DescentBB

Shoku, my bad

Hmm... a lot of reasoning and theories by man... do you think anyone could ask, and get a definitive answer?

OK, Here's two questions for you:
In a number of places, the people walking the face of this earth are referred to a being the children of God... and God is referred to as the "Father". Why would this sort of reference be made?

Especially since there are numberous places where death is referred to as when the person or persons "return" to that God who created them. Why would this sort of reference also be made?

Seems to me this would indicate something (actually, I know it does, but what do other people think?).

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

the word "Word" here is the Spoken word. Not the Written word thus everything that was made was spoken by God the Father into existance. Christ is the living spoken word of the God head. He is the manifest power of God.

bzzzz .. Like that fly that can't resist the smell of something decaying, I meander by... And then just before I fly off, I leave a little turd of thought...

Since we can experience "the manifest power of God", all this semantic mastubatory dogma-speak Sunday school banter is good for what..?

Do you need to get caught up in the language so much that you forget to authenticate the theory with experential proof ?!

It's like talking about having sex when you're still a virgin !

I'll offer again:

http://deoxy.org/t_thc.htm

Where glossolalia, speaking in tongues, is discussed.

"One experiences glossolalia, although unlike classical glossolalia, which has been studied. Students of classical glossolalia have measured pools of saliva eighteen inches across on the floors of South American churches where people have been kneeling. After classical glossolalia has occurred, the glossolaliasts often turn to ask the people nearby, "Did I do it? Did I speak in tongues?" This hallucinogen induced phenomenon isn't like that; it's simply a brain state that allows the expression of the assembly language that lies behind language, or a primal language of the sort that Robert Graves discussed in The White Goddess, or a Kabbalistic language of the sort that is described in the Zohar, a primal "ur sprach" that comes out of oneself."


And since I'm so impressed with Terrence McKenna, I'll re-offer;

http://deoxy.org/t_camden.htm

Bzzzzzzz .. .zzzz. ... zzz outta here !

PS: ... My comments often coincide with the ending of one of these reekers... sort of like carrion to me, being just one of the flys...

Top Gun wrote:Who else thinks that this thread needs a Lothar or Drakona uber-post in the worst way?

I don't think that would help.

I propose a limit of one can of worms per thread. This is getting out of hand.

De Rigueur wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Who else thinks that this thread needs a Lothar or Drakona uber-post in the worst way?

...I propose a limit of one can of worms per thread. This is getting out of hand.

I agree with both of you.

I saw this thread late, so I didn't have a chance to respond before it grew into the monster it is.

As broad and random as the topics seem, the thread title might as well have been, "Anything and everything having to do with any portion of any theological stance of any subset of the Christian faith... plus whatever else you may think fits"

A couple of the trains of thought in here probably deserve threads of their own, but this one may need to be cut off before it gets any worse.

P.S. Much "props" to Stryker for working to thoroughly answer each and every question. It was inevitable that it would devolve into the confusion it is, but it was a valiant effort against impossible odds. Hopefully we'll pick up some of the discussion in other (more well-defined) threads.

De Rigueur wrote: I propose a limit of one can of worms per thread. This is getting out of hand.

I agree. as I said earlier:

And if you want to successfully "reason upon the Scriptures" with people, stick to one subject at a time. This post is rambling everywhere.

One positive thing this thread has done, however, is demonstrate the diversity of opinion. Intelligent debate is good for everyone because we can all learn something no matter how much we already know.

Shoku wrote:Intelligent debate is good for everyone because we can all learn something no matter how much we already know.

I agree! Discussion is always good. If someone challenges something you believe and you attempt, with an open mind, to defend it, how can you help but learn? Either you find good support for your position, in which case you have learned, or you find your positions weak, which is also a valuable lesson. And even if you never reach agreement in the discussion, just being exposed to others ideas and having to defend your own is a GOOD thing.

But I'll have to agree with everyone that fewer topics in a single thread WOULD make the discussion much easier.

Kilarin wrote:John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Now the "New World Translation" sticks an "A" in there, so that the text reads "and the Word was A God", but the experts seem to agree that the structure of the Greek simply does not support that construction. Also, it doesn't make sense in context.

Shoku wrote:Actually the Greek does support that construction. There is no indefinate article (a) in greek. There is only the definate article (the).

Which is why I'll have to stick with my original conclusion.
There is no "a" in the Greek, adding it has to be a judgment of the interpreters and in this instance adding it simply does not make sense. Especially when you consider all of the other texts containing the word theos where we do not add an indefinite article. John 1:6 and John 1:18 for example.

Look at John 20:28. "Thomas answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and my God!'"
The word translated "God" here is the same as in John 1:1, Theos. And Thomas was a Jew. He didn't believe in lots of little gods, he believed in ONE God who created everything. When Thomas called Jesus "my God", he could only have been speaking of the one and only God he believed it.

And for a non textual argument, if Christ WASN'T God, what was the point? If a good created being could have died for me, why couldn't *I* just work hard enough to be good enough myself? Nietzsche said that God was dead. He hit closer to the truth then he realized. God is not dead, but He DID die, and that is an incredible thing! If some angel died for us, then it is no more important than the many stories we have of humans who sacrificed their lives for another. But if the creator of the universe came and died just for me, now THAT is a significant thing.

Kilarin

Kilarin wrote:Which is why I'll have to stick with my original conclusion.

But your conclusion is based on flawed reasoning. The word theos is not the issue here (with John 1:1). The issue is the gramatical construction, and the context.

The second use of theos is not used as a title. It is a predicate noun.

A similar construction can be used in english:

The phrase: "The man was king" could refer to the King of England, or to a man who demonstrates kingly qualities, or who accomplished something worthy of great praise. The more common phrase in english would be "The man was a king," but greek has no "a" so it must be inferred by the reader based on the grammatical construction, and context.

The following verses demonstrate the same understanding of grammatical constuction by adding an "a" before an indefinate predicate noun:
From Mark
6:49
11:32
From John
4:19
6:70
8:44 (twice)
8:48
9:17
10:1
10:13
10:33
12:6
18:37 (twice)

It is interesting that Judas, at John 6:70, is called "a devil" in the KJV, NIV, RSV, and TEV, yet there is no "a" in greek. So, based on your reasoning, because the grammatical construction is the same as John 1:1, that would make Judas THE devil, and all those transaltions are in error.

And Thomas was a Jew. He didn't believe in lots of little gods,

Well, as a Christian Jew he must have agreed with the apostle Paul's statement that "there are many gods and many lords."

The term god can be used for any individual who has power or authority over someone. God told Moses, "I have made you God to Pharoh."

Thomas' excalmation was not identifying Jesus with the Almighty God, but simply recognizing Jesus' greatness. As Paul continued to say, "There is to us one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ." God is "the Father." Jesus is "the Lord," who is not equal to the Father, for he himself said. "The Father is greater than I am."

Hey Shoku, I don't know if it's been discussed before, but are you a Jehovah's Witness?

Just curious.

De Rigueur wrote:Hey Shoku, I don't know if it's been discussed before, but are you a Jehovah's Witness?

Just curious.

No, I am not a Jehovah's Witness.

De Rigueur wrote:Hey Shoku, I don't know if it's been discussed before, but are you a Jehovah's Witness?

The Witnesses are not the only group that question the divinity of Christ. Arian said "there was a time when he was not" a long, LONG time ago. And that particular belief has never really died out. The Mormons say that Christ was created, but then they also believe that God the Father was as well. The Unitarians aren't very big on Christ's Divinity (Which may not mean much since they aren't really very big on anything) Some branches of the Episcopal Church deny even the Resurrection (Do a Google on Spong). There are very few beliefs that are actually unique to one church or religious group.

Shoku wrote:The word theos is not the issue here (with John 1:1). The issue is the gramatical construction, and the context.

Your knowledge of Greek is impressive! It IS nice to be having a discussion with someone well educated on the topic.

I conceed that the construction allows interpretation either way, as "and the word was God" or "and the word was A god". But I don't think that context will support the "A god" interpretation.

First, to beget is not the same as to create. To quote C. S. Lewis from "Mere Christianity":

C. S. Lewis wrote:Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.

And taken with the other verses in the Bible that support the Divinity of Christ:

John 8:57-58, where Christ claimed to be the great "I Am".

1 Timothy 3:16, speaking of Christ says that "God was manifest in the flesh".

And lets not forget Isaiah 9:6
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
"The Mighty God" seems very specific to me.

And finally, back to the argument I made previously. IF Christ was a created being, what was the whole point of His dying on the cross? If a created being could clear me of my sins, why couldn't I do it myself?

Kilarin

Kilarin wrote:The Witnesses are not the only group that question the divinity of Christ. Arian said "there was a time when he was not" a long, LONG time ago. And that particular belief has never really died out. The Mormons say that Christ was created, but then they also believe that God the Father was as well. The Unitarians aren't very big on Christ's Divinity
Kilarin

And don't forget Muslims.

The Witnesses are not the only group that question the divinity of Christ

I found this part interesting. The bible clearly does state that Jesus was created by God and that God alone is most high, but what is the exact definition of "divine" here?

The orthodox position of Christianity, at least what is contained in the Nicene Creed, is that Jesus is one person with two natures, fully human and fully divine. 'Divine' here basically means 'worthy of worship' and 'capable of forgiving sin.'

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

Kilarin wrote:C. S. Lewis wrote:
Now that is the first thing to get clear. What God begets is God; just as what man begets is man. What God creates is not God; just as what man makes is not man. That is why men are not Sons of God in the sense that Christ is. They may be like God in certain ways, but they are not things of the same kind. They are more like statues or pictures of God.

C. S. Lewis was a great writer, who had his opinions, but to separate truth from falsehood we should always return to the Bible to define meaning.

The Bible calls Jesus the â??only-begotten Sonâ?

1Tim 3:16 -

"Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:

'He appeared in a body, and was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.' " (NIV)





The latter part of this is a quote from the old testiment although I'm unable to find out where.

3 Silver 5;29 b.
...and the FJ rose from the pits and slapped the two-thousand year old debate around a bit with a large trout. And he sayeth "You're ALL wrong people!!" and departed he back into the restroom.

Amen.

Spoken like a true extemist.

Shoku wrote:C. S. Lewis was a great writer, who had his opinions, but to separate truth from falsehood we should always return to the Bible to define meaning.

I agree, I was quoting him because I thought he explained the idea well, not as an authority above the Bible.

Shoku wrote:People saw Jesus (the Word), and yet John says in verse 18 that "No man has seen God at any time!"

And yet, John 14:9 ...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;

Shoku wrote:Trinitarians say that since God is eternal, so the Son of God is eternal. But how can a person be a son and at the same time be as old as his father?

We can not tie God down to time. As Duper quoted: "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great". If God were subject to time, it would imply that there was something greater than Him. God created both space AND time. When an Eternal God begets, He begets from all Eternity, outside of time. Imagine two books on a table, one on top of the other. Clearly the book on top is only there because the book on the bottom is holding it up. Now imagine that both books had been there forever. The book on top would have ALWAYS been there because the book on the bottom is holding it up. To beget is not the same as to Create.

Shoku wrote:Why does the Bible use the very same Greek word for â??only-begottenâ?

Shoku wrote: C. S. Lewis was a great writer, who had his opinions, but to separate truth from falsehood we should always return to the Bible to define meaning.

You can call them opinions if you want, but they are also the historical teachings of the church as expressed in the creeds. It's nice that you want to look to the Bible for truth, but a couple of problems ensue. One is that the church fathers also looked to the Bible but came to conclusions different from yours. Another is that, due to human finitude, there will always be limits to what can be known through the human intellect. So I'd say that at some point exegesis becomes speculation and hermeneutics becomes subjectivity.

Shoku wrote: But how can a person be a son and at the same time be as old as his father?

This is an example of an extra-biblical argument. You remind me of Nicodemus when he said, 'how can a man re-enter the womb and be born again?'. Jesus was trying to attach a spiritual meaning to the idea of birth. Like Nicodemus, you use a natural, earthly interpretation of father/son instead of the spiritual interpretation. (You do something similar with the terms begotten and beginning.)

Shoku wrote: The perfect human life of Jesus was the â??corresponding ransomâ?

For Kilarin:

Well, I have not discussed the Trinity for a very long time; since it's not biblical I find no need for it, but I see the old arguments regarding it are still alive.
We will never come to an agreement on this, so this will be my last post on this topic.

I learned long ago that the Bible was not written for scholars. It was written for everyone. And God has made sure that no matter where a person may be, he has access to a version in a language he can understand. In other words, a person does not need to know Greek to understand who God is, who Jesus is, and why this whole mess exists. All the answers are there, waiting to be uncovered. All we need to do is read, without any preconcieved ideas, and let God's spirit guide us. Just listen to what the Bible says, and let it explain what it means. As Christ said to the seven churches in Asia, "Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations."

So then, listen to the words of Jesus:

""Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD, and you must love the LORD your God with your whole heart and your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength." Mark 12:29

"The Father is greater than I am." John 14:28

In prayer to his Father: "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. . . I manifested Your name to the men whom You gave me out of the world; Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have come to know that everything You have given me is from You; for the words which You gave me I have given to them; and they received them, and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You did send me. . . . Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. As You have sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. . . .I do not ask in behalf of these alone. but for those also who believe in me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they also may be in us; that the world may believe that You did send me. And the glory which You have given me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as we are one; I in them and You in me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that You did send me, and did love them, even as You did love me." John 17:3, 6 -8, 17,18, 20 - 23

"Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to me; for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.'" John 20:17

"And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice. "Eloi, Eloi, Lama Sabachthani?" which is translated. "My God, my God, why have you foresaken me?" Mark 15:34

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show to his bond-servants the things which must shortly take place . . .He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will no more go out from it any more; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from heaven from my God, and my new name." Revelation 1:1, 3:12

"Again, the Devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory; and he said to him: "All these things will I give you, if you fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Begone, Satan! For it is written, ' You shall worship the LORD your God, and serve Him only." Matthew 4:8 -10

"He said to them,"My cup you shall drink; but to sit on my right and on my left, this is not mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." Matthew 20:23

"And he withdrew from them about a stone's throw, and he knelt down and began to pray, saying, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from me; yet not my will, but your will be done." Luke 22: 41,42

"I can do nothing on my own initiative, as I hear, I judge, and my judgement is just; because I do not seek my own will but the will of Him who sent me." John 5: 30

"Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on my own initiative, but He sent me." John 8:42

"Jesus answered them. "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods?'" If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be brioken), do you say of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming'; because I said, 'I am God's son?'" John 10:34-36

"Truly, truly I say to you. a slave is not greater than his master; nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him." John 13:16

"Jesus said to her . . .'The hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for suchlike ones to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth.'" John 4:21, 23, 24

And the words of the disciples:

"For there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are, and we exist for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we exist through him." 1Cor 8:6

"There is one body and one spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." Ephesians 4:4

"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1Timothy 2:5

"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is head of the woman, and God is the head of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:3

"But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. . . . Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. . . . Now when it says that 'everything' has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to Him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." 1 Corinthians 15: 20 - 28

"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!" 1 Peter 1:3

"My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One." 1 John 2:1

"This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins" 1 John 4: 9.10

"No man has seen God at any time." John 1:18

"No man may see God and live." Exodus 33:20

"For He (God) delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. And he is the image of the invisable God, the firstborn of all creation." Collosians 1:13-15

De Rigueur wrote: This comparison just does not work. Adam was not the only one who sinned ('all have sinned'). The law does not even mention Adam's sin. The sacrifices under the law were temporary and thus inadequate. Christ sacrifice was for the sins of the all people for all time. It's not just a 'one for one trade'.

Well, you are correct that Adam was not the only one who sinned. But he was the FIRST human, who knowingly rejected God's authority (Eve was deceived). Paul writes:

"That is why just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." Romans 5:12

Adam did not have children until after he had sinned. So that's why we all die - Adam passed on his sinful state to his progeny. But because WE did not willingly chose to reject God, as Adam did, God saw fit to show Adam's children mercy. Paul Continues:

"Death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of the transgression by Adam, who bears a resemblance to him who was to come. But it is not with the gift as it was with the trespass. . . for if by the trespass of one man death ruled as king through that one, much more will those who receive the abundance of the undeserved kindness and the free gift of righteousness rule as kings in life through the one person, Jesus Christ. . . . So, then, as through one trespass the result to men of all sorts was condemnation, likewise also through the one act of justification the result to men of all sorts is a declaring of them righteous for life." Romans 5;14-17

It may be useful to say more about the function that the trinity serves.

Generally speaking, humans have mixed feelings about God (or whatever they consider to be ultimate). On one hand, they think of God as being transcendent, belonging to a realm entirely beyond that of humans. This conception makes God remote and abstract. Since humans value personal relations, they also want to be able to contact and somehow come to know the ultimate. The idea of the trinity can address this ambivalence by saying that God is transcendent (the Father) and while also being immanent and personal (the Son). Jesus is considered to be a "translation into human terms" of the transcendent God, thus making God knowable. The medium is the message.

Shoku wrote:We will never come to an agreement on this, so this will be my last post on this topic.

Well, I've had fun (and learned a lot) discussing it, thanks for participating! And also, how incredibly generous of you to give the Trinists the last word!

Jesus is, and why this whole mess exists. All the answers are there, waiting to be uncovered.

I agree 100%!

LORD our God is one LORD Mark 12:29 "one God and Father of all" Eph 4:4

This is entirely compatible with the doctrine of the Trinity. "I and my Father are One". John 10:30. The Trinity IS one God.

"The Father is greater than I am." John 14:28

IF we take the view that Christ is a created being, we have a conflict here. We have this statement, but we also have "I and my Father are One". But, Phil 2:6-7 clears up the mystery. "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men"

The Incarnate Christ was 100% God, and 100% man. As God, He was equal to God. As man, He was inferior. Both are true. When Jesus says that "My Father is greater than I", it is specifically in reference to His incarnation


You list several texts where Christ (or someone else) refers to God the Father as God. Most specifically as "My God".

John 17:3, 6 -8, 17,18, 20 - 23; John 20:17; Mark 15:34; Rev 3:12; 1 Peter 1:3

We have a slight problem here, because when Thomas uses "My God", (mou theos) in John 20:28 you said he wasn't actually calling Jesus the almighty God. But, that's beside the point, because I obviously believe that a Jew saying "mou theos" (or actually the Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent) WOULD be referring to Yahweh, the almighty God.

There is nothing odd about Jesus calling God the Father "My God". That's what God the Father IS. What else would Jesus call Him, except Father? But we can see from John 20:17 that Jesus treats the words Father and God as synonyms. The fact that Jesus is God does not make God the Father any less God.

"You shall worship the LORD your God, and serve Him only." Matthew 4:8 -10

Again, entirely compatible with the doctrine of the Trinity. There is only one God, and that God is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Lucifer didn't make the list.

this is not mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father." Matthew 20:23

Christ incarnate as man was subject to the Father. No problem there. In Revelation we see the Glorified Christ claiming the specific right to decide who sits with him: "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with Me in My throne." Rev 3:21

The same applies to Luke 22: 41,42; John 5: 30;

"Jesus answered them. "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods?'" If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming'; because I said, 'I am God's son?'" John 10:34-36

In John 10:30, Jesus claimed equality with God. The Jews are about to stone him for that. In response, he quotes Psalms 82:6 and says that if humans could be called "gods" in a lesser sense, then how can you condemn the very Son of God for claiming his title?
Christ is obviously claiming to be God in a greater sense then was referred to in the Psalms 82, but how much greater? That was made clear just previously in John 10:28 when Jesus said he could grant Eternal Life, and John 10:30 when He said, "I and my Father are one"

nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him." John 13:16

Christ never claimed to be greater than God the Father!

God is a Spirit John 4:24

Yes, and omnipotent, which means He can incarnate in flesh if He wishes.

and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. 1Timothy 2:5
But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense- Jesus Christ, the Righteous One." 1 John 2:1

God condescended to be come man, so that we could have a mediator. Christ is our mediator because He is both God and man.

and God is the head of Christ." 1 Corinthians 11:3

To quote Nichol, "Even among equals there may be a head. A committee of men of equal rank still selects its chairman." This also explains 1 Corinthians 15:28

"This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins" 1 John 4: 9.10

Which again supports that there is something drastically different in the nature of Christ and all created beings. If Christ is a created son, then He is only one of countless other created sons, and how could He be referred to as the "one and only son"? Begetting is not the same as creating.

"No man has seen God at any time." John 1:18
"No man may see God and live." Exodus 33:20

Man has only seen God through a veil, as Moses did on the mountain. In Christ, Divinity was veiled in flesh so that we might come close to it. Which is why Christ could say, "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" in John 14:8

he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." Col 1:13-15

The grammar here WILL allow the interpretation that Christ was created, but that interpretation would then leave us in conflict with Christ receiving worship and forgiving sins, Christ claiming to be the "I AM", Christ claiming to be one with the father, Christ as the "only Begotten", etc. So we have to ask if the "created" claim is required by the text, or if there is another possible interpretation that would be in harmony with the rest of scripture. And such an interpretation IS possible. This text would be in harmony with the rest of Scripture if it is using "Firstborn" to express a position of authority (as the Firstborn held in that time). Then the text simply means that Christ has authority over all creation.

I admit, it's not as satisfying an answer as I would like, but, as Peter said:

"even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16

Ha! Yes I sometimes find Paul difficult in places. But we must interpret scripture by scripture, and this one difficult text by the countless other simple ones that clearly declare Christ as fully divine.

Again, I have appreciated the exchange and will keep you in my prayers as I hope you will keep me in yours.

Kilarin