I'm sure we all have thoughts and differing opinions. But from reading your posts, you don't ask questions because you really want to know what others think, or think about other possibilities. You ask questions to argue.
You seem still pretty much glued to VP's doctrine. When you decide you really want to learn, even if it goes against VP's doctrine, I think God will show you wonderful stuff.
I've already posted my opinion on the BU thread. I don't see the logic in it myself. I don't believe that Jesus is "God the Son", but Chuck's seperation of Jesus into two persons is somewhat confusing. I'm comfortable with the idea that Jesus was a man born of divine conception and annointed with a heapin' helpin' of holy spirit. (I think I've been in Kentudky too long) :-P
God is eternal because He has neither beginning nor end. Jesus is immortal because he was born, and died, but lives on. According to the Apostle Paul, we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord will also receive immortality. That doesn't mean we were never born, it just means we'll be delivered from death.
Jerry, I liked your post quoted above so I am reposting it here. Short and to the point. A good explanation. I might add just as Jesus was delivered from death by the hand of His Father God, so shall we be.
I'm sure we all have thoughts and differing opinions. But from reading your posts, you don't ask questions because you really want to know what others think, or think about other possibilities. You ask questions to argue.
You seem still pretty much glued to VP's doctrine. When you decide you really want to learn, even if it goes against VP's doctrine, I think God will show you wonderful stuff.
I promise not argue anyone's beliefs on this subject.
Sun, I reject VP's doctrines. I once embraced JCING, and knew it thouroughly, now I stand opposed.
But at least I can talk to Jb, Raf and other unitarians because we have common basis. We may disagree on some points, but we all confess Jesus as Lord.
I think most of us here confess Christ as Lord. I do not believe Christ was two different people, but, he was a chip off the old block so to speak - he was/has the same essence of the Father.
I think TWI did us a grave disservice denying us Christ's divinity and just concentrating on his humanity.
I think most of us here confess Christ as Lord. I do not believe Christ was two different people, but, he was a chip off the old block so to speak - he was/has the same essence of the Father.
I think TWI did us a grave disservice denying us Christ's divinity and just concentrating on his humanity.
I agree that Christ is not two people. But Christ has two natures, a divine nature (which lives to this day and for all eternity), and a human nature (which is dead), and they are definitely very very separate. The question I was asking Def is what nature is he identifiying with?
I've already posted my opinion on the BU thread. I don't see the logic in it myself. I don't believe that Jesus is "God the Son", but Chuck's seperation of Jesus into two persons is somewhat confusing. I'm comfortable with the idea that Jesus was a man born of divine conception and annointed with a heapin' helpin' of holy spirit. (I think I've been in Kentudky too long) :-P
Peace
JerryB
JB, I think you misunderstand. I don't believe Jesus is two people, anymore than we are two people. I do believe Jesus had two NATURES, very very separate. If they are not, then the law of logic has to credit Roman Catholicism with correctly teaching that Mary is The Mother of God. Not only that, but we have been given rather bad advice to "not walk after the flesh". But nonetheless we are advised that to walk after the flesh only leads to death.
The question is: is our faith in Christ after the flesh, or after the spirit? I see a great majority of Christians who are very very carnal when it comes to faith. And they would be the very first ones to even deny it! Nobody wants to believe they are more carnal than spiritual, including yours truly. So instead of arguing I'm spiritual and you are carnal, with you arguing back that I'm carnal and you are spiritual, I would just assume conclude that we all have sold out to the flesh. So what does God need to do with us now, now than none of us are spiritual? Just a little food for thought.
I am not sure now what you believe. You said Jesus and the Son of God were not the same person, now you are saying they are (or at least that is what I am hearing.)
I do not believe Mary is the mother of God. She was the vessel chosen to carry the Messiah, so we should respect her, but not revere her. She is not our mediatrix nor has any sway with the Lord.
I believe Jesus had a divine and human nature. God was his Father and Mary his mother. He was sinless, so he could be the perfect sacrifice. His shed blood cleanses us from sin.
So I believe John 14:6 when he says He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
I believe he was speaking the truth when he said in John 17:5 he will regain the glory in heaven he once had.
I believe Colossians when it says he created the world. (Original texts had no parentheses)
I believe that he visited the earth in times past as the Angel of the Lord.
And I believe his words of warning in Matthew about a lake of fire and eternal judgment.
Well Def, I agree with most of what you said here. I believe John, when he is the logos, the Word made flesh. He was with the father before, came here, and went again to him. You could call me a trinitarian.
Colossians 1:16 does not say that Jesus created the world. That's a mistranslation in the KJV. The Greek words translated "by" and "for" are en and eis, meaning in and unto (For by Him were all things created...all things were created by Him and for Him) The end of the verse should be translated "all things were created in Him and unto Him.
This doesn't mean Jesus created the world. Rather, it means that everything in the heavens and earth was created with a view to Christ's redemption of man and ascension to the right hand of the throne of God. The throne Christ now occupies at God's right hand, his position of Lord of the universe, were prepared for Him when God created the heavens and earth.
There is no man or power in the entire universe above Jesus of Nazareth except God Himself.
That's what Colossians 1:16 really means. That a man born of woman could be raised to such an exalted status is beyond miraculous. When you put this verse together with I John 3:2 and Romans 8:29, the grace that God has extended to mankind via Jesus Christ is truly mind-boggling.
The human connection to Christ's exalted positionn is clear in the context.
17 And he is before all things, and by (in) Him all things consist.
18 And he is the Head of the body, the church; Who is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell
To add to this discussion and respond to the comments made by Jbarrax on Colossians 1:16, I add the following post.
Grammatically, there are only three viable options on how to take this prepositional phrase in v. 16. First, it may be understood as instrumental (“by him”), which compares to the “through Him” of v. 16d. Second, it may be causal (“because of”). Third, in could be understood in a local sense (“in Him”). Now, if the later is correct this implies, in contrast to what you suggested above, that all things were created “within the sphere” of Christ. That is to say, that in Christ’s person was the creative energy that produced all things in heaven and on earth. As Harris suggests, “in the work of creation God [the Father] did not act apart from Christ” (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: Colossians and Philemon, 45).
That a man could be exalted such a status (such as equality with God in Phil. 2:6) is not “beyond miraculous” as you say, it is impossible (and note that in this passage Christ has such equality in v. 6 before his earthly career of vv. 7-8). There is an infinite chasm between the Creator and creature that cannot be breached from the bottom up. It is plausible to claim, however, that it can be breached from the top down. Your statement implies that translating the prepositional phrase in v. 16a as “in Him” precludes Christ’s divinity. This is hardly the case. Your interpretation is not only a translation, but an extrapolation (i.e., inference) which goes beyond what the limits of grammar can lay claim. Translation alone cannot tell us what this passage intends to say about Christ. The extra light that is needed should come from the source that inspired this early Christian hymn (which is what most believe it to be based on its poetical and lyrical structure).
The reason your interpretation is not a credible one is based, in part, on the parallels this ancient Christian hymn has with the intertestamental wisdom literature that was the source of its inspiration, specifically, the Wisdom of Solomon. Note the following similarities between Colossians 1:15-20 and the Wisdom of Solomon:
o Wisdom 7:26 – “For she is…a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness” (cf. Col. 1:15a).
o Wisdom 1:14 – “for he created all things so that they might exist” (cf. Col. 1:16a).
o Wisdom 5:23; 6:21; 7:8 – ideas on thrones and scepters (Col. 1:16d).
o Wisdom 7:24b – “For Wisdom…because of her pureness pervades and penetrates all things” (cf. Col. 1:16–17, 19).
o Wisdom 1:7 – “the spirit of the Lord has filled the world and that which holds all things together knows what is said” (and) 8:1b – “She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and she orders all things well” (cf. Col. 1:17b).
o Wisdom 7:29 – on priority and superiority (cf. Col. 1:17a, 18d).
As Rabbis such as Ben Sira and Baruch identified divine Wisdom with the Torah in the centuries preceding Christ, so the New Testament identifies divine Wisdom with Christ (e.g., Paul, John and Matthew). Like personified Wisdom, Paul depicts Christ as the Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer of all things – a role He would be unfit and unable to fulfill if He Himself were a creature. If Christ were only a human being, then this passage (and many others in the New Testament) would be guilty of the gravest sin - idolatry, worshipping a man as God by 'exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of man' (cf. Romans 1:23).
Jerry thank you for your simple explanation. Mr. Reed your position is not as easily understood. However, your conclusion seems to be.
quote:
Translation alone cannot tell us what this passage intends to say about Christ. The extra light that is needed should come from the source that inspired this early Christian hymn (which is what most believe it to be based on its poetical and lyrical structure).
You say translation alone cannot tell us what this passage intends to say about Christ. You then state that the extra light of understanding needed should come from an unscriptural source that most of us here are not familiar with. We simply do not know if your source (the book of Wisdom?) is a very godly one. In order to determine this we would have to read more than just a few verses. Why don't you instead try to back up your position with scriptural references? Dave, what are you quoting from?
You say translation alone cannot tell us what this passage intends to say about Christ. You then state that the extra light of understanding needed should come from an unscriptural source that most of us here are not familiar with. We simply do not know if your source (the book of Wisdom?) is a very godly one. In order to determine this we would have to read more than just a few verses. Why don't you instead try to back up your position with scriptural references? Dave, what are you quoting from?
Is it possible that some revelations and realizations that might
occur within a person's mind & spirit & soul cannot be so easily (if at all) nailed by words onto a page?
Such may have been Paul's experience when he was caught away into the third heaven.
That is a good point Danny. Especially with regard to prophetic knowledge of the future. Or we simply may not understand what is written and described.
Not according to Jesus Christ and the Bible. According the them, with God all things are possible.
quote:
There is an infinite chasm between the Creator and creature that cannot be breached from the bottom up.
Sounds a lot like VP's chasm from PFAL. Not so I say. More to the point; you are inserting a clause that does not exist in my argument. If God created the heavens and the earth with intent to exalt His Son to an exalted position therein, who says Jesus attained that position on his own, or in your words, "from the bottom up"? You see, your objection does not address my statement. God created the universe, God foreknew and foreordained Jesus to rule it. What's so impossible about that?
Then you said,
quote:
Your interpretation is not only a translation, but an extrapolation (i.e., inference) which goes beyond what the limits of grammar can lay claim. Translation alone cannot tell us what this passage intends to say about Christ.
You misrepresent my post. It was translation supported by the context. The context of the passage speaks of Christ being the head of the body of Christ, the firsborn from the dead. And, as Mark has already pointed out, I would much rather base my point on the words in the Scripture and the context of those words than to base it on an unsubstantiated claim that the passage is inspired by an unknown hymn. Come now, you can do better than that.
The Trinity may be true. And if I were arguing your point, I would allude to the divine attributes of Jesus in th passage; mainly that all things, in heaven and earth, including principalities and powers (arche) were created in and unto Him. That's pretty heady stuff. As I understand it, it means God prepared all of the archangels and powers of heaven to be in subjection to a perfect man born of a humble woman. What I see as mind boggling grace others might see as proof that Jesus is God Himself. But that would still be at odds with the text and the following passages about him being the head of the Church and the firstborn from the dead.
The triune God may be the true one. But, if I have to decide based entirely on the witness of the Scripture, the preponderance of the evidence says no.
I always had trouble with Col. 1 and twi interpretation never really sat right either.
Then there is 1 Cor. 15:22-28...bold added by me
quote:
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (universalism?)
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
24Then cometh the end, when he (Christ)shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he (Christ) shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25For he (the Son)must reign, till he (the son)hath put all enemies under his (theson's)feet.
26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27For he (God)hath put all things under his(Christ's) feet. But when he (G)saith all things are put under him(JC), it is manifest that he (G)is excepted, which did put all things under him(JC).
28And when all things shall be subdued unto him(JC), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (G)that put all things under him(JC), that God may be all in all.
it is just as unclear in most other translations :D-->
Jbarrax, in response to the points you made in your last post.
First, the question as to whether God can do anything revolves around what omnipotence actually means. There are three options:
1. God can do anything that others can do.
2. God can do anything – even what is logically impossible
3. God can do anything that is conceivably possible.
The first option, no matter what we take God to be, ends up being very philosophically (not to mention biblically) unsatisfying. For example, can God sweat? Can God get jiggy with it? Even the Bible itself argues against this position. Hebrews 6.13, 18 states that God cannot swear by anyone greater than Himself or break His word (not to mention sin). These are two examples of things the Bible says that God is incapable of doing. So, the first alternative is not a viable explanation as to what omnipotence really means.
The second option has been defended by such figures as Descartes, who argued that even eternal truths can be, in a sense, undone by God by virtue of His omnipotence. If God is truly all-powerful, then why can He not make the square root of 49 equal 12, or make a square shaped circle? Yet, this assertion seems to break a fundamental law of logic and metaphysics – the law of excluded middle. For instance, does it make sense to say that God can make a person both dead and living at the same time in the same way? This seems to be wholly implausible and an impossible state of affairs to bring about.
The third option argues that divine omnipotence means that God can bring about any logically possible state of affairs. What does this definition mean in reference to God’s ability to act? Essentially, it means that there are no limits to God’s power other than the limits of logic (which He is responsible for in the first place). As Aquinas wrote, “God’s power, considered in itself, extends to all such objects as do not imply a contradiction.” This means that God can make to be anything which is possible to be. Look at it this way; can God make it be that Richard III survived the Battle of Bosworth in 1485? No. Why? Because that would imply that God can bring about two contradictory states of affairs (one where the King died in the past and one where he survived). Of course, allowing Richard to survive the battle in the first place is not contradictory since this does not imply changing the past at some point in the future. Consider another example. I am writing this now in March of 2005. Is it possible for God, right now, to cause it to be that I was never conceived? No, it is not. Why? Because doing so would contradict the very state of affairs that exist right now. It is incorrect, therefore, to claim that God can bring about anything without qualification. But does this not mean that God is not truly omnipotent? No, it does not. Rather, it means that omnipotence is naturally limited. In other words, it means that God’s power extends to anything that is not against His nature (which includes the laws of logic; after all He is the author and sustainer of all things, including logic).
As for your second point, the issue is not regarding Jesus’ ability to pick Himself up from His own bootstraps. Philippians 2 is claiming that God is now requiring all creation to worship Jesus. If Jesus were only a human being, then God is commanding us to commit idolatry. Clearly, this cannot be. So, the issue necessarily comes down to whether God can make another being equal to Him. If God could, this would imply that He was, in fact, not the absolute Creator and sustainer of the world, since monotheism insists that there is only one divine nature. Hence, it follows that if Jesus had a hand in creating the world and has a hand in sustaining it as well, this necessarily implies that He has a divine nature (Philippians 2.6-11; Hebrews 1.1-4). Why? Because these are acts that only God can perform. Of course, as Scripture attests, He also has a human nature, too. Your insistence on the need to bring “fore-knowledge” into this discussion is a red-herring – it distracts from the fundamental theological issue that only the Divine nature has the power of the Divine nature. God cannot give any creature (who is purely a creature) this power any more than He can conjure up another God equal to Himself. To insist that this is possible implies a be-lief-system that is non-monotheistic. Again, as I said above, there is no discussion of foreknowledge in Colossians 1.15-20. Any such importing serves only to muddy the waters and cloud the issue of what this passage is claiming about Christ’s divine nature and His role within the Church.
Finally, as to your third point, I still stand by what I said. Your interpretation is, in fact, not supported by the context. It is true that this hymn speaks of Christ being the firstborn from the dead and the head of the body. It does not, however, say this alone. At the same time it asserts that Christ was present and active in the creating and sustaining of the all things (which other NT passages confirm in even more stunning and unequivocal language). One might respond by saying that I am contradicting Scriptures that attest to Christ’s human nature. I affirm, however, as Scripture does, that Christ possesses both a divine and human nature. And there is no contradiction in asserting that Christ has both a divine and human nature. The union of these two natures into one person is a paradox, but it is not a contradiction.
You say that you will trust the entire witness of Scripture on this issue. Unfortunately, you will continue to run into these problems and difficulties time and time again until you do just that – accept that Scripture teaches us that Christ shares our humanity, yet without sin, and that He shares the life of the Father, in whom there is no change or shifting shadow.
I think you would find reading some discussions in philosophy of religion very helpful, since they relate to these issues. I suggest reading one or more of the following: Brian Davies’ “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion,” 3rd Edition (about $20), G. K. Chesterton’s “The Everlasting Man,” Mortimer J. Adler’s “How to Think about God,” William Lane Craig’s “The Only Wise God,” Ben Witherington’s “The Shadow of the Almighty,” C. S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity,” or Millard Erickson’s “The Word Became Flesh.” Oh, and don’t forget the Apostles John, Paul, and Peter, the synoptic Gospel authors and the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews.
Hebrews 1:10 clearly and unmistakably speaks of the Son having created the earth and heavens.
Socinianism (the Christological position that Christ’s existence began at conception in Mary) has no biblical testimony supporting it, and was not a biblically ministered or inspired view of Christ.
Ah Mr. Reed. You are not honestly addressing the issues here.
You say it's impossible for God to exalt a man to be ruler of the universe. The Bible says with God all things are possible. So to counter a simple statement of God's ability you run around in philosophical circles dropping names and generally avoiding the issue. Shameless behavior, really. If God almighty wants to give authority over His creation to a man, your calling it "impossible" doesn't make it so, no matter what Descartes thinks.
Now about your second point. Again, you are distorting both my post and the scripture we're discussing. You said,
quote:
"As for your second point, the issue is not regarding Jesus’ ability to pick Himself up from His own bootstraps. Rather, the issue is whether God can make another being equal to Him.
I did not say God made Jesus His equal. neither does Colossians. Read it again please. It says, (emphasis added)
quote:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
It says all things were CREATED in Christ. Was God created? No. God did the creating. There is not hing here that says God made Christ equal to himself. It simply says God made Jesus (who is, by the way, part of God's creation) the chief of that creation. Furthermore, it says that God made Jesus the head of the body. Again, this does not make Christ equal to God.
Furthermore, I didn't say Jesus "had a hand in creating the world." Merely that God creted it with Christ's eventual dominion of it in mind.
What hymn are you referring to D.A.? If you're referring to the passage itself as a hymn, we can discuss it. If you wish to dodge the context and talk about an obscure hymn instead, I'm not interested.
And finally, let me clarify a point. I don't deny that Christ has both human and divine elements. As the only begotten Son of God, he has a sinless nature. I don't have any problem calling that divine. As a man with a physical body, he has a human nature and was subject to temptation, otherwise the redemptive work he accomplished on our behalf would be meaningless. The origianl point of my post was in reference to Def59' statement that Colossians 1:16 says he (Jesus) created the world. I don't believe an accurate translation and understanding of the context says that Christ was the creator, merely the focus thereof.
And finally, I don't see the point in pursuing tomes of "philosophy of religion" in order to obscure the clear witness of the Scriptures. Yes, there is some contradiction in the Scriptures so that no single doctrine is fully unequivocally substantiated therein. That's why I used the term "preponderance of the evidence". I think it's about 80/20 in favor of unitarian theology. That's not the inerrant Word VP preached about, but it's a helluva lot clearer and less convoluted than the philosophy of religion.
Mr. Reed your last post was an improvement. I actually understood most of it this time without scratching my head and pulling out my hair. Fortunately however, my hair grows fast and at times I have had a lot of it. As for your content however, you seem to be leaning quite a bit on the wisdom of man rather than the mind of Christ. I have nothing against philosophy. But since when does the philosophy of man teach us about the things of God? Rather the bible teaches us very clearly that it is foolish to try to learn the deep things of God by looking to the wisdom of man. Perhaps you should reread 1 Corinthians chapter 2.
One more thing for now. It is wonderful that you are a ministry student and seem to take an interest in Greek grammar. I recently purchased William Mounce's elementary books myself on this subject along with two others written by two other authors. Maybe some day I will have time to study them and learn biblical Greek. That is one of my goals anyway. However, you as a more advanced Greek student should remember to keep things very simple when endeavoring to explain biblical passages using Greek grammar. I have noticed that you occasionally try to do this, but unless you are also willing to teach us some of the most remote fundamentals of this subject I think you will not be able to convey your message. Perhaps you should teach less and explain more. If you care to start a separate thread on this subject (Greek grammar) I will be sure to read it.
Recommended Posts
Sunesis
I'm sure we all have thoughts and differing opinions. But from reading your posts, you don't ask questions because you really want to know what others think, or think about other possibilities. You ask questions to argue.
You seem still pretty much glued to VP's doctrine. When you decide you really want to learn, even if it goes against VP's doctrine, I think God will show you wonderful stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I've already posted my opinion on the BU thread. I don't see the logic in it myself. I don't believe that Jesus is "God the Son", but Chuck's seperation of Jesus into two persons is somewhat confusing. I'm comfortable with the idea that Jesus was a man born of divine conception and annointed with a heapin' helpin' of holy spirit. (I think I've been in Kentudky too long) :-P
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Jerry, I liked your post quoted above so I am reposting it here. Short and to the point. A good explanation. I might add just as Jesus was delivered from death by the hand of His Father God, so shall we be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
He don't know me very well, do he?
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I promise not argue anyone's beliefs on this subject.
Sun, I reject VP's doctrines. I once embraced JCING, and knew it thouroughly, now I stand opposed.
But at least I can talk to Jb, Raf and other unitarians because we have common basis. We may disagree on some points, but we all confess Jesus as Lord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
I think most of us here confess Christ as Lord. I do not believe Christ was two different people, but, he was a chip off the old block so to speak - he was/has the same essence of the Father.
I think TWI did us a grave disservice denying us Christ's divinity and just concentrating on his humanity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
I asked this question at the B.U. thread, and I will repeat it here.
Def, do you believe Mary is the Mother of God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
I agree that Christ is not two people. But Christ has two natures, a divine nature (which lives to this day and for all eternity), and a human nature (which is dead), and they are definitely very very separate. The question I was asking Def is what nature is he identifiying with?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CKnapp3
JB, I think you misunderstand. I don't believe Jesus is two people, anymore than we are two people. I do believe Jesus had two NATURES, very very separate. If they are not, then the law of logic has to credit Roman Catholicism with correctly teaching that Mary is The Mother of God. Not only that, but we have been given rather bad advice to "not walk after the flesh". But nonetheless we are advised that to walk after the flesh only leads to death.
The question is: is our faith in Christ after the flesh, or after the spirit? I see a great majority of Christians who are very very carnal when it comes to faith. And they would be the very first ones to even deny it! Nobody wants to believe they are more carnal than spiritual, including yours truly. So instead of arguing I'm spiritual and you are carnal, with you arguing back that I'm carnal and you are spiritual, I would just assume conclude that we all have sold out to the flesh. So what does God need to do with us now, now than none of us are spiritual? Just a little food for thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
CK
I am not sure now what you believe. You said Jesus and the Son of God were not the same person, now you are saying they are (or at least that is what I am hearing.)
I do not believe Mary is the mother of God. She was the vessel chosen to carry the Messiah, so we should respect her, but not revere her. She is not our mediatrix nor has any sway with the Lord.
I believe Jesus had a divine and human nature. God was his Father and Mary his mother. He was sinless, so he could be the perfect sacrifice. His shed blood cleanses us from sin.
So I believe John 14:6 when he says He is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
I believe he was speaking the truth when he said in John 17:5 he will regain the glory in heaven he once had.
I believe Colossians when it says he created the world. (Original texts had no parentheses)
I believe that he visited the earth in times past as the Angel of the Lord.
And I believe his words of warning in Matthew about a lake of fire and eternal judgment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Well Def, I agree with most of what you said here. I believe John, when he is the logos, the Word made flesh. He was with the father before, came here, and went again to him. You could call me a trinitarian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Colossians 1:16 does not say that Jesus created the world. That's a mistranslation in the KJV. The Greek words translated "by" and "for" are en and eis, meaning in and unto (For by Him were all things created...all things were created by Him and for Him) The end of the verse should be translated "all things were created in Him and unto Him.
This doesn't mean Jesus created the world. Rather, it means that everything in the heavens and earth was created with a view to Christ's redemption of man and ascension to the right hand of the throne of God. The throne Christ now occupies at God's right hand, his position of Lord of the universe, were prepared for Him when God created the heavens and earth.
There is no man or power in the entire universe above Jesus of Nazareth except God Himself.
That's what Colossians 1:16 really means. That a man born of woman could be raised to such an exalted status is beyond miraculous. When you put this verse together with I John 3:2 and Romans 8:29, the grace that God has extended to mankind via Jesus Christ is truly mind-boggling.
The human connection to Christ's exalted positionn is clear in the context.
17 And he is before all things, and by (in) Him all things consist.
18 And he is the Head of the body, the church; Who is the beginning, the Firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
D.A.Reed
To add to this discussion and respond to the comments made by Jbarrax on Colossians 1:16, I add the following post.
Grammatically, there are only three viable options on how to take this prepositional phrase in v. 16. First, it may be understood as instrumental (“by him”), which compares to the “through Him” of v. 16d. Second, it may be causal (“because of”). Third, in could be understood in a local sense (“in Him”). Now, if the later is correct this implies, in contrast to what you suggested above, that all things were created “within the sphere” of Christ. That is to say, that in Christ’s person was the creative energy that produced all things in heaven and on earth. As Harris suggests, “in the work of creation God [the Father] did not act apart from Christ” (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: Colossians and Philemon, 45).
That a man could be exalted such a status (such as equality with God in Phil. 2:6) is not “beyond miraculous” as you say, it is impossible (and note that in this passage Christ has such equality in v. 6 before his earthly career of vv. 7-8). There is an infinite chasm between the Creator and creature that cannot be breached from the bottom up. It is plausible to claim, however, that it can be breached from the top down. Your statement implies that translating the prepositional phrase in v. 16a as “in Him” precludes Christ’s divinity. This is hardly the case. Your interpretation is not only a translation, but an extrapolation (i.e., inference) which goes beyond what the limits of grammar can lay claim. Translation alone cannot tell us what this passage intends to say about Christ. The extra light that is needed should come from the source that inspired this early Christian hymn (which is what most believe it to be based on its poetical and lyrical structure).
The reason your interpretation is not a credible one is based, in part, on the parallels this ancient Christian hymn has with the intertestamental wisdom literature that was the source of its inspiration, specifically, the Wisdom of Solomon. Note the following similarities between Colossians 1:15-20 and the Wisdom of Solomon:
o Wisdom 7:26 – “For she is…a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness” (cf. Col. 1:15a).
o Wisdom 1:14 – “for he created all things so that they might exist” (cf. Col. 1:16a).
o Wisdom 5:23; 6:21; 7:8 – ideas on thrones and scepters (Col. 1:16d).
o Wisdom 7:24b – “For Wisdom…because of her pureness pervades and penetrates all things” (cf. Col. 1:16–17, 19).
o Wisdom 1:7 – “the spirit of the Lord has filled the world and that which holds all things together knows what is said” (and) 8:1b – “She reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and she orders all things well” (cf. Col. 1:17b).
o Wisdom 7:29 – on priority and superiority (cf. Col. 1:17a, 18d).
As Rabbis such as Ben Sira and Baruch identified divine Wisdom with the Torah in the centuries preceding Christ, so the New Testament identifies divine Wisdom with Christ (e.g., Paul, John and Matthew). Like personified Wisdom, Paul depicts Christ as the Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer of all things – a role He would be unfit and unable to fulfill if He Himself were a creature. If Christ were only a human being, then this passage (and many others in the New Testament) would be guilty of the gravest sin - idolatry, worshipping a man as God by 'exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of man' (cf. Romans 1:23).
Grace & peace,
- David
Colossians 1:13-14
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Jerry thank you for your simple explanation. Mr. Reed your position is not as easily understood. However, your conclusion seems to be.
You say translation alone cannot tell us what this passage intends to say about Christ. You then state that the extra light of understanding needed should come from an unscriptural source that most of us here are not familiar with. We simply do not know if your source (the book of Wisdom?) is a very godly one. In order to determine this we would have to read more than just a few verses. Why don't you instead try to back up your position with scriptural references? Dave, what are you quoting from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Is it possible that some revelations and realizations that might
occur within a person's mind & spirit & soul cannot be so easily (if at all) nailed by words onto a page?
Such may have been Paul's experience when he was caught away into the third heaven.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
That is a good point Danny. Especially with regard to prophetic knowledge of the future. Or we simply may not understand what is written and described.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
D.A. you said
Not according to Jesus Christ and the Bible. According the them, with God all things are possible.
Sounds a lot like VP's chasm from PFAL. Not so I say. More to the point; you are inserting a clause that does not exist in my argument. If God created the heavens and the earth with intent to exalt His Son to an exalted position therein, who says Jesus attained that position on his own, or in your words, "from the bottom up"? You see, your objection does not address my statement. God created the universe, God foreknew and foreordained Jesus to rule it. What's so impossible about that?Then you said,
You misrepresent my post. It was translation supported by the context. The context of the passage speaks of Christ being the head of the body of Christ, the firsborn from the dead. And, as Mark has already pointed out, I would much rather base my point on the words in the Scripture and the context of those words than to base it on an unsubstantiated claim that the passage is inspired by an unknown hymn. Come now, you can do better than that.
The Trinity may be true. And if I were arguing your point, I would allude to the divine attributes of Jesus in th passage; mainly that all things, in heaven and earth, including principalities and powers (arche) were created in and unto Him. That's pretty heady stuff. As I understand it, it means God prepared all of the archangels and powers of heaven to be in subjection to a perfect man born of a humble woman. What I see as mind boggling grace others might see as proof that Jesus is God Himself. But that would still be at odds with the text and the following passages about him being the head of the Church and the firstborn from the dead.
The triune God may be the true one. But, if I have to decide based entirely on the witness of the Scripture, the preponderance of the evidence says no.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
i'll put my agnostic two bits in...
I always had trouble with Col. 1 and twi interpretation never really sat right either.
Then there is 1 Cor. 15:22-28...bold added by me
it is just as unclear in most other translations
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
It seems like the first line in vs. 27 is a quote from an unknown (by me) source.
For those of you counting that was 15 "he's" and "him's" plus one "himself". that is 3*5+1 or 4*4. Ooooohhh don't get me started BSing about that!
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
D.A.Reed
Jbarrax, in response to the points you made in your last post.
First, the question as to whether God can do anything revolves around what omnipotence actually means. There are three options:
1. God can do anything that others can do.
2. God can do anything – even what is logically impossible
3. God can do anything that is conceivably possible.
The first option, no matter what we take God to be, ends up being very philosophically (not to mention biblically) unsatisfying. For example, can God sweat? Can God get jiggy with it? Even the Bible itself argues against this position. Hebrews 6.13, 18 states that God cannot swear by anyone greater than Himself or break His word (not to mention sin). These are two examples of things the Bible says that God is incapable of doing. So, the first alternative is not a viable explanation as to what omnipotence really means.
The second option has been defended by such figures as Descartes, who argued that even eternal truths can be, in a sense, undone by God by virtue of His omnipotence. If God is truly all-powerful, then why can He not make the square root of 49 equal 12, or make a square shaped circle? Yet, this assertion seems to break a fundamental law of logic and metaphysics – the law of excluded middle. For instance, does it make sense to say that God can make a person both dead and living at the same time in the same way? This seems to be wholly implausible and an impossible state of affairs to bring about.
The third option argues that divine omnipotence means that God can bring about any logically possible state of affairs. What does this definition mean in reference to God’s ability to act? Essentially, it means that there are no limits to God’s power other than the limits of logic (which He is responsible for in the first place). As Aquinas wrote, “God’s power, considered in itself, extends to all such objects as do not imply a contradiction.” This means that God can make to be anything which is possible to be. Look at it this way; can God make it be that Richard III survived the Battle of Bosworth in 1485? No. Why? Because that would imply that God can bring about two contradictory states of affairs (one where the King died in the past and one where he survived). Of course, allowing Richard to survive the battle in the first place is not contradictory since this does not imply changing the past at some point in the future. Consider another example. I am writing this now in March of 2005. Is it possible for God, right now, to cause it to be that I was never conceived? No, it is not. Why? Because doing so would contradict the very state of affairs that exist right now. It is incorrect, therefore, to claim that God can bring about anything without qualification. But does this not mean that God is not truly omnipotent? No, it does not. Rather, it means that omnipotence is naturally limited. In other words, it means that God’s power extends to anything that is not against His nature (which includes the laws of logic; after all He is the author and sustainer of all things, including logic).
As for your second point, the issue is not regarding Jesus’ ability to pick Himself up from His own bootstraps. Philippians 2 is claiming that God is now requiring all creation to worship Jesus. If Jesus were only a human being, then God is commanding us to commit idolatry. Clearly, this cannot be. So, the issue necessarily comes down to whether God can make another being equal to Him. If God could, this would imply that He was, in fact, not the absolute Creator and sustainer of the world, since monotheism insists that there is only one divine nature. Hence, it follows that if Jesus had a hand in creating the world and has a hand in sustaining it as well, this necessarily implies that He has a divine nature (Philippians 2.6-11; Hebrews 1.1-4). Why? Because these are acts that only God can perform. Of course, as Scripture attests, He also has a human nature, too. Your insistence on the need to bring “fore-knowledge” into this discussion is a red-herring – it distracts from the fundamental theological issue that only the Divine nature has the power of the Divine nature. God cannot give any creature (who is purely a creature) this power any more than He can conjure up another God equal to Himself. To insist that this is possible implies a be-lief-system that is non-monotheistic. Again, as I said above, there is no discussion of foreknowledge in Colossians 1.15-20. Any such importing serves only to muddy the waters and cloud the issue of what this passage is claiming about Christ’s divine nature and His role within the Church.
Finally, as to your third point, I still stand by what I said. Your interpretation is, in fact, not supported by the context. It is true that this hymn speaks of Christ being the firstborn from the dead and the head of the body. It does not, however, say this alone. At the same time it asserts that Christ was present and active in the creating and sustaining of the all things (which other NT passages confirm in even more stunning and unequivocal language). One might respond by saying that I am contradicting Scriptures that attest to Christ’s human nature. I affirm, however, as Scripture does, that Christ possesses both a divine and human nature. And there is no contradiction in asserting that Christ has both a divine and human nature. The union of these two natures into one person is a paradox, but it is not a contradiction.
You say that you will trust the entire witness of Scripture on this issue. Unfortunately, you will continue to run into these problems and difficulties time and time again until you do just that – accept that Scripture teaches us that Christ shares our humanity, yet without sin, and that He shares the life of the Father, in whom there is no change or shifting shadow.
I think you would find reading some discussions in philosophy of religion very helpful, since they relate to these issues. I suggest reading one or more of the following: Brian Davies’ “An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion,” 3rd Edition (about $20), G. K. Chesterton’s “The Everlasting Man,” Mortimer J. Adler’s “How to Think about God,” William Lane Craig’s “The Only Wise God,” Ben Witherington’s “The Shadow of the Almighty,” C. S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity,” or Millard Erickson’s “The Word Became Flesh.” Oh, and don’t forget the Apostles John, Paul, and Peter, the synoptic Gospel authors and the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews.
Grace & peace,
- David
Colossians 1.13-14
Edited by D.A.ReedLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Hebrews 1:10 clearly and unmistakably speaks of the Son having created the earth and heavens.
Socinianism (the Christological position that Christ’s existence began at conception in Mary) has no biblical testimony supporting it, and was not a biblically ministered or inspired view of Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
It’s good to see D. A. Reed posting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Ah Mr. Reed. You are not honestly addressing the issues here.
You say it's impossible for God to exalt a man to be ruler of the universe. The Bible says with God all things are possible. So to counter a simple statement of God's ability you run around in philosophical circles dropping names and generally avoiding the issue. Shameless behavior, really. If God almighty wants to give authority over His creation to a man, your calling it "impossible" doesn't make it so, no matter what Descartes thinks.
Now about your second point. Again, you are distorting both my post and the scripture we're discussing. You said,
I did not say God made Jesus His equal. neither does Colossians. Read it again please. It says, (emphasis added)
It says all things were CREATED in Christ. Was God created? No. God did the creating. There is not hing here that says God made Christ equal to himself. It simply says God made Jesus (who is, by the way, part of God's creation) the chief of that creation. Furthermore, it says that God made Jesus the head of the body. Again, this does not make Christ equal to God.
Furthermore, I didn't say Jesus "had a hand in creating the world." Merely that God creted it with Christ's eventual dominion of it in mind.
What hymn are you referring to D.A.? If you're referring to the passage itself as a hymn, we can discuss it. If you wish to dodge the context and talk about an obscure hymn instead, I'm not interested.
And finally, let me clarify a point. I don't deny that Christ has both human and divine elements. As the only begotten Son of God, he has a sinless nature. I don't have any problem calling that divine. As a man with a physical body, he has a human nature and was subject to temptation, otherwise the redemptive work he accomplished on our behalf would be meaningless. The origianl point of my post was in reference to Def59' statement that Colossians 1:16 says he (Jesus) created the world. I don't believe an accurate translation and understanding of the context says that Christ was the creator, merely the focus thereof.
And finally, I don't see the point in pursuing tomes of "philosophy of religion" in order to obscure the clear witness of the Scriptures. Yes, there is some contradiction in the Scriptures so that no single doctrine is fully unequivocally substantiated therein. That's why I used the term "preponderance of the evidence". I think it's about 80/20 in favor of unitarian theology. That's not the inerrant Word VP preached about, but it's a helluva lot clearer and less convoluted than the philosophy of religion.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Mr. Reed your last post was an improvement. I actually understood most of it this time without scratching my head and pulling out my hair. Fortunately however, my hair grows fast and at times I have had a lot of it. As for your content however, you seem to be leaning quite a bit on the wisdom of man rather than the mind of Christ. I have nothing against philosophy. But since when does the philosophy of man teach us about the things of God? Rather the bible teaches us very clearly that it is foolish to try to learn the deep things of God by looking to the wisdom of man. Perhaps you should reread 1 Corinthians chapter 2.
One more thing for now. It is wonderful that you are a ministry student and seem to take an interest in Greek grammar. I recently purchased William Mounce's elementary books myself on this subject along with two others written by two other authors. Maybe some day I will have time to study them and learn biblical Greek. That is one of my goals anyway. However, you as a more advanced Greek student should remember to keep things very simple when endeavoring to explain biblical passages using Greek grammar. I have noticed that you occasionally try to do this, but unless you are also willing to teach us some of the most remote fundamentals of this subject I think you will not be able to convey your message. Perhaps you should teach less and explain more. If you care to start a separate thread on this subject (Greek grammar) I will be sure to read it.
Thanks for posting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.