A phrase never found in scriptures. Jesus is the son of God my friend not God.
 

JNelson

Well-known member
If you had simply posted Col 1: 16, expounded on that and started there. I would have had a reason to pause and think harder and longer on your point. But instead, you gave us this comparison between Eph 1 and Col 1 which seemed to be scattered and difficult to discern what your point was. Your comparison simply muddied the waters.
The comparison was to establish that Paul writes about the same thing in both epistles. He might not write them word for word or in the exact same order but then again he isn’t just rewriting the same letter to different churches. I’ve written the same thing is slightly different ways in this forum many times.
You could have used your comparison after you made a point that Col 1:16 is speaking of the resurrected Son (not an "eternal" Son)
Yes, v. 13 clearly shows us the context is about the kingdom of his beloved son.
the image of the invisible God (visible because of his birth into this world),
And image is never the same as the original hence Jesus isn’t God

the firstborn over all creation.
This has to do with his resurrection and subsequent position of authority.
And that "creation" in this verse means a new creation in the Son ie; the church, his government, etc.
Not a new creation as in creating ex nihilo but rather as Paul stated in the parallel verse in Eph 1:10 the “summing up” of all things in Christ
Although, I still wouldn't agree with it for a number of reasons including what CJab wrote about "visible and invisible'.
The reason I'm bringing this up was because of something Jamesh said in one of his posts to you.
Hopefully this clears some of it up for you.
 

Caroljeen

Active member
The comparison was to establish that Paul writes about the same thing in both epistles. He might not write them word for word or in the exact same order but then again he isn’t just rewriting the same letter to different churches. I’ve written the same thing is slightly different ways in this forum many times.
you can write same stuff and add new stuff also.
Yes, v. 13 clearly shows us the context is about the kingdom of his beloved son.
But what other verses support your assertion that the kingdom of his beloved son is a creation anywhere in the NT?
And image is never the same as the original hence Jesus isn’t God
But the image refers to the begotten son of Mary and not an eternal son bringing this into the NT away from Genesis creation.
The exact image.

This has to do with his resurrection and subsequent position of authority.
Only if 'creation' is not referring to the Genesis account. It would really help your case if you could find other clear support for the 'the kingdom of the Son', the 'church, ' the reconciliation' of all things as being even a type of 'creation'.

Paul says the firstborn over all creation and then Paul explains what he means by creation in vs 16 and 17. '...all things were created' in/by , through him and for him. This sounds like the Genesis creation account. He is before all things and holds all things together-- this sounds like things that have to do with what he created in the beginning and not what has come about because of his resurrection and subsequent position of authority.
Not a new creation as in creating ex nihilo but rather as Paul stated in the parallel verse in Eph 1:10 the “summing up” of all things in Christ
That might be new stuff Paul added to Ephesians 1. Something different. Just like including Jesus as the creator of everything is in Colossians. The passages are not identical.

What do you think the "summing up" of all things in Christ means?
Hopefully this clears some of it up for you.
It was helpful. Thank you.
 

cjab

Well-known member
The Logos wasn't always confined to heaven, He came to earth as the man, Jesus Christ. Do you believe in the incarnation?
I thought all things were made by the Logos and without him nothing was made. Everything in John 1 from vs 1-14 is predicated on the Logos (who is God): Life, Light...He "the Logos" was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He (the Logos) came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him (the Logos), to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.
Why do you think that God (the Father in the NT) cannot be the Logos and the Spirit? I want to understand why you believe God the Father is closed off in the heavenlies away and at distance from his creation because I have a much more immanent view of God (whether, Father, Son, Spirit, Logos...)
I was responding to your question "I'm interested in what the Word and Spirit were in the OT. What did they do? Was the Word, the angel of YHWH?"

Now you're accusing me of not believing the NT? What a strange response.

The conglomerate view of God. Is that what it's called by Winer and Alford? or did they exist before conglomerates?
You're thinking of God in terms of anthropomorphisms. The key thing to grasp is that God is invisible and only reveals himself as he wills. In the OT he revealed himself as a singular entity. YHWH, and whom Jesus called "Father."

From reading the Bible, there are different types of rational beings but they seem to be either God or angels or angels who are now called devils, or humans.
I don't read "God as one" as existing similar to one bunch of grapes because He comes across simply as one mind, one self, one person with his use of singular pronouns when he is speaking of himself. It's kind of shady to speak of oneself in those terms when in actuality one is a plurality.
To men, God is singular, and has a singular form (the Word was in the form of God - Phil 2:6). The Logos is completely invisible in the OT except as an aspect of God, I suppose. Jesus is confined to prophecy.

Sounds good to me.

I think it echos back to Genesis 1 where God creates the world with his spoken "word".
Gen 1 speech was metaphorical. Rather "commanded" I should suppose. But everything in Gen 1 is metaphorical, because what was going on was far too complex for simple men to grasp.

What does "theos" in John 1:1c mean to you when you say God is "impersonal"? Is it the nature of God? The attributes of God only? or something else?
The one who acts as God.

God is his Logos. God is his spirit. God is one person. "Spirit" speaks to what God is and denotes everything he is not just "nature" but "person" as well.
That is to sow confusion. Jesus prayed to his Father, and distinguished God's Counsellor Spirit from his Father, and distinguished himself from his Father. Still I agree that the everything you have referred to can be called "God," at least in heaven (2Th 2:4), but perhaps not "the God" which is reserved for the Father (Jn 1:1b).

To me, it sounds like you take what I would call "aspects" of God away from God and designate them as "other". And by "aspects", I'm not saying that parts as though God could be put together with different pieces of himself. But we can speak of different aspects of God, focusing on one thing at the expense of all the other aspects of God without subtracting that aspect from the whole. It's a synecdochal way of speaking.
It's also a regressive way of speaking, given the testimony of Jesus. Also see Daniel 7:13,14 and the whole book of Revelation where God, Jesus and God's Spirit(s) are clearly distinguished.

Sounds like you're talking about God's mind.

I thought the jurisdiction of all things was the throne of heaven.
God is in heaven and nowhere else.
Would you call the Word and Spirit simply instruments? similar to took in a human's hand?
Only when they went out from God. Not when they were with God.

You say that God is the Father, what is he? Is he made up of instruments?
I'm not prepared to senselessly anthropomorphize God. Part of believing the bible is to limit speculation on God to what is revealed, and not what our minds can conceive. It's a necessary and vital discipline. I see Oneness theology as going way beyond what is revealed into unacceptable metaphysical speculation, or else just refusing the NT revelation as it was given by Jesus.

Also, all the apostles distinguish The Father (the God) from Jesus Christ, even the risen Jesus, on a continuing basis, for the rest of eternity.

What is your view called? Biblical literalism?
I suppose so.

I did some googling but didn't find information about the 2 camps. "Biblical literalism"- seems like all evangelicals are biblical literalists as opposed to Origen and his allegories and Augustine saying much of Genesis is an extended metaphor- from Wiki.
No you won't find any acknowledgement of Winer and Alford etc etc in Trinitarian churches today. Everything that pertained to their scholarship is being suppressed by Trinitarian fanatics.

Besides the Greek NT commentary by Alford, can you recommend writings that speak to what you have said in your last few posts?
The core bone of contention amongst believers in the Word as a separate person from the Father relates to whether God is conceived as a hierachy, with the Father at the top, and Christ subordinate (1 Cor 11:3), and God's Holy Spirit subordinate to both. Alternately, is God a communist idea, where three persons equally share the "God" attribute/substance: here you have God the Son, God the Father, God the Holy Spirit (i.e. modern Trinitarians).

Anyone who is prepared to concede God as a spiritual hierarchy is IMO on the right lines. After all, Jesus said the Father is greater than he. If you believe that, you are on the right lines. If you can't accept it as an eternal truth, for whatever reason, you've got a problem. There a lot of people in Winer's camp. You just have to seek them out. Bibehub has some good commentaries online. Barnes is also good. This is why I prefer the bible commentaries of the last centuries: I feel generally far more at home with them, than with modern stuff.
 
Last edited:

JNelson

Well-known member
you can write same stuff and add new stuff also.
I agree but the theme is the same in both Eph/Col 1. He can refer to the same thing with different words but it’s still the same thing
But what other verses support your assertion that the kingdom of his beloved son is a creation anywhere in the NT?
The son’s kingdom is made up of believers and according to 2 Cor. 5:17, believers are new creations.

But the image refers to the begotten son of Mary and not an eternal son bringing this into the NT away from Genesis creation.
Not sure if I understand what you’re trying to say here.
The exact image.
Yes, but an image is still an image not the original. Jesus reflects God perfectly but he is not God.
Only if 'creation' is not referring to the Genesis account. It would really help your case if you could find other clear support for the 'the kingdom of the Son', the 'church, ' the reconciliation' of all things as being even a type of 'creation'.
Believers are the new creation but it’s not until the end of the age when the physical creation will also be made new. The church is also a new creation, it’s the union of both new and gentile into one people.
Eph. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Individual believer)

Eph. 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace” (the church)

Eph. 4:24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” (Individual believer)
Paul says the firstborn over all creation
He’s the firstborn of all creation meaning he is the one who inherited all creation. V. 18 clearly shows this is in reference to preeminence not order of being created.
and then Paul explains what he means by creation in vs 16 and 17. '...all things were created' in/by , through him and for him. This sounds like the Genesis creation account.
You read the word created and automatically think Genesis but that’s not what Paul is saying. Paul uses similar language in the verses I cited before, Eph 2:10,15 in regards to believers and the church which is also in context here in v. 18
He is before all things and holds all things together-- this sounds like things that have to do with what he created in the beginning and not what has come about because of his resurrection and subsequent position of authority.
The word before in v. 17 is also translated above which parallels perfectly with Eph. 1:21 “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion”
That might be new stuff Paul added to Ephesians 1. Something different. Just like including Jesus as the creator of everything is in Colossians. The passages are not identical.

What do you think the "summing up" of all things in Christ means?
it’s the reconciliation of all things by being made new, not just people but all of creation.
It was helpful. Thank you.
Definitely.
 

Caroljeen

Active member
I agree but the theme is the same in both Eph/Col 1. He can refer to the same thing with different words but it’s still the same thing
It's similar but not the same.
The son’s kingdom is made up of believers and according to 2 Cor. 5:17, believers are new creations.
Finally
Not sure if I understand what you’re trying to say here.
You're looking to set this portion of the passage after the resurrection, correct? The man, Christ Jesus, is the visible image of God. He was around as a man in the Genesis.
Believers are the new creation but it’s not until the end of the age when the physical creation will also be made new. The church is also a new creation, it’s the union of both new and gentile into one people.
Eph. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Individual believer)

Eph. 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace” (the church)

Eph. 4:24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.” (Individual believer)

All these verses support what you are trying to say about a "creation" that is apart from the Genesis creation.
He’s the firstborn of all creation meaning he is the one who inherited all creation. V. 18 clearly shows this is in reference to preeminence not order of being created.
Not in my mind but at least you're presenting a better argument.

I don't understand it as preeminence of the order of creation.
You read the word created and automatically think Genesis...
I think Genesis because, the following verses 16 + 17 are about creation. The son is the firstborn over all creation because he created all things and he is before all things and he holds all together. This sounds like Genesis creation. From the beginning and forever, the Son is supreme. It doesn't have to do with order of being created. The creature cannot be the creator.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For 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. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. (NIV)
but that’s not what Paul is sayng. Paul uses similar language in the verses I cited before, Eph 2:10,15 in regards to believers and the church which is also in context here in v. 18

The creation bit is the new/different stuff Paul added. Different than Ephesians 2.
The word before in v. 17 is also translated above which parallels perfectly with Eph. 1:21 “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion”
Yes, Jesus is ruling now over everything. But the supremacy of his authority and power and dominion doesn't mean the same as "in him all things hold together". I understand holding everything together means keeping his creation (heaven and earth) going. I'm not sure what you think it means.

Job 34:14 If it were his intention and he withdrew his spirit and breath,
15 all humanity would perish together and mankind would return to the dust.


Hebrews 1: 3 ... sustaining all things by his powerful word...
it’s the reconciliation of all things by being made new, not just people but all of creation.
Yes, I agree.
 

Caroljeen

Active member
I was responding to your question "I'm interested in what the Word and Spirit were in the OT. What did they do? Was the Word, the angel of YHWH?"

Now you're accusing me of not believing the NT? What a strange response.
Sorry, my mistake.
You're thinking of God in terms of anthropomorphisms. The key thing to grasp is that God is invisible and only reveals himself as he wills. In the OT he revealed himself as a singular entity. YHWH, and whom Jesus called "Father."
ok
To men, God is singular, and has a singular form (the Word was in the form of God - Phil 2:6). The Logos is completely invisible in the OT except as an aspect of God, I suppose. Jesus is confined to prophecy.
The Logos not just an aspect of God but He is God (that's how synecdochical writing is) and was incarnated as Jesus.

Jesus could anachronistically be said to exist in the OT, but more accurately as the Logos.
Gen 1 speech was metaphorical. Rather "commanded" I should suppose. But everything in Gen 1 is metaphorical, because what was going on was far too complex for simple men to grasp.
You dislike me speaking about synecdoche but Genisis 1 metaphorical?
Genesis isn't difficult to understand. God spoke and things happened. The angels rejoiced.
You may not want to take it literally. I don't have a problem with it.
The one who acts as God
Would you understand John 1:1c as "The Word acts as God?"

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word acts as God.
That is to sow confusion.
I don't try to compartmentalize God.
Jesus prayed to his Father, and distinguished God's Counsellor Spirit from his Father, and distinguished himself from his Father.
I agree with you here.
Still I agree that the everything you have referred to can be called "God," at least in heaven (2Th 2:4), but perhaps not "the God" which is reserved for the Father (Jn 1:1b).
This is where you confuse me.
You have said that God became a Father at the conception. (post #92) But then you refer to John 1:1b where God=Father, although God was not a Father in the beginning of the world. Anachronisms are easy to fall into and I understand what you mean but it still confuses me for a couple seconds or so. Trinitarians might think you are referring for an eternal Father.
It's also a regressive way of speaking, given the testimony of Jesus. Also see Daniel 7:13,14 and the whole book of Revelation where God, Jesus and God's Spirit(s) are clearly distinguished.
What do you mean by "regressive way of speaking"?

God is in heaven and nowhere else.
What are your thoughts on Psalm 139?

You have searched me, Lord,
and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue
you, Lord, know it completely.
5 You hem me in behind and before,
and you lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,

Only when they went out from God. Not when they were with God.
If the Word who became the man, Jesus Christ, was simply an instrument in God's hand or the Spirit was an instrument in God's hand that fills all believers, I find what you are saying disappointing. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
I'm not prepared to senselessly anthropomorphize God. Part of believing the bible is to limit speculation on God to what is revealed, and not what our minds can conceive. It's a necessary and vital discipline. I see Oneness theology as going way beyond what is revealed into unacceptable metaphysical speculation, or else just refusing the NT revelation as it was given by Jesus.
Doesn't God anthromorphize himself to us when he reveals things about himself to us in the OT, even to the point of becoming incarnate?
The right hand of God. The eyes of the Lord are in every place. The earth is his footstool.
You say the Spirit and the Word went out from God, were with God and are God but you can't account for them, what are they. You leave it as a mystery. You won't allow for them to truly be God (restricted to only the Father). I call them different aspects of God, even God himself.
I was going to elaborate but I changed my mind.

Also, all the apostles distinguish The Father (the God) from Jesus Christ, even the risen Jesus, on a continuing basis, for the rest of eternity
That's because the Father and the Son are different modes of existence of the same person of God. The Son is God in human form and as such he limited himself to be functionally human to the point where he sees himself as other than his Father. I'd elaborate here also but I don't think you would want to read it.
I suppose so.
No you won't find any acknowledgement of Winer and Alford etc etc in Trinitarian churches today. Everything that pertained to their scholarship is being suppressed by Trinitarian fanatics.
That's too bad. At least they aren't called heretics.
The core bone of contention amongst believers in the Word as a separate person from the Father relates to whether God is conceived as a hierachy, with the Father at the top, and Christ subordinate (1 Cor 11:3), and God's Holy Spirit subordinate to both.
Many of the early church fathers wrote about them in that light. Even the 'first person', the "second person' and the 'third person' of the trinity attest to that order.
Alternately, is God a communist idea, where three persons equally share the "God" attribute/substance: here you have God the Son, God the Father, God the Holy Spirit (i.e. modern Trinitarians).
yep, modern and somewhat historical also -Athanasian creed adherents.
Anyone who is prepared to concede God as a spiritual hierarchy is IMO on the right lines. After all, Jesus said the Father is greater than he. If you believe that, you are on the right lines.
It depends on what Jesus meant by "greater". Jesus died. The Father didn't die.
If you can't accept it as an eternal truth, for whatever reason, you've got a problem. There a lot of people in Winer's camp. You just have to seek them out. Bibehub has some good commentaries online. Barnes is also good. This is why I prefer the bible commentaries of the last centuries: I feel generally far more at home with them, than with modern stuff.
Then you must disagree with the early church fathers and the councils that developed the doctrine of the trinity.
Thanks again for explaining what you believe.
Don't feel like you have to respond to everything or anything that I've written.
We've really gone way off the main topic of this thread.
 

JNelson

Well-known member
It's similar but not the same.
That’s where all the parallel verses I cited comes in. Paul I’d repeating himself while using different words here and there but the core is the same
You're looking to set this portion of the passage after the resurrection, correct? The man, Christ Jesus, is the visible image of God. He was around as a man in the Genesis.
Not a single verse in genesis states this morning anywhere else in scriptures. Adam was the first man God created not Jesus.
All these verses support what you are trying to say about a "creation" that is apart from the Genesis creation.
This is why I believe it’s better to understand Paul by looking at every Paul wrote
Not in my mind but at least you're presenting a better argument. I don't understand it as preeminence of the order of creation.
Preeminence means first place or chief. Jesus obtain led this because he was the firstborn from the dead, aka the first to resurrect and obtain immortality.
I think Genesis because, the following verses 16 + 17 are about creation. The son is the firstborn over all creation because he created all things and he is before all things and he holds all together. This sounds like Genesis creation. From the beginning and forever, the Son is supreme. It doesn't have to do with order of being created. The creature cannot be the creator.
Ok I understand you better now. I still think firstborn of all creation is a reference to his resurrection as v. 18 states and Paul says it as well in 1 Cor. 15:20-23
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For 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. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. (NIV)
The last word ‘supremacy’ is translated as preeminent in the ESV but they mean the same thing.
The creation bit is the new/different stuff Paul added. Different than Ephesians 2.
The word creation yes but everything else around it is the same.
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”
Yes, Jesus is ruling now over everything. But the supremacy of his authority and power and dominion doesn't mean the same as "in him all things hold together". I understand holding everything together means keeping his creation (heaven and earth) going. I'm not sure what you think it means.
Job 34:14 If it were his intention and he withdrew his spirit and breath,
15 all humanity would perish together and mankind would return to the dust.


Hebrews 1: 3 ... sustaining all things by his powerful word...
“In him things hold together”. This is what he is doing now, he is exercising his authority given by God over all things. Similar to a store manager who makes sure everything is running smoothly in the store.
Yes, I agree.
Amen
 

cjab

Well-known member
The context in 17 clearly shows Jesus is being glorified for the work he accomplished, that how he glorified God and that’s why God will glorify him. It’s also throughout the gospel of John. No where does it ever say Jesus is being restored the glory he had and temporarily gave up.

John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

John 17:5 says exactly what you are repudiating.

The phrase “before the foundation of the world” is the key phrase that lets us know it’s a foreordained glory. This is how it’s used in scriptures elsewhere for Jesus like in John 17:24, 1 Pet. 1:20 and Rev. 13:8 but also of believers like in Eph. 1:4.
So you're indiscrimately alleging that all references to the foundation of the word are references to predestination. In John 17 at least, the Greek verb tenses don't agree with you. Thus in John 17:5, the imperfect tense is used, which is inappropriate for anything predestined (usually aorist tense but sometimes perfect if a state is being referred to).

I concede the aorist is used in 7:24, but the aorist isn't conclusive of predestination. Indeed Jesus himself says nothing about predestination apart from by reference to what is written in scripture. In John 17 he seems to be speaking personally of himself.

Just like Adam was created sinless, Jesus was created sinless. Unlike Adam though Jesus actually obeyed God and rema
All men are created sinless.

Not sure what’s hard to understand that Jesus was perfectly obedient as scriptures clearly teach.
How can a mere man be sinless, as "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3:23?

If anyone says he wasn’t sinless then they don’t read their Bibles. I can’t speak for others but I take sin extremely serious.

The majority of trinitarians will damn you for not believing their view, I’ve been “damned” by countless trinitarians once I stopped believing like they do, even by family members.
There are different kinds of Trinitarians. There are:

(1) the hyper-Trinitarians, who communize God into God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, where God is reduced to a substance or attribute, or the divine nature so called. There are very common and have been around since Anathasius.

(2) moderate or discriminating trinitarians, who accept a divine hierarchy, with God the Father at it's top. They also accept the Word and Spirit are of God and Jesus as of and from God (1Co 1:30, Jhn 8:42) (which is what I am). They may or may not think of themselves as Trinitarians, and are clearly differentiated from the hyper-Trinitarian set above, as they conceive God properly denotes the Father, albeit the admit the full divinity of the Word and Holy Spirit.

(3) Arians, which strictly are derived from (1) because they equally conceive a God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, but not in the same way as hyper-Trinitarians.

(4) Oneness or Sabellians, which again are strictly are derived from (1) because they equally conceive a God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, but not in the same way as hyper-Trinitarians.

Then there are the people who are outside scripture altogether. These, as far as I am concerned, are not Christians.

(5) Unitarians or adoptionists: those who see Jesus as having no divine origination, except in predestination, and being a de jure adopted son of God at some point after his conception.

(6) You.

You cut between (2) and (5) to introduce a sixth category where Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but had no prior existence in heaven. I don't really grasp where you find support for that contention, and it is anomalous, for if God really could produce sinless men just by using his Holy Spirit to impregnate women, then why didn't he make it a regular rule to eradicate sin from the world? The only explanation is because Jesus did have a prior existence in heaven with God (John 1:1b), and there was only one in heaven which fulfilled his criteria.

By your theory, Jesus has no prior existence, so whatever it was that happened to Mary didn't pass on any life, but acted on Mary to induce prokaryotic fission. But how then did Jesus become born male?

Once again, I’m am not a soccinian, I’m simply a Christian who believes the word of God.
That's your definition. A Soccinian is a name given today who denies Jesus has any prior existence in heaven, and I believe you fall into this category.

The RCC is the one who has killed countless men for heresy though thankfully that practice is gone.
You don't have to subscribe to unitarianism to rebut the hyper-Trinitarianism of the RCC and its many daughter churches. There is a middle way (i.e. (2) above), which you don't seem to want to entertain. I see unitarianism as an extremist protest movement against the RCC. But it goes too far. It rebuts things in heaven that it has no knowledge of and no right to rebut, because they are clearly stated in scripture.
Every man has his own opinion so I could care less what they think. God will judge me through one man alone, Jesus, not anyone else

Unitarianism doesn’t have an ounce of gnosticism.
It's inherently adoptionist. God adopting a man as his son, whereas John 1:10 "He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own,"

You're missing an entire theology of why Jesus is the monogenes son of God. Even if he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, what difference could that make if he had no prior existence? So he must have been adopted. Gnosticism in the early days of the church postulated two alternative theories, one involving adoptionism, and one involving Jesus not being a real man at all (docetism).

Trinitarianism and oneness arose from gnostic roots. What man declares heretical meaningless to me. Don’t forget that the same people who declared many things heretical also declares you view as heretical.
I'm not disputing hyper-Trinitarianism arose from gnostic roots.

That’s not what it says. You’re reading your presuppositions into the text.
Jhn 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self
It might not be Greek paganism exactly but it’s from greek roots.
Greek religion has always had multiple gods.

If one acknowledges that the Word and Spirit are of God, and subordinate to God, and one with God, then there remains one God with a complex life form, but that is acceptable for God. Men cannot limit God.

Again, your reading your theology into it. Does any verse ever say the spirit of Christ entered a human body?
I'm asking you how Peter could defer to the Spirit of Christ before Christ was born, if Christ had no prior existence?

You're evading the issue with another question.

Typical evasion and subterfuge.

No, that’s what you do, not them.

The apostles were already dealing with Greek philosophy infiltrating the church in their time and unfortunately when they were gone it started taking over the gentile churches. This is when Jesus became a god
Jesus is a de facto god (John 10:34) because he titled "Lord" by all the apostles. If you can't accept it you're no Christian.

θεος can and does apply to others though rare. But yes, the Father is θεος 99.98% of the time
Not "ό Θεός."

If I come with something new then you’d just argue that no one ever said or believed it before hence it can’t be true.
I've no time for theological protest movements. Such is the reason for all heresies, which I despise.

You've got to prove that unitarianism has some rational basis. You've yet to. A majority of unitarians are not "Christians" in any plausible sense. And this is what you deny:

Jhn 6:62

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

The word beginning means ruler as well. That’s where we get the word monarch one (μόνος) ruler (αρχή).
It's not the only word for ruler. It is a specific term that connotes rulership derived from origination. Monarchs derive their authority from hereditary considerations in the same way.

He’s the ruler of all creation both old and new not the creator of them.

No, that’s your false interpretation. When he says ‘I am’ he is declaring to be the Messiah as we see in John 4 and Matt. 26 to name a few
Again you're evading the question. That's why Trinitarians will disown you. If you accept "I AM" means "I eternally exist" then that's just dishonest.

So you repudiate his claim to equality of existence with God. And that is why you will be excommunciated by all persons of categories (1) and (2) I listed above.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
If you accept "I AM" means "I eternally exist" then that's just dishonest.
Sorry I meant, If you DON'T accept "Before Abraham was born I AM" means "I eternally exist," then that's dishonest, because it can't mean anything else. And then you will say that the idea of predestination includes the idea of eternal existence. I dispute that. What is allowed is for God to call things that have yet to happen into existence.

Romans 4:17 "As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[a] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not."

It doesn't give any permission for what is created to assert eternal existence.
 

JNelson

Well-known member
John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

John 17:5 says exactly what you are repudiating.
You keep ignoring the surrounding context which makes it clear the glory he’s talking about is the for having accomplished his work.
So you're indiscrimately alleging that all references to the foundation of the word are references to predestination.
That’s not what I’m alleging.
In John 17 at least, the Greek verb tenses don't agree with you. Thus in John 17:5, the imperfect tense is used, which is inappropriate for anything predestined
Why would it be inappropriate? Context is what determines what is referring to predestination not just verb tenses.
All men are created sinless.
There’s varying opinions on this. Either way the point is Jesus remained sinless and no one else does.
How can a mere man be sinless, as "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Rom 3:23?
Keep reading, “and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”. So yes all have sinned, except Jesus Christ.

(2) moderate or discriminating trinitarians, who accept a divine hierarchy, with God the Father at it's top. They also accept the Word and Spirit are of God and Jesus as of and from God (1Co 1:30, Jhn 8:42) (which is what I am).
(5) Unitarians or adoptionists: those who see Jesus as having no divine origination, except in predestination, and being a de jure adopted son of God at some point after his conception.
(6) You.
You cut between (2) and (5) to introduce a sixth category where Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but had no prior existence in heaven. ,
Not sure how you think I relate with #2 because I do not believe Jesus is God in any way. His miraculous birth doesn’t make him divine any more than Adam’s unique creation. Matt. 1:18 tells us Jesus’ beginning/origin was at his conception/birth
for if God really could produce sinless men just by using his Holy Spirit to impregnate women, then why didn't he make it a regular rule to eradicate sin from the world?
Hypotheticals are irrelevant. God could have just created Adam without the option to sin but he didn’t. God chose to do things one way and he chose to save humanity through Jesus Christ.
The only explanation is because Jesus did have a prior existence in heaven with God (John 1:1b), and there was only one in heaven which fulfilled his criteria.
Paul says “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead” he doesn’t say by God or the Godman but a man.
By your theory, Jesus has no prior existence, so whatever it was that happened to Mary didn't pass on any life, but acted on Mary to induce prokaryotic fission. But how then did Jesus become born male?
The Bible doesn’t get into the scientific details but I don’t think it’s out of God’s powers to create a Y chromosome seed to pair with Mary’s egg.
That's your definition. A Soccinian is a name given today who denies Jesus has any prior existence in heaven, and I believe you fall into this category.
When ever you label someone with a word derived from some else’s name it implies that I follow that person and all his teaches which I don’t. I am a Christian because I follow Christ and his God.
You don't have to subscribe to unitarianism to rebut the hyper-Trinitarianism of the RCC and its many daughter churches.
I didn’t choose Unitarianism because I wanted to rebut trinitarianism, I believe it because it’s what I see is taught in scriptures

There is a middle way (i.e. (2) above), which you don't seem to want to entertain. I see unitarianism as an extremist protest movement against the RCC. But it goes too far. It rebuts things in heaven that it has no knowledge of and no right to rebut, because they are clearly stated in scripture.
That is your opinion, I don’t see your view of preexistence as consistent with scriptures.
It's inherently adoptionist. God adopting a man as his son
He wasn’t Gods adopted son but the only begotten or unique so
whereas John 1:10 "He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own,"
We disagree here, This is not about Jesus.
You're missing an entire theology of why Jesus is the monogenes son of God. Even if he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, what difference could that make if he had no prior existence?
Why do you think pre existence makes it more plausible?
So he must have been adopted. Gnosticism in the early days of the church postulated two alternative theories, one involving adoptionism, and one involving Jesus not being a real man at all (docetism).
docetism was a form of gnosticism in the 1st century but adoptionism is not any form of gnosticism
I'm not disputing hyper-Trinitarianism arose from gnostic roots.
They all arose form gnostic roots.
Jhn 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self

Greek religion has always had multiple gods.
And what they tried to do is reconcile their polytheism with Jewish monotheism instead of just accept true monotheism
If one acknowledges that the Word and Spirit are of God, and subordinate to God, and one with God, then there remains one God with a complex life form, but that is acceptable for God. Men cannot limit God.
God’s word and spirit are definitely part of him but they are not separate personas with their own consciousness and will.
I'm asking you how Peter could defer to the Spirit of Christ before Christ was born, if Christ had no prior existence?

You're evading the issue with another question.

Typical evasion and subterfuge.
It’s simply a reference to the Holy Spirit who “predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories”. In scriptures we see the spirit being named differently depending on how it’s functioning. For example it’s called the spirit of wisdom when associated with wisdom in Eph. 1:17 or the spirit of grace in Heb. 10:29.
Jesus is a de facto god (John 10:34) because he titled "Lord" by all the apostles. If you can't accept it you're no Christian.
Lord isn’t a divine title, it’s definitely used of God but it’s also used of everyday men. It can be as common as saying sir. Lord has a wide range of meanings.
Not "ό Θεός."
In 2 Cor. 4:4 Satan is called “ό θεος”
I've no time for theological protest movements. Such is the reason for all heresies, which I despise.
You can call it whatever you want but I’m not here to protest but to proclaim
You've got to prove that unitarianism has some rational basis.
I find it ironic that you demand a “rational basis” with everything you believe
You've yet to. A majority of unitarians are not "Christians" in any plausible sense.
Your opinion doesn’t matter to me, only God’s
And this is what you deny:

Jhn 6:62

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
this passage talks about his flesh coming from Heaven like the manna. Are you saying Jesus was a man with flesh in heaven prior to being in Mary’s womb?
It's not the only word for ruler. It is a specific term that connotes rulership derived from origination. Monarchs derive their authority from hereditary considerations in the same way.
Right, so Jesus is the ruler of all creation.
If you accept "I AM" means "I eternally exist" then that's just dishonest.
I don’t accept that is what I am means. I am is just an idiom that means I am he or I am the one. Like when the high priest asks Jesus “are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, I am as in yes, I am he or that’s me
So you repudiate his claim to equality of existence with God.
Wrong, Jesus is equal in authority over all creation only because God gave him that authority yet he doesn’t have authority over God himself.
 
Top