What does Colossians 1:16 mean when it says "For by him were all things created..."

[RLT63]

What does Colossians 1:16 mean when it says "For by him were all things created..."
OP ^

It (the meaning), requires a Belief of Understanding KNOWLEDGE of God.

In Genesis God SAYS...”us and our”, speaking of Himself.
Study reveals; God speaking of Himself as “us and our”...
Is a reference to the WHOLE of God...
* His, thoughts, will, desire, pleasure, ideas.
* His, power, Spirit, ability.
* His, word, declaration.

Study reveals; the WHOLE of God, IS God, Can come forth out from God, Yet remains IN God, IS always IN Agreement, IS always Righteous, The Whole of God IS His own counselor.

ManKIND, was CREATED, with a Brain, a Heart, a Tongue.
ManKIND, was MADE, Alive via a SOUL.

* Once Alive, the Brain, can Think, Thinking of the Brain, IS:......The act of a Carnal Mind.
The Carnal Mind, can think truths, lies, concoct deception, concoct goodness.

* Once Alive, the Heart, has Thoughts, It’s Natural Truths,
IS: ..... The natural spirit of the man.

* Once Alive the Tongue can Speak the Thoughts of it’s Carnal Mind....Truths, Lies, Plans of Deceptions, Plans of goodness.
* Once Alive, the Tongue, can Speak the Thoughts, of it’s Natural spirit....Truths.

The Whole of man IS:
His thoughts, his word, his declarations....
His thoughts, his word, his declarations come forth out from him, while remaining in him.

Man was Created from DUST, then MADE Alive in Gods LIKENESS...
Whole, with thoughts, words, declarations.
Man was Made to reproduce its SAME KIND of thing from it SEED.
When mans SEED became Corrupt, so also is what he reproduces the Same Corrupt KIND of man.

Jesus’ OFFERED all men to BECOME “MADE” “Acceptably anew, According TO and By, Through and Of the POWER OF GOD”

ANY man CAN Agree and Take Jesus’ Offering.....OR NOT!

ANY man WHO of his own Freewill chooses to Agree, Accept and Take Christ the Lord Jesus’ Offering.....DOES SO ONCE and FOREVER.

It appears sadly obvious the majority of men calling themselves “Christians”, Have not a Clue to the Order, Way and Understanding of Christ the Lord Jesus’ Offering.

Not in the post in question. I thought you gave me grief for not following the conversation? I guess that does not apply to you.

Again, I understand the HS has convicted you.



True but irrelevant to the point of the post.

Refer to post #50 your comments at the bottom of the post quoting a previous post you made unless you have edited it

 

[RLT63]

“Have you ever read the Bible? It might pay you to read it before questioning it.”

In conversation with someone who self-identifies as a Christian, this is a dialogue killer.

What would “you” - the Christian reader - think if I said this to “you”? Would it make “you” happy? Would it make “you” angry? Would “you” feel disrespected? Would it make “you” want to continue a conversation with me? Would it cause “you” to move along to someone else? Would it cause “you” to treat me as I treated “you”? Would it cause “you” to treat me as “you” would like me to treat “you”?

I read the scriptures daily and have for about 40 years. I’ve been a Christian for a long time, and a minister for a goodly portion of that time. I would be a wealthy Christian minister if a had a dollar for every time a person who self-identifies as a Christian has asked me, “Have you ever read John 1:1?”

That’s a dialogue killer. Once delivered, I have a decision to make. What I decide about proceeding varies; how I decide about proceeding doesn’t.

I can tell you have read the Bible. Probably many times more than I have. I see that I don't fit your definition of a Trinitarian from what I have gathered. I am a Christian.

 

[Matthias]

I can tell you have read the Bible. Probably many times more than I have.

Any time and every time I meet any one who tells me he or she is a Christian, my working assumption is that the person has read the Bible. I maintain that posture unless or until the person himself or herself tells me that they haven’t. I’ve met many Christians who have never read the Bible from cover to cover. I’ve met many Christians who have read the Bible from cover to cover - once, twice … dozens of times. Virtually all Christians have read the Bible, in full or in part.

I mentioned to you that I inherited my paternal grandfather’s small personal library. In that collection are half a dozen Bibles, all well-worn. The most interesting of them for me are those which he used in his later years. He wrote dates in them, documenting precisely when he read sections of scripture. That’s somewhat unique, but what’s really unique is that he read from Genesis thru Revelation, then he reversed it and read from Revelation thru Genesis. He did it over, and over, and over again. In his mind, in his speech and in his action, he knew the Bible “forward and backward.”

I can track his declining health as his eyesight faltered and his hand became unsteady. It’s a very personal and highly emotional attachment for me.

I haven’t read the Bible from Revelation thru Genesis, and I doubt that I ever will. I don’t think it’s necessary to do that in order to say that I know the Bible “forward and backward”. I read the Bible from cover to cover - preferably in chronological order - over, and over and over again. I read it other ways, too. My grandfather instilled the desire in me to read the Bible from a very early age.

Then comes the Christian who asks me, “Have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever read John 1:1?”

If the Christian who asks me that has never met me, that’s one thing. If the Christian who asks me that has met and knows a little about me, that’s another thing. How I respond to the former should be obvious to all. How I respond to the latter isn’t immediately obvious, even to me.

I see that I don't fit your definition of a Trinitarian from what I have gathered.

Some trinitarians are orthodox in their understanding and belief; some trinitarians aren’t. Whether orthodox or unorthodox, I treat them all as trinitarians.

I will say this. A trinitarian who rejects orthodoxy already has one foot out of trinitarianism. Will that person take their other foot out? Will that person put both feet in? Will that trinitarian remain with one foot in and one foot out? It sounds like theological hokey pokey. Does it matter?

I am a Christian.

Christianity is a wide spectrum. Church history confirms that Christians have been found at various points on the spectrum. What is true of the past is true of the present and, I think, points to being true in the future - at least until Jesus returns.

 

[Wrangler]

Refer to post #50 your comments at the bottom of the post quoting a previous post you made unless you have edited it

My post quoting a previous post. Gotcha!

I was only referring to what I posted in post 50. I was not referring to pre-post 50 posts.

EXACTLY! And what the verse says is Jesus is NOT God. Everything was created FOR and THROUGH but not BY Jesus. So simple, even a trinitarian can understand it.

What I am referring to now as before was how you criticize me for not keeping up with the conversation but it seems ti be OK when you refer to a post beyond the immediate last post.

 

[RLT63]

Any time and every time I meet any one who tells me he or she is a Christian, my working assumption is that the person has read the Bible. I maintain that posture unless or until the person himself or herself tells me that they haven’t. I’ve met many Christians who have never read the Bible from cover to cover. I’ve met many Christians who have read the Bible from cover to cover - once, twice … dozens of times. Virtually all Christians have read the Bible, in full or in part.

I mentioned to you that I inherited my paternal grandfather’s small personal library. In that collection are half a dozen Bibles, all well-worn. The most interesting of them for me are those which he used in his later years. He wrote dates in them, documenting precisely when he read sections of scripture. That’s somewhat unique, but what’s really unique is that he read from Genesis thru Revelation, then he reversed it and read from Revelation thru Genesis. He did it over, and over, and over again. In his mind, in his speech and in his action, he knew the Bible “forward and backward.”

I can track his declining health as his eyesight faltered and his hand became unsteady. It’s a very personal and highly emotional attachment for me.

I haven’t read the Bible from Revelation thru Genesis, and I doubt that I ever will. I don’t think it’s necessary to do that in order to say that I know the Bible “forward and backward”. I read the Bible from cover to cover - preferably in chronological order - over, and over and over again. I read it other ways, too. My grandfather instilled the desire in me to read the Bible from a very early age.

Then comes the Christian who asks me, “Have you ever read the Bible? Have you ever read John 1:1?”

If the Christian who asks me that has never met me, that’s one thing. If the Christian who asks me that has met and knows a little about me, that’s another thing. How I respond to the former should be obvious to all. How I respond to the latter isn’t immediately obvious, even to me.



Some trinitarians are orthodox in their understanding and belief; some trinitarians aren’t. Whether orthodox or unorthodox, I treat them all as trinitarians.

I will say this. A trinitarian who rejects orthodoxy already has one foot out of trinitarianism. Will that person take their other foot out? Will that person put both feet in? Will that trinitarian remain with one foot in and one foot out? It sounds like theological hokey pokey. Does it matter?



Christianity is a wide spectrum. Church history confirms that Christians have been found at various points on the spectrum. What is true of the past is true of the present and, I think, points to being true in the future - at least until Jesus returns.

I spent a lot more time listening to commentary as I drove back and forth to work than reading. But I have read it.

 

[Matthias]

I will say this. A trinitarian who rejects orthodoxy already has one foot out of trinitarianism. Will that person take their other foot out? Will that person put both feet in? Will that trinitarian remain with one foot in and one foot out? It sounds like theological hokey pokey. Does it matter?

There was a time in Church history when it mattered. Any deviation from orthodoxy would have a placed a Christian in peril, even to the point of being persecuted, tormented, tortured and killed.

It doesn’t matter any more, at least not to that extent. I appreciate that.

Heterodoxy is now widely accepted and practiced in trinitarian churches. Good news for modern man?

Once orthodoxy is considered optional, doctrine loses it’s hold. A gap is created.

* Mic drop *

When I was in London, I heard a pleasant recording cautioning travelers to, “Mind the gap.”

Does it matter? I took it seriously.

 

[RLT63]

There was a time in Church history when it mattered. Any deviation from orthodoxy would have a placed a Christian in peril, even to the point of being persecuted, tormented, tortured and killed.

It doesn’t matter any more, at least not to that extent. I appreciate that.

Heterodoxy is now widely accepted and practiced in trinitarian churches. Good news for modern man?

Once orthodoxy is considered optional, doctrine loses it’s hold. A gap is created.

* Mic drop *

When I was in London, I heard a pleasant recording cautioning travelers to, “Mind the gap.”

Does it matter? I took it seriously.

I didn't know that what I had always been taught was premillenial dispensationism until I looked into it. I read a book about 4 views on Revelation and found Preterism interesting. It makes a good case until you get to Revelation. Revelation doesn't fit in Preterism. I have always been taught the futurists view.

 

[Matthias]

I didn't know that what I had always been taught was premillenial dispensationism until I looked into it. I read a book about 4 views on Revelation and found Preterism interesting. It makes a good case until you get to Revelation. Revelation doesn't fit in Preterism. I have always been taught the futurists view.

All of those views have been held at various times in the Church. Just like everything else, we can track them waxing and waning by reading Church history - a history of Christian thought.

Like you, I’m a futurist.

*

I had a trinitarian professor who impressed upon his students the idea - as a general principle - that compromised doctrine is no doctrine at all; not worth the paper it’s written on.

 

[RLT63]

All of those views have been held at various times in the Church. Just like everything else, we can track them waxing and waning by reading Church history - a history of Christian thought.

Like you, I’m a futurist.

*

I had a trinitarian professor who impressed upon his students the idea - as a general principle - that compromised doctrine is no doctrine at all; not worth the paper it’s written on.

The historical view of Revelation was pretty much that the Catholic Church was the enemy.

 

[Matthias]

I was briefly introduced to Socrates in High School and met him again later in College.

“The unexamined life isn’t worth living.” -Socrates

I’m not fond of Socrates, but many of the Early Church Fathers were; that’s something to think about.

“The unexamined doctrine isn’t worth living.”

Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.

Thoughts @RLT63?

 

[Matthias]

The historical view of Revelation was pretty much that the Catholic Church was the enemy.

Revelation predates the Catholic Church. My friend @theefaith - who believes Jesus himself was a Roman Catholic - would not agree.

 

[RLT63]

Revelation predates the Catholic Church. My friend @theefaith - who believes Jesus himself was a Roman Catholic - would not agree.

The book gave four views and what it called the historical view was just anti Catholic Church

 

[Matthias]

The book gave four views and what it called the historical view was just anti Catholic Church

Someone’s dog has fleas.

 

[Matthias]

I was briefly introduced to Socrates in High School and met him again later in College.

“The unexamined life isn’t worth living.” -Socrates

I’m not fond of Socrates, but many of the Early Church Fathers were; that’s something to think about.

“The unexamined doctrine isn’t worth living.”

Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.

Thoughts @RLT63?

The pagan Greek philosophers were viewed by some Church Fathers as “proto-Christians”.

That brings to mind those who try to persuade Jews that Rabbinical Judaism teaches trinitarianism.

Marketing quicksand as solid ground to those who will not perform due diligence is taking advantage of the foolish.

 

[RLT63]

Someone’s dog has fleas.

https://www.amazon.com/Revelation-P...wicXNhIjoiMS43MyIsInFzcCI6IjEuODcifQ==&sr=8-4

 

[Matthias]

https://www.amazon.com/Revelation-Parallel-Commentary-Revised-Updated/dp/1401676219/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?keywords=four+views+on+revelation&qid=1664056466&qu=eyJxc2MiOiIxLjkyIiwicXNhIjoiMS43MyIsInFzcCI6IjEuODcifQ==&sr=8-4

I have it in my personal library. It’s with forty-five plus unopened boxes of theology books that have been in storage since 2016. It’s enough to make a grown man cry.

“What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” - Tertullian (beat me to it by a few centuries)

 

[RLT63]

I have it in my personal library. It’s with forty-five plus unopened boxes of theology books that have been in storage since 2016. It’s enough to make a grown man cry.

“What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” - Tertullian (beat me to it by a few centuries)

I've been trying to sell some of my books on Ebay but so far by the time I pay shipping I either lose money or barely break even.

 

[Matthias]

I've been trying to sell some of my books on Ebay but so far by the time I pay shipping I either lose money or barely break even.

My wife has a long-standing “rule” : If I bring a book into the house I’m supposed to take a book out of the house.

I flaunt the rule. It’s unjust, I tell you.

If I take a book out of storage, I put a book in storage - sometimes two or three - new acquisitions.

 

[RLT63]

My wife has a long-standing “rule” : If I bring a book into the house I’m supposed to take a book out of the house.

I flaunt the rule. It’s unjust, I tell you.

If I take a book out of storage, I put a book in storage - sometimes two or three - new acquisitions.

My latest collection is sermons on CD I listen to while driving. I have enough now I can just go back through and listen to them again and it seems like a new message.

 

[Enoch111]

There is no definitive reason to believe the believers in Colosse were Trinitarian.

Do you realize how nonsensical this sounds? Of course you are trying to justify your false beliefs but any honest person (even one who is not a Christian) will have to admit that in Colossians Jesus is presented as (1) the Creator and (2) the one in whom ALL the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily. In plain English "Jesus is God".

Since the Bible already presents God the Father throughout the New Testament, and now presents God the Son as the Creator, we already have two persons within the Godhead. While the Holy Spirit is not mention in this context, there is no doubt that the Christians in the apostolic churches knew that Jesus had said that the Holy Spirit is also God. So that makes THREE divine persons. Which equates to the Trinity.

What this means for anti-Trinitarians is that every time they say something, they simply did their holes a little deeper.