What does Colossians 1:16 mean when it says "For by him were all things created..."
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
”Many people today think that the essence of Christianity is the teachings of Jesus. That isn’t so … Christianity centers not in the teachings of Jesus but in the person of Jesus as the incarnate God who came into the world to take upon himself our guilt and to die in our place.”
(D. James Kennedy, The Presence of a Hidden God, p. 82)
Jesus taught and preached the gospel. The essence of primitive Christianity centers in the teaching of the Messiah.
As Dr. Kennedy (and others) point out, that’s not the case in later Christianity.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
There are many death blows to trinitarianism:
- The trinity is not in the Bible, not the word and not the concept.
- Jesus did not teach the trinity.
- The Apostles did not teach the trinity.
- The entire Bible, with the possible exception of Luke, was written by monotheist Jews.
- Every Epistle explicitly identifies God the Father and no other God is explicitly identified. The writings of the Apostles reinforce their monotheism.
- Jesus said he has a God - who we relate to as Father - who is the only true God.
- Jesus taught us to pray to a unitarian God in heaven.
- The most important commandment, the Sh’ma, states God is 1 not 3-in-1.
- The 1C says you shall have no other gods before me (singular) - not plural gods.
- Definition. Jesus is repeatedly identified as the Son of God, which means he is not God. Jesus is repeatedly identified as a man, which means he is not God.
- Logic. Converses are not synonyms. The son of God is not God the Son. Mutual Exclusiveness: For us, there is one God, the Father necessarily means Jesus is not God.
- Language Usage. Most of the NT juxtaposes God in contrast with Jesus, e.g., God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. God raised Jesus from the dead. God gave Jesus the revelation.
- Explicit Scripture. Jesus said God was greater, knew more, sent him, told him what to say & how to say it, and would decide who sits next to him.
- Jesus died. God is eternal and unchanging.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
I think there are, otherwise I would still be a trinitarian.
Trinitarianism acknowledges that a post-biblical transition took place. Trinitarians at the level of online discussion forums don’t necessarily agree that that’s what happened historically. For them, it’s “as clear as clear can be in scripture”. All we can do with such persons, I think, is point them to Church history. What they do with it - generally, they think it’s unimportant, boring and irrelevant - is up to them.
Their scholars - especially and more frequently Catholic scholars - are better than that. They know a development took place and they see that as a good and valid thing; something that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was leading the Church to think about, eventually see and understand. They at least have the history right.
Dr. Brown poses the question to his readers: Is the development which took place over those 4 centuries in Church history legitimate?
That’s the right question to ask. That’s the $64,000 question.
A yes answer relegates the Jewish unitary monotheism of Israel and primitive Christianity (as well as other beliefs in primitive Christianity) in the dust bin of history.
A no answer leaves everyone who doesn’t answer yes on the outside looking in.
The fascinating thing to me, as an ex-trinitarian, is that Christianity has entered into what Dr. Brown calls a post-Chalcedonian era - the ruination of Christianity, in his view. He thought it matters. How many times have we heard trinitarians say that it doesn’t? He spent his life trying to reverse the trend. He spent his life fighting in a losing battle.
“In theology, we have to say that we now seem to have entered a post-Chalcedonian era.The transformation this development portends is greater than anything that has yet happened within Christianity.”
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p. 431)
A couple of years ago I coined the phrase “the Trinity drift” to describe it. I think Dr. Brown, if he were alive today, would appreciate it.
“Today the clarity and necessity of Chalcedon, if not refuted or disproved, has been widely forgotten and ignored. Christianity took four centuries to formulate its witness to the deity and humanity of Christ in the context of the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in such a way that it preserved a coherent approach to the unity of truth. It has taken fifteen centuries more to forget Chalcedon again; as it loses touch with Chalcedon, the Christian world is in the process of losing its coherence. It is in fact losing the conviction that there is any final truth about the one who said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6).”
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, pp. 431-432)
I think of this as Dr. Brown’s critique of “the Trinity shift”.
Let no man read these words of his and harbor any doubt that he was dedicated to historical orthodox trinitarianism.
Last edited:
It’s the battle against the gospel Jesus taught and preached that is of greater interest and concern to me.
Would you happen to have a verse that says Jesus said the Holy Spirit is God? Or even a verse from anyone in the New Testament that says the Holy Spirit is God. Here's some data on the Holy Spirit...
The words “HOLY SPIRIT” in the Bible are primarily used in two very different ways: One way is to refer to God Himself and the other is referring to God’s nature that He gives to people. God is holy and is spirit and therefore “the Holy Spirit” with a capital “H” and a capital “S” is one of the many “names” or designations for God. God gives His holy spirit nature to people as a gift and when HOLY SPIRIT is used that way it should be translated as the “holy spirit” with a lowercase “h” and a lowercase “s.” The Bible says there is one God, and one Lord, who is the man Jesus Christ; and one gift of the holy spirit. Most Christians are aware that the original manuscripts of the Bible were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. However, it's not well known that Hebrew and Aramaic do not have upper-case and lower-case letters, but rather they just have one form for their letters.
Greek does have upper and lower-case letters, but the early Greek manuscripts were all written with only upper-case letters. Therefore, the early manuscripts had no such thing as the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit” because what was always written was the "HOLY SPIRIT." The capital or lower-case letters are always a translator’s interpretation whenever we read “Holy Spirit” or “holy spirit” or “Spirit” or “spirit” in the English Bible. The difference is usually due to the theology of the translator. The bottom line is we cannot know from the Hebrew or Greek texts whether the Author meant the “Holy Spirit” or the “holy spirit” because we must decide based on the context and scope of Scripture whether the reference being made is to God or God’s gift.
There are many descriptions, titles, and names for God in the Bible and I would like to add God’s proper name is “Yahweh” which occurs more than 6,000 times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is generally translated as “LORD.” But God is also referred to as Elohim, Adonai, El Shaddai, the Ancient of Days, the Holy One of Israel, Father, Shield, and by many more designations. Furthermore, God is holy (Leviticus 11:44), which is why He was called “the Holy One” (the Hebrew text uses the singular adjective “holy” to designate “the Holy One." He is also spirit (John 4:24). It makes perfect sense since God is holy and God is spirit that “Holy” and “Spirit” are sometimes combined and used as one of the many designations for God. Thus, the Hebrew or Greek words for the "HOLY SPIRIT" should be brought into English as the "Holy Spirit” when the subject of a verse is God.
None of the dozens of descriptions, titles, or names of God are believed to be a separate, co-equal “Person” in a triune God except for the “HOLY SPIRIT” and there is no solid biblical reason to make the "Holy Spirit” into a separate “Person.” In other contexts the “HOLY SPIRIT” refers to the gift of God’s nature that He placed on people and the new birth to the Christian, and in those contexts it should be translated as the “holy spirit." God placed a form of His nature which is “holy spirit” upon people when He wanted to spiritually empower them because our natural fleshly human bodies do not have spirit power of their own. This holy spirit nature of God was a gift from God to humankind and we see this in the case of Acts 2:38 when the spirit is specifically called a "gift" when given to the Christian.
Where in these verses does it say God became a man?
Philippians 2:7-8
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Perhaps I should have qualified that statement by saying "every serious Bible student should require of themselves a thorough and exhaustive investigation of the Bible and what it teaches".
I subscribe to the saying..."a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"....and for so many reasons.
I have an insatiable appetite for knowledge...the Bible is my pet subject....I have been studying it for just on 50 years.....I like to share what I have learned with whomever might take the time to read what I post. No one is standing there with a big stick forcing them to read my lengthy replies. I like to supply substance to what I believe the Bible teaches....not just lines plucked out of verses, and out of context.
That might be what God said, but it hardly describes what he did in the great event that his simple statement conveyed.
When Jesus asked his apostles to "follow" him, what did they think he meant? What did "following" Jesus entail? Was it simple to just drop everything and follow Jesus?
You see, I have no time for a surface knowledge of these things.....its not the way my mind works. I want to put myself in the shoes of those who "followed" Jesus to improve my own 'walk' with him. I want to know how they felt and what Jesus expected of them.
Did I ever suggest that a vast amount of knowledge is "required"? If you are a Bible student, (like a student of any other subject) a thorough knowledge of your subject is what makes everything interesting and beneficial. Its what gives people impetus to become teachers, to share their knowledge......and I have been a teacher for about 40 of those 50 years.
I am losing no one.....since it isn't me who draws people to the truth of God's word. (John 6:44, 65) I simply supply backup for what I say.....isn't that what we all should do? Its pointless to make empty statements about what the Bible teaches, without evidence.
What is the context of this statement by Paul? It is about problems among fellow Christians, some of whom were stumbling over the eating of food that others thought they should not eat. It meant not stumbling a brother over things that basically didn't really matter, but which someone who was weak in faith might see as a major problem.....an overreaction to the situation, as Paul indicated......"Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds others up." (1 Corinthians 10:23) He said it was better to abstain from the food than to stumble a weak one. But in promoting the truth we see that neither Jesus nor the apostles held back from telling the truth. It is "the truth" that "sets us free"....what sort of 'freedom' did Jesus mean?
I have no control over how someone reacts to what I say......but I will not hold back from telling the truth just because someone might be offended.....this is the right forum for those who believe differently to others.....let them stay away if what is said offends them.
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
There is a reason why we call it "the truth" because a good many of us have come out of Christendom and were formerly taught the opposite of what is the truth....a complete bunch of lies.
There were so many things that the Bible taught me, that my church never did. I came to understand that the central core of what Christendom teaches did not originate from scripture at all but was adopted into the church in later centuries....as I got into deeper study, more about the origins of these doctrines came to light. I was angry that the truth was kept from me, and the break-away liberated me in ways that I never could have anticipated.
This is what Christianity ISN'T.....
Could you see Jesus dressed like this?....or being part of this charade?
Why did Judas have to betray Jesus with a kiss? If he was dressed like this, all he needed to do was describe the clothes he was wearing.....
Do these people have no concept of what original Christianity looked like?
Any wonder they have no idea what the first Christians were taught.
Last edited:
This Scripture is the proof that Christ became man. He was in the likeness of us, fully man and "fashioned" as we were. This speaks of the virgin birth, being conceived of the Holy Spirit and not by procreation.
Col. 2:9
"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
This verse is one of the many that presents Christ as God! Christ in the form of man (what He did as man) represents the fulness of the Godhead. He (Christ) is the fulness of Deity. In Him the believer is complete.
It's obvious you will not believe any of this! But on the day when you take part in bowing your knee to Him, there will be no doubt you will know who He is then!
There is a reason why we call it "the truth" because a good many of us have come out of Christendom and were formerly taught the opposite of what is the truth....a complete bunch of lies.
There were so many things that the Bible taught me, that my church never did. I came to understand that the central core of what Christendom teaches did not originate from scripture at all but was adopted into the church in later centuries....as I got into deeper study, more about the origins of these doctrines came to light. I was angry that the truth was kept from me, and the break-away liberated me in ways that I never could have anticipated.
This is what Christianity ISN'T.....
Could you see Jesus dressed like this?....or being part of this charade?
Why did Judas have to betray Jesus with a kiss? If he was dressed like this, all he needed to do was describe the clothes he was wearing.....
Do these people have no concept of what original Christianity looked like?
Perhaps you just traded one charade for another.
What I see in scripture: Christ didn’t become man. Christ was born man. He was supernaturally created in the womb of his mother by his and his mother’s God.
Jesus is a human person.
Colossians 2:9 should be paired with Colossians 1:19. Jesus was filled with his God’s spirit, just as his followers are.
Jesus is precisely who scripture says he is, and scripture doesn’t say he is the second person of the Trinity.
Behold
Well-Known Member
Jesus is "God manifested in the Flesh".
God become a man.
Fully man, fully God.
See, you are a human, only, because you are created by a human, 2 of them.
Jesus was created INSIDE a virgin's womb, by the HOLY SPIRIT, and 'GOD is A Spirit", and "that Spirit IS Christ"....The NT teaches you.
Thus far, mostly compatible with trinitarianism.
Begotten by my father, conceived by my mother.
The NT does teach me that. Trinitarianism taught me that Jesus was not created.
I don’t know what that sounds like to others but that sounds to me like you’re saying that Christ created himself in the womb of the virgin.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Luke 1:35 The Lord was conceived in the womb of a virgin. His earthly body was created. He was not.
Behold
Well-Known Member
Are you saying you were hatched?
Are you saying that the seed of your Father, planted in the womb of your mother is not the creation of your body?
Jesus was of the Seed of God, and God is A Spirit.
The Spiritual Seed of God, created Jesus the man.
God can create...
Adam from Dirt.
Womb-man, from Adam's Rib
You from your mother and your dad.
Jesus from God's seed and a virgin's womb.
God could create a human out of a dying Star if that was His desire.
""""With God all things are possible""....
A created “Jesus” is a creature; “another Jesus,” have said countless trinitarians down through the centuries.
I believe Jesus was miraculously created by God in the womb of the virgin; that Jesus is a creature.
That is, without question, not the Jesus of trinitarian theology.
Whether or not a person believes trinitarian theology is correct or incorrect, it’s inescapable that those in one camp must view those in the other camp as believing in “another Jesus”. Those who say they have escaped it simply dismiss it as an academic issue of no importance.
A trinitarian put it to me like this: You believe that Jesus was created. It makes no difference how you explain it; you believe he’s a creature. That places him on the same level as “Jesus” the illegal alien who scaled the border fence to get into this country. You believe in “just another Jesus”.
He doesn’t fully grasp what I believe (“it makes no difference how you explain it”) but he’s right in saying that, from his perspective, I believe in “another Jesus”. In my perspective, it is he who believes in “another Jesus.”
“For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted - you may well put up with it!”
(2 Corinthians 11:4, NKJV)
Paul is a primitive Christian.
I believe Jesus was miraculously created by God in the womb of the virgin; that Jesus is a creature.
That is, without question, not the Jesus of trinitarian theology.
Whether or not a person believes trinitarian theology is correct or incorrect, it’s inescapable that those in one camp must view those in the other camp as believing in “another Jesus”. Those who say they have escaped it simply dismiss it as an academic issue of no importance.
A trinitarian put it to me like this: You believe that Jesus was created. It makes no difference how you explain it; you believe he’s a creature. That places him on the same level as “Jesus” the illegal alien who scaled the border fence to get into this country. You believe in “just another Jesus”.
He doesn’t fully grasp what I believe (“it makes no difference how you explain it”) but he’s right in saying that, from his perspective, I believe in “another Jesus”. In my perspective, it is he who believes in “another Jesus.”
“For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted - you may well put up with it!”
(2 Corinthians 11:4, NKJV)
Paul is a primitive Christian.
I’m saying that Jesus is a human person, a creature, miraculously created by God (his and mine) as described in the birth narratives.
- Status
Similar threads
