Originally Posted by Luke (Post 1282356)

My point is that if Jesus were created then it makes verse 16 impossible to be true.

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:

Who is the Him spoken of in verse 16? Whoever the Him is he did not have a creator because as the creator of all things He would have had to create Himself befroe he existed otherwise He would not be the creator of all things.

When you compare the colossians 1:16 with John 1:3

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Again He someone is shown as making all things and in fact it here goes so far as to say that if He did not make it then it was not made. Whoever the is in this verse cannot have had a creator if we are to accept this verse for what it says.

So who do you say the these to verses are talking about?

Originally Posted by MarieA27 (Post 1282390)

How are you a trinitarian? :dunno

Originally Posted by navygoat1998 (Post 1282392)

Many Trins hold to a Oneness view and don't even know it. :dogpat

Originally Posted by Luke (Post 1282378)

Ok isee where you are coming from i think.

Let me ask you a question. Do you understand how i find fault with your perspective as i laid it out in the previous post? Do you consider it to be a logical arguement to your perspective? not saying you agree with it but do you consider the arguement logical?

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 1282379)

That doesnt make the architect "the Creator". Btw they could not have built it without someone feeding them or without transportation

Originally Posted by seekerman (Post 1282396)

I publicly repent for using an analogy. I swore off them years ago because the argument focuses on the analogy instead of scripture. Forget what I said and discard the analogy I used.

Originally Posted by seekerman (Post 1282394)

Sure. As I've said, I've asked the same questions myself.



The image, whoever He is, is identified as the firstborn of God, not God Himself who is firstborn. In your view, is the term firstborn a reference to God the Father or to the image of God the Father? It's my position that this image, who was the firstborn of God, was a likeness, resemblance to God the Father, not God the Father Himself.

In fairness, do you see a problem with the view that God is the firstborn of all creation?

Originally Posted by Luke (Post 1282484)

If I were saying the the firstborn was God the Father then yes I could see the problem, but as a trinitarian I would put forth that it is speaking of Jesus both the Son of God and yet fully man fully God equal to the Father but not the Father. As is clear from this post and others I am a trinitarian but I also am not attempting to start a oneness vrs trinity argument just trying to answer the question asked me.

Originally Posted by Praxeas (Post 1282485)

Gee...As a Oneness I'd say that too...

Originally Posted by Luke (Post 1282486)

Glad we agree.