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

[RLT63]

No sir! Do you see the twisted NOT in the sentence? You've turned a DOES NOT into a DOES.

The expression "Son of God" is a title not a biological relationship. Jesus is not called son of the father. He is the son of the Supreme Being, in his wholeness, in his unitarian nature. We too are children of God. It does not make us God.

If Jesus thought it was robbery to be equal to God that would mean he was not equal. He thought it was not robbery.

 

[RLT63]

Among human persons, yes. He saw the Father’s back parts.

A human person is now sitting next to the Father in heaven. He surely has seen the Father too.

But the Angel that spoke to Mary said he would sit on his father David's throne. He hasn't done that yet.

 

[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.

You’ve inspired me to acquire another book - “Christian Theology: An Introduction” written by Alister McGrath.

Have you by any chance read it?

 

[Matthias]

But the Angel that spoke to Mary said he would sit on his father David's throne. He hasn't done that yet.

That’s right. He will when he returns.

 

[RLT63]

You’ve inspired me to acquire another book - “Christian Theology: An Introduction” written by Alister McGrath.

Have you by any chance read it?

I have Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem. I haven't read McGrath's

 

[Matthias]

I have Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem. I haven't read McGrath's

McGrath says some things about the Trinity which capture my attention. For example,

“The doctrine of the Trinity can be regarded as the outcome of a process of sustained and critical reflection on the pattern of divine activity revealed in Scripture, and continued in Christian experience. This is not to say that Scripture contains a doctrine of the Trinity; rather, Scripture bears witness to a God who demands to be understood in a trinitarian manner. We shall explore the evolution of the doctrine and its distinctive vocabulary in what follows.”

Bold is mine.

 

[Wrangler]

Being in the form of God" alone makes Him Deity!

No. My granddaughters savings bank is in the form of a baby bottle. It is NOT a baby bottle.

Whenever something ‘is in the form of’ something else, it is NOT that thing. To say Jesus is ‘in the form of ‘ God is how you know he is not God. Otherwise, it would be simply written, ‘Jesus is God.’

 

[Wrangler]

If Jesus thought it was robbery to be equal to God that would mean he was not equal. He thought it was not robbery.

You are moving where the NOT is to fit your dogma. A main reason he would NOT think it robbery is because he is NOT equal.

This is consistent with his admission that God is greater than him.

If your interpretation is correct, how do you explain - without resorting to dualism - him being equal to God not being robbery but being unequal (less than) God?

 

[Charlie24]

No. My granddaughters savings bank is in the form of a baby bottle. It is NOT a baby bottle.

Whenever something ‘is in the form of’ something else, it is NOT that thing. To say Jesus is ‘in the form of ‘ God is how you know he is not God. Otherwise, it would be simply written, ‘Jesus is God.’

Paul said in Heb.1:3 that Christ is "the express image of His person" that is the exact reproduction of God the Father in the flesh.

The word "person" speaks of humanity, in which Christ expresses the same divine nature and character of God the Father.

So, "being in the form of God" is much more than we recognize at first!

 

[Wrangler]

Paul said in Heb.1:3 that Christ is "the express image of His person"

My drivers license is the express image of me. My drivers license image is not me.

 

[Charlie24]

My drivers license is the express image of me. My drivers license image is not me.

Your drivers license is not a person!

 

[Mr E]

I think we can dispense with heaven in our discussion. Heaven isn’t the destination of the dying.

I’ve made the assumption that we both believe humans are mortal. If that’s a bad assumption, please correct me.

What do mortals / humans become when clothed with immortality?

If they are no longer humans at that point, what then are they?

-no longer mortal (human). Released, set free, liberated, unbound, risen, ransomed, spirit.

 

[Matthias]

“Therefore. Of the nine times dio kai occurs in the NT, three are in Luke / Acts. It involves a certain causality; and Lyonett, ‘L’ Annonciation,’ 61:6, points out that this has embarrassed many orthodox theologians, since in pre-existence christology a conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb does not bring bring about the existence of God’s Son. Luke is seemingly unaware of such a christology; conception is causally related to divine sonship for him.”

(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of The Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, p. 291)

This is a trinitarian speaking, but this isn’t JAT speaking.

Why has it embarrassed many orthodox theologians?

They’re orthodox trinitarians; Luke isn’t. Luke’s theology isn’t their theology.

Luke is saying that God caused Jesus, the Son of God, to come into existence in the womb of the virgin.

 

[RLT63]

No. My granddaughters savings bank is in the form of a baby bottle. It is NOT a baby bottle.

Whenever something ‘is in the form of’ something else, it is NOT that thing. To say Jesus is ‘in the form of ‘ God is how you know he is not God. Otherwise, it would be simply written, ‘Jesus is God.’

Karate is a form of martial arts. Karate is a martial art.

 

[Matthias]

-no longer mortal (human). Released, set free, liberated, unbound, risen, ransomed, spirit.

But if no longer human then some kind of non-human. An ethereal “spirit” person?

 

[Charlie24]

“Therefore. Of the nine times dio kai occurs in the NT, three are in Luke / Acts. It involves a certain causality; and Lyonett, ‘L’ Annonciation,’ 61:6, points out that this has embarrassed many orthodox theologians, since in pre-existence christology a conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb does not bring bring about the existence of God’s Son. Luke is seemingly unaware of such a christology; conception is causally related to divine sonship for him.”

(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of The Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, p. 291)

This is a trinitarian speaking, but this isn’t JAT speaking.

Why has it embarrassed many orthodox theologians?

They’re orthodox trinitarians; Luke isn’t. Luke’s theology isn’t their theology.

Luke is saying that God caused the Son of God to come into existence in the womb of the virgin.

His humanity came into existence! Being changed from one form to another!

He has always existed.

 

[Matthias]

His humanity came into existence! Being changed from one form to another!

He has always existed.

Not for Luke, is the trinitarian scholar’s point.

 

[RLT63]

“Therefore. Of the nine times dio kai occurs in the NT, three are in Luke / Acts. It involves a certain causality; and Lyonett, ‘L’ Annonciation,’ 61:6, points out that this has embarrassed many orthodox theologians, since in pre-existence christology a conception by the Holy Spirit in Mary’s womb does not bring bring about the existence of God’s Son. Luke is seemingly unaware of such a christology; conception is causally related to divine sonship for him.”

(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of The Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, p. 291)

This is a trinitarian speaking, but this isn’t JAT speaking.

Why has it embarrassed many orthodox theologians?

They’re orthodox trinitarians; Luke isn’t. Luke’s theology isn’t their theology.

Luke is saying that God caused Jesus, the Son of God, to come into existence in the womb of the virgin.

He came into existence as a man. That doesn't preclude his existence before that.

 

[Charlie24]

Not for Luke, is the trinitarian scholar’s point.

Show me that in Scripture is what I would say to the scholar.

 

[Matthias]

Show me that in Scripture is what I would say to the scholar.

I invite you to read his book. He’s one of the top trinitarian scholars of the 20th century and his book is the most thorough study of the topic of which I’m aware.

“In the commentary I shall stress that Matthew and Luke show no knowledge of preexistence; seemingly for them the conception was the beginning (begetting) of God’s Son.”

(Raymond E. Brown, The Birth of The Messiah, p. 31)