Litigious: First, regarding prototokos in Colossians 1:15, your assertion that it "inherently indicates membership in the implicit or explicit set of which one is prototokos" is an oversimplification that ignores the broader semantic range of the term. While prototokos can sometimes refer to birth order, it is often used metaphorically in Scripture to denote preeminence or rank. For instance, in Psalm 89:27, God refers to David as "My firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth." David was not the first king in history, nor even the first in his family, yet he is called prototokos to signify his supreme status.
You really need to stop being such a robot nothing you mentioned is in any way relevant to my argument it's like copying and pasting or letting A I write your contributions,you can't persuade anyone with that kind of approach there is simply no place including your examples where the prototokos is outside the implied group whether he is the first or foremost is of no co sequence to my argument the more you ignore my actual argument the less persuasive you sound.
Litigious:Similarly, Colossians 1:15 uses prototokos to highlight Christ’s supremacy over all creation, not to place Him within the category of created beings. This interpretation aligns with the immediate context, where verses 16-17 explicitly describe Christ as the Creator of "all things," both visible and invisible. If Christ created "all things," it is logically incoherent to argue that He Himself is part of what He created. Your appeal to the partitive genitive argument fails to address this context adequately. While some uses of prototokos involve a partitive genitive, the genitive in Colossians 1:15 can just as easily be understood as one of relationship or subordination (e.g., "firstborn over all creation," as many translations render it).
Again not one example and the lexicon make it plain that this us definitely a partitive genitive. He is the one "dia" whom JEHOVAH Made all things the words dia and en are NEVER used of JEHOVAH'S Role in the creation he is the source of the power and wisdom in the creation all who JEHOVAH act through are subordinate to him
The surrounding context supports the relational or preeminent sense, particularly because Paul immediately clarifies that all things were created through Christ and for Him, emphasizing His role as the Creator and the one for whom creation exists. Second, your interpretation of dia as indicating mere instrumentality misrepresents the Greek preposition's usage in the New Testament. While dia can signify instrumentality, it often denotes agency, particularly when paired with an active subject like Christ in passages about creation. For instance, John 1:3 states that "all things were made through (dia) Him, and without Him was not anything made that was
Your circular logic proves nothing we know that JEHOVAH is the source 1corinthians ch.8:6 and that His son is the means we have no precedent for JEHOVAH Acting through an equal not even one time to merely assert an exception circular logic. The word all is routinely used in scripture with sensible exceptions. See Genesis 3:20
The text does not imply Christ is merely a tool or intermediary; rather, it ascribes to Him an active, causative role in creation. Furthermore, Hebrews 1:2 reinforces this idea, stating that God "made the universe through (dia) the Son." The consistent use of dia in these contexts underscores Christ's active agency in creation, not a passive, subordinate role. Your claim that there is no biblical precedent for describing creation as occurring dia Jehovah is irrelevant, as the New Testament reveals Christ’s divine agency as fully consistent with His being one with the Father.
More argument by assertion I already told you you need to get a specific quote.
Your assertion that the fact that no one is ever shown to create dia JEHOVAH is irrelevant seems rather circular that would be the only sure way to prove that JEHOVAH is on the same plain as his created son . All whom JEHOVAH Acts through are his subordinates. We are one with christ does that mean we are equal to him
Third, your argument about Hebrews 1:6 and Jesus' exaltation misunderstands the distinction between Christ’s divine nature and His incarnate role. The references to Christ being "made lower than the angels" (Hebrews 2:9) and later exalted reflect His voluntary humility and submission in the incarnation, not a change in His divine essence. Philippians 2:6-11 elucidates this point: Christ, "being in the form of God," did not cling to His equality with God but "emptied Himself" to take on human nature. His exaltation after the resurrection signifies the glorification of His humanity, not a promotion in His divine nature, which is unchangeable and eternal. Your argument conflates Christ's incarnate role with His divine essence, leading to a misunderstanding of the text
I understand that human and superhuman are mutually exclusive terms. God and man are mutually exclusive categories this is why we reject your churches assertions.
Your argument hinges on the premise that πρωτότοκος intrinsically carries a "partitive" semantic value, meaning that the one called "firstborn" must belong to the group described by the genitive (in this case, creation). The term πρωτότοκος (firstborn) in Greek primarily denotes rank, status, or preeminence rather than indicating temporal priority or membership in a class (cf. Psalm 89:27, Exodus 4:22). Similarly, in Colossians 1:15, the genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως (of all creation) is better understood as denoting Christ's preeminence over creation, not inclusion within it. Many reputable translations render it as "firstborn over all creation" (e.g., NIV, ESV), highlighting Christ’s supremacy rather than His inclusion in creation.
ReplyDeleteThe genitive in Colossians 1:15 is often mischaracterized as "partitive," implying that Christ is part of creation. However, the Greek genitive is highly flexible and can denote various relationships, including subordination, source, or rank. As D.B. Wallace notes in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, the genitive here is more likely a "genitive of subordination," indicating that Christ is supreme OVER creation, not a part of it. The immediate context (Col. 1:16-17) explicitly states that Christ is the Creator of "all things" (τὰ πάντα). It is incoherent to argue that He is both the Creator and part of what He created.
The claim that πρωτότοκος intrinsically carries a "partitive" meaning is unsupported by linguistic evidence. Modern linguistics and cognitive semantics show that the meaning of words is context-dependent and not intrinsically fixed. Proponents of the "partitive" view have failed to isolate πρωτότοκος and demonstrate that it encodes a partitive semantic value. Instead, their conclusions are based on pragmatic implications drawn from context, not inherent lexical meaning.
This interpretation misunderstands the semantic range of διά and overlooks its usage in reference to Christ's active role in creation. While διά can denote instrumentality, it frequently signifies agency when used with a personal subject. The context of Colossians 1:16 underscores Christ's agency: He is described as the Creator of "all things"—both visible and invisible, including thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities. This comprehensive language leaves no room for Christ to be part of creation.
The claim that Jehovah never acts through an equal is contradicted by the Trinitarian understanding of the relationship between the Father and the Son. The New Testament repeatedly affirms the unity and equality of the Father and the Son: "Whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise." (John 5:19) Philippians 2:6: Christ, "being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." The use of διά to describe both the Father’s and the Son’s roles in creation (e.g., Romans 11:36, Hebrews 2:10) highlights their shared divine agency rather than subordination.
You are just mindlessly repeating the same irrelevant can talking points thsyer's clearly shows that it is a partitive . And you can't cite any examples where prototokos is not part if the group whether the first or the foremost like I said both will work quit being a robot and do some actual thinking.
ReplyDeleteFirst, linguistic semantics operates on the principle that words do not possess meaning in isolation but acquire nuance and interpretation through context. The claim that prototokos INHERENTLY conveys partitivity presupposes that the word ITSELF encodes this specific semantic feature, irrespective of context. However, such a claim demands rigorous linguistic evidence demonstrating that this partitive force is INTRINSIC and NOT derived from contextual factors. The burden of proof lies on you to establish this INTRINSIC quality, as modern linguistics requires isolating the word from contextual influences to validate such claims. Without evidence, your assertion remains speculative and unsubstantiated.
DeleteSecond, even in the examples provided from the Septuagint (LXX), the alleged "partitivity" is always contextually inferred rather than lexically encoded. For instance, when prototokos is used in a familial or class context (e.g., "firstborn of the flock"), the partitive relationship arises from the genitive construction and the broader context, not from the term ITSELF. This demonstrates that the partitivity you claim is a function of usage, not an INHERENT property of the word. Thus, citing examples where prototokos is used in partitive contexts fails to establish that the word is INTRINSICALLY partitive. The context, not the lexical semantics, determines this.
Third, linguistic methodology explicitly rejects the idea that isolated words carry fixed, INTRINSIC meanings beyond their contextual applications. The claim that prototokos MUST ALWAYS imply partitivity is analogous to asserting that every use of "leader" in English inherently implies membership within a specific group. While "leader" often implies a relationship to a group (e.g., "leader of the team"), this implication is not intrinsic to the word but emerges from the phrase or context in which it appears. Similarly, prototokos denotes rank, status, or preeminence and can describe relationships with creation or groups without inherently encoding partitivity.
Fourth, your argument commits a categorical error by conflating pragmatic implications with intrinsic lexical properties. The meaning of prototokos as "firstborn" does not necessitate inclusion in a class; rather, it denotes priority or preeminence, which can be understood relationally (e.g., "firstborn over creation"). This aligns with the broader context of Colossians 1:15–17, where Christ is described as the Creator of "all things" (τὰ πάντα), including visible and invisible realities. If Christ created "all things," the notion that He is part of creation becomes self-contradictory. The contextual focus is Christ's preeminence and sovereignty over creation, not His inclusion within it.
Finally, your assertion that I must provide examples of prototokos used non-partitively is misplaced. The claim of intrinsic partitivity requires positive proof, not counterexamples. The absence of such INTRINSIC partitivity in the isolated term nullifies the need for me to provide examples where it is explicitly non-partitive. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate, using clear linguistic evidence, that prototokos INDEPENDENTLY AND INHERENTLY encodes partitivity. Absent such evidence, the claim collapses under the weight of its unsubstantiated assumptions.
The context is the scriptures in the scriptures prototokos whether literally or figuratively ALWAYS implies membership in the group if you arguing for an exception in cannot simply be that my doctrine demands an exception which appears to be your only argument as far as I can see, I have no burden I am not the one arguing for an exception.
ReplyDeleteThe main point of my argument is that πρωτότοκος (firstborn) in Greek primarily denotes rank or preeminence, not membership in a specific group. This is critical in understanding Colossians 1:15, where the "firstborn of all creation" does not imply that Christ is part of creation, but rather that He has preeminence over it. The JW argument that πρωτότοκος “always” implies membership in a group misses the broader semantic range of the term. It is true that in certain contexts (e.g., familial or biological contexts), πρωτότοκος can imply membership in a group (e.g., a firstborn child is a member of the family). However, this is a contextual inference and not an INTRINSIC feature of the word ITSELF. In Colossians 1:15, πρωτότοκος is a title of rank, not a designation that Christ is part of creation. The πρωτότοκος is the one who holds the highest position, not necessarily a member of the thing he preempts. The genitive in Colossians 1:15 (“of creation”) does not imply that Christ is part of creation but rather that He is OVER creation, having preeminence over it. This distinction is central to understanding the text properly.
DeleteYou claim, "I have no burden, I am not the one arguing for an exception." This is a classic deflection, but in reality, the burden of proof lies with them since they are arguing for a specific, restrictive meaning of πρωτότοκος. My argument is based on the flexibility of the genitive and the contextual use of πρωτότοκος, which does not necessitate membership in a group. You are arguing for an exception (i.e., the “firstborn” “must” “always” imply membership in the group) without demonstrating any INHERENT meaning of πρωτότοκος that would FORCE this interpretation in every context. I’ve provided linguistic evidence and reasoning that the word can denote preeminence without implying that the subject is part of the group being described. The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that πρωτότοκος ALWAYS, UNIVERSALLY, AND INTRINSICALLY implies membership. This requires more than just appealing to a few specific examples—it demands a comprehensive linguistic and contextual justification that you have not provided. Without that, their claim remains unsubstantiated.
As I already mentioned, modern linguistics shows that word meanings are context-dependent, and no term, including πρωτότοκος, has a singular, fixed meaning across all contexts. The claim that πρωτότοκος “must” “always” imply membership is not supported by linguistic evidence. Consider πρωτότοκος in other scriptural contexts. For example, in Psalm 89:27, God calls David "His firstborn," a title of preeminence, yet David was not the literal firstborn among his brothers (he was the youngest). This is a figurative use of the term that reflects honor and rank, not membership within a biological group. Similarly, in Exodus 4:22, Israel is referred to as God's "firstborn son," which implies preeminence over all other nations, not that Israel is part of a specific group of "creation." These examples show that πρωτότοκος is frequently used in a figurative sense to describe rank and preeminence, not literal membership in a group.
In Colossians 1:16-17, Paul explicitly states that Christ is the Creator of all things. If Christ is the Creator of all things, it would be incoherent to argue that He is part of creation. Thus, πρωτότοκος in Colossians 1:15 must be understood as a title of preeminence over creation, not as implying that Christ is part of the created order. The context of Colossians 1 makes it clear that Christ created all things, visible and invisible, including all spiritual powers and authorities. This precludes the idea that Christ is part of creation—He is the Creator and sustainer of it.
DeleteYour statement that you have "no burden" misunderstands the nature of the debate. I am not merely asserting an exception to a rule because of doctrinal necessity. I am arguing linguistically and theologically that the word πρωτότοκος does not INHERENTLY demand that Christ be part of creation but rather that He is preeminent OVER it. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that πρωτότοκος “always” INTRINSICALLY carries a partitive meaning. You have not substantiated this claim with robust linguistic evidence or contextual analysis. Without this, their argument remains unsupported.
The assertion that πρωτότοκος “always” INTRINSICALLY implies membership in a group is linguistically unfounded and fails to account for the flexibility of the term, especially in contexts where it denotes rank or preeminence (e.g., Colossians 1:15). The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that this term “must” “always” INTRINSICALLY imply membership in a group, but you have not done so. Therefore, the argument that πρωτότοκος in Colossians 1:15 refers to Christ’s preeminence OVER creation remains the more reasonable interpretation.
Paul explicitly states that he is the instrument of the only God who is entitled to latreo. . Again the Bible shows that protokos is always a member of the group of which he is protokos or subordinate to his forebearer. Whether prototokos us being used literally or figuratively. Accredited sources far more qualified than you have stated that prototokos at Colossians ch.1:15 is a partitive genitive. So no we are are nit accepting your pseudoauthority
DeleteAgain he states that all things were created "dia" accredit sources far more qualified than either of us acknowledge that dia in this context means instrumentality, just as the fact that all the dead are resurrected dia him does not preclude his being resurrected himself see Revelation ch.1:5 1Corinthians ch 15:21 so to his being used by his God to create all things does nit preclude hus being created.
ReplyDeleteYou assert that the term "διά" (dia), often translated as "through" or "by," *necessarily* implies instrumentality and suggests that Christ's use as an instrument in creation does not preclude His own creation. Let’s address this concern by first acknowledging the semantic range of "διά" (dia). While "dia" can certainly denote instrumentality (as in the means by which something is accomplished), it does not necessarily imply subordination or a created status of the agent involved. In fact, a closer look at biblical and theological context shows that "dia" often emphasizes agency without suggesting the inferior status of the agent. John 1:3 clearly states that all things came into existence through (διά) the Logos (Christ), yet the verse explicitly denies that anything came into being apart from Him. This means that Christ’s role in creation is active and divine, not merely that of a passive instrument. This emphasis aligns with Trinitarian theology, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have distinct but inseparable roles in creation. Moreover, if "dia" necessarily implied subordination or created status, it would not make sense to say that all things were made through Christ, especially in light of the context of John 1:1, which affirms that "the Word was God." This is foundational to the Christian doctrine that the Logos, while distinct in person, is equally divine with the Father.
DeleteYou also claim that the use of "dia" in connection with Christ in the resurrection passages (Revelation 1:5, 1 Corinthians 15:21) does not preclude His being created. You suggest that the fact that Christ is said to resurrect the dead through (dia) Him implies He Himself may be created. Let’s consider these passages in light of the overall biblical teaching on Christ’s nature. Revelation 1:5 describes Christ as "the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth." Here, Christ’s role in resurrection is affirmed, but His role as the "firstborn from the dead" does not imply that Christ Himself is a created being. The phrase "firstborn" in this context refers to Christ's preeminent role in the resurrection, not to His origin as a created being. 1 Corinthians 15:21 says, "For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead." This statement affirms that Christ is the agent of resurrection, yet it in no way implies He is created. The text emphasizes His role in redemption through His humanity, but theologically, it is essential to recognize that Christ’s divine nature is the foundation for His role as the giver of life. The resurrection of the dead through Christ is entirely consistent with His divine nature as the eternal Son of God. Being the instrument through whom resurrection happens does not imply He is an instrument in the same sense that a tool or created agent might be. Rather, Christ’s participation in creation and in resurrection is a reflection of His divine authority and power, and this is a key element in understanding His role within the Godhead.
Now, let’s return to the core theological issue. The fact that Christ is described as the agent of creation (e.g., "through Him all things were made") in no way suggests that Christ Himself is part of creation or was created. As the eternal Son of God, He is distinct from creation, eternally existing with the Father and the Spirit. Colossians 1:16-17 affirms that "by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through Him and for Him." This passage emphatically places Christ in the role of the active agent in creation, and the context of Colossians 1:18 further declares that Christ is preeminent over all creation, reinforcing His eternally divine nature. Similarly, in Hebrews 1:2-3, it is said that God created the world through the Son, and that the Son is the "radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of His nature." This shows that Christ is not a created being; rather, He is the exact representation of God's essence and the means by which creation came into being. In Trinitarian theology, Christ’s role as the agent through whom all things were made is inseparable from His eternal divine essence. It does not imply that He was created but instead reflects the unity of the Godhead—Father, Son, and Spirit working together in creation, redemption, and resurrection.
DeleteTo summarize, your claim that "dia" in the creation context implies that Christ could be created is based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between agency and creation. While "dia" indeed conveys instrumentality, it does not imply subordination or created status for the agent involved, especially in the context of Christ's eternal divinity. In both the creation and resurrection passages, Christ is the active agent through whom these acts occur, but this does not imply He is created. The broader biblical and theological context affirms that Christ is the uncreated, eternal Son of God, coequal with the Father in essence, and fully divine in nature.
He is the firstborn of the set of created things thus clearly part of the creation no one is ever shown creating the world dua JEHOVAH, Accredited sources with far higher qualifications than you have said that the Logos is thus shown to be the instrument of the God JEHOVAH that is the only God whom the Bible shows to be entitled to latreo not merely some unnamed father who us not the one God.
ReplyDeleteYou’ve stated that Christ is the "firstborn of the set of created things" and that this shows He is part of creation. However, this understanding misunderstands the meaning of “firstborn” (πρωτότοκος) in Colossians 1:15 and elsewhere in Scripture.The term "firstborn" in Colossians 1:15 is not speaking of temporal creation or suggesting that Christ is a created being. Rather, "firstborn" in this context refers to preeminence and rank over creation. The "firstborn" is the one who holds the highest place of authority and supremacy over all things. This is confirmed by the following verses: "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...", "And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." The emphasis here is that Christ is not part of creation but is the Creator who stands above all creation. The phrase "firstborn of all creation" speaks to His supremacy over creation, not that He is part of creation. The "firstborn" of a family is the one who holds the position of honor and inheritance, not a created member of the family. This is why Christ is called the "firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18), meaning He is the preeminent one in the new creation, the source and origin of life. To assert that He is created is to ignore the context of these verses which affirm His eternal pre-existence (John 1:1) and His divine role in creation.
DeleteYou argue that since the Logos is described as "through whom all things were created" (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), He is merely an instrument used by Jehovah. However, this view misses the deep theological significance of the Logos in relation to God and the Trinity. John 1:1-3 is clear that the Logos (the Word) is eternal and divine. The Logos is not a created instrument but is the very expression of God’s essence: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." "Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made." The Logos (Christ) is not subordinate in essence to God. He is God, eternally coexistent with the Father. The “through” in John 1:3 and other similar passages (e.g., Colossians 1:16) refers to agency—the Logos is the agent through whom creation comes into being. However, this does not make Him any less divine. Instead, it reveals the unity of action between the Father and the Son, both of whom are fully God. The Logos is actively involved in creation because He is fully divine, not because He is some passive tool used by the Father.
You assert that Jehovah is the only one entitled to latreo (worship), and that the Logos being used by Jehovah suggests He is not truly divine. However, this argument overlooks the full biblical witness of the divinity of the Son and the worship afforded to Him in the New Testament. In John 5:23 Jesus says, "All may honor the Son just as they honor the Father." Philippians 2:9-11: "Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." These verses make it clear that Jesus is worthy of the same honor and worship as the Father. The Trinitarian view holds that all three persons of the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are equally deserving of worship, as they share the one divine essence. To suggest that Christ is not God because He is "used" in creation is to misunderstand the nature of the Trinity, where each person has distinct roles but is fully and equally God. The Father and Son are distinct persons, yet they are one in essence and deity.
It is clearly a partitive therefore as in every other instance the prototokos is part of the group. Far more qualified sources than yourself have made it clear that dia at John ch.1:1 indicates instrumentality,JEHOVAH is never anyone instrument. Theos is used to refer to creatures Psalm ch.82:1 ,Exodus ch.7:1 the Father alone is ho theos a reference to the supreme God.
DeleteThe term πρωτότοκος (firstborn) in the context of Col. 1:15 refers to preeminence or supremacy rather than a chronological sequence or being part of the created order. In ancient Jewish culture, the firstborn was the one who held a position of honor, authority, and inheritance, not necessarily the first to be created. The following verses clarify that Christ is not part of creation, but the one through whom all things were created. Verse 16 states: "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." This clearly identifies Christ as the agent of creation, not a part of it. The use of πρωτότοκος here is analogous to its usage in Ps. 89:27, where it refers to the supremacy of a ruler (David) over all other kings, rather than to a literal sequence. Christ as "firstborn" in Col. 1:15 emphasizes His supremacy and authority over all creation, not His participation as part of it. Therefore, Col. 1:15 does not imply that Christ is a created being, but rather that He holds preeminence over all creation. This is consistent with the understanding of "firstborn" in the Old Testament and the broader Pauline writings.
DeleteYou assert that DIA in John 1:1 (translated as “through”) indicates mere instrumentality, which, according to you, is incompatible with the doctrine of Jehovah being the only God. The Greek preposition DIA in verse 3 is often translated as "through," and it indicates agency rather than mere instrumentality. This is confirmed by the entire context of the passage, which speaks of the Logos being God and being with the God in the beginning, thereby establishing the Logos’ divinity and eternality. While DIA can sometimes indicate instrumentality, it is also used in the sense of agency or active participation in action. The Trinitarian view holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work inseparably in creation. The use of dia in John 1:3 does not suggest that the Son is merely an instrument, but that the Son is actively involved in creation, working through the Father in perfect harmony. The claim that Jehovah is the only God is consistent with Trinitarianism when understood in the context of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father is the source (the supreme God), and the Son, as the Logos, is coequal, coeternal, and fully divine. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not separate gods, but one God in three persons, sharing the same essence. Therefore, the Son’s role as the agent of creation does not diminish His divinity or make Him a lesser god but rather affirms His full participation in the creation of all things as part of the unified divine will.
The JW appeal to Psalm 82 and Exodus 7:1 as parallels to the use of theos in John 1:1 is a category error. Ps. 82:1 uses Elohim to refer to divine beings or rulers (probably angels or human rulers), not the supreme God. It shows that the term Elohim can sometimes refer to authoritative beings (in this case, angels or earthly rulers) but is distinct from the supreme God. The context of Ps. 82 clearly indicates that Yahweh (the Lord) is the one who judges these other "gods," demonstrating His superiority over them. Exod. 7:1 is another example where Elohim is used to refer to a representative of God's authority (Moses), not the supreme God Himself. Here, the use of Elohim does not imply that Moses is equally divine to the true God but rather that he is God's appointed agent to deliver judgment to Pharaoh. While Elohim can refer to other beings in the Old Testament, the Bible consistently affirms that there is only one true God, who is supreme over all (Deut. 6:4). This Trinitarian understanding holds that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally God, sharing the same divine essence, and are not competing gods. The Son, as the Word (Logos), is fully divine, coequal with the Father, and eternally existent, not a creature or lesser god.
Quit being a robot no one mentioned sequence,accredited sources far more qualified than yourself state that prototokos is partitive here so whether first or foremost he is part if the creationh his being used to create no more preclude his being a creature than his being used to resurrect precludes his being resurrected jesus is not the supreme God because even trinitarians claim he has at least three other entities that are on his level supreme means without equal or superior. The God he was with is the supreme God according to luke ch 1:32.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Father is the most High God according lluke ch.1:32 and John ch.10:29 so he alone is Numerically identical to JEHOVAH See psalm ch.83:18,
ReplyDeleteJohn ch.8:54NKJV"Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is [o]your God." God and Father of Jesus is the only God worthy of latreo according to the scriptures.
The claim that accredited sources state that πρωτότοκος is partitive in Col. 1:15 does not settle the issue. The scholarly debate about the meaning of πρωτότοκος and the genitive construction πάσης κτίσεως remains open to context-based interpretation. While some sources argue for a partitive genitive (implying Christ is part of creation), the broader linguistic and contextual evidence strongly supports the interpretation that πρωτότοκος here signifies preeminence or rank over creation, not membership in it. Col. 1:16-17 immediately clarifies that "all things" (τὰ πάντα) were created through and for Christ, explicitly attributing the creative act to Him. This would be self-contradictory if Christ were part of the created order. A created being cannot logically create "all things" because that would include himself.
ReplyDeleteYour assertion that "his being used to create no more precludes his being a creature than his being used to resurrect precludes his being resurrected" conflates two entirely different concepts. In the case of Christ’s role in creation (Col. 1:16), the text states that all things—visible and invisible—came into existence through Him and for Him. This places Christ in the role of Creator, not a creature. In contrast, Christ’s resurrection is described as the Father raising Him (e.g., Acts 2:24), a specific act within the economy of salvation, demonstrating the cooperative roles within the Trinity. The distinction between Creator and creature is fundamental: to be the agent of creation of all things places Christ outside the category of the created, as no created being can bring itself or others into existence.
You claim that "Jesus is not the supreme God because even Trinitarians claim he has at least three other entities on his level." This misrepresents Trinitarian theology. The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who share one divine essence. The term "supreme" in this context refers to God’s unique divine nature, which the three persons of the Trinity fully share. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not "three entities on the same level" as though they were competing gods, but one God in three persons, coequal and coeternal. This is why Scripture attributes the same divine titles, worship, and attributes to the Son and the Spirit as to the Father (e.g., John 1:1, Philippians 2:9-11, Hebrews 1:8).
Luke 1:32 and John 10:29 highlight Christ’s relational distinction from the Father, not an ontological subordination, and do not undermine Christ's deity. Within the Trinity, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, which explains the relational language used in Scripture. Trinitarians do not deny the Father’s unique role as the "source" within the Godhead, but this role does not imply that the Son is inferior in essence. John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") immediately follows and affirms the unity of essence between the Father and the Son.
The NT explicitly attributes λατρεία to Christ. For example, in Revelation 5:13-14, all creation worships the Lamb (Christ) and the One seated on the throne (the Father) equally. Phil.s 2:10-11 states that every knee will bow to Jesus and every tongue will confess that He is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. This is an application of Isa. 45:23, where Yahweh declares that every knee will bow to Him. Such worship would be idolatrous if Christ were not fully divine.
The term "numerical identity" applies to the divine essence, not to the persons of the Trinity individually. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons but fully share the one divine nature. John 1:1-3 affirms that the Word (Christ) was both "with God" and "was God," indicating both distinction and unity. The use of the term "Jehovah" (YHWH) in Psalm 83:18 does not exclude Christ, as the NT consistently applies divine titles and attributes to Him.