Mark wrote: Jesus is the Word of God, who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). If you keep that in mind, it will help you understand the thrust of Col 1:15.

When God speaks a Word, that Word is born, and yet is fully God in its essence.


Malachi's response: No you haven't either. Again, as most Trinitarins do is take two verses out of context to use them to back up the man made doctrine of the Trinity.

You said G-d speaks a word, that word is born? and yet is fully G-d in it's essence? Then there would be no relationship between the word firstborn and why he was called that because the firstborn requires one to be the FISRT one BORN in relation to the following genitive, which is on this case, creation.

You can THINK anything you WANT, but you have no biblical or scriptural precedent to make that conclusion. That kind of practice is a sure fire way to end up in error. Stick with the Bible, it will have much more Mark than extrabiblical defintions and usage. What you are presupposing is the "Enternal Sonship of Jesus" which most Christians reject.

Trinitarins that I know do not believe that the so called second person of the Trinity was born. They believe he always existed.

If Paul wanted to show that Jesus was NOT a creation, he would not have used a phrase that grammatically every where else would mean that he most definitely IS a part of creation

If you have no way to overturn these points then the discussion is pretty much over. Simply repeating the same points wont help.

Mark instead of repeating myself, read the post I sent to Doug and we can start from there.

Regards,
Malachi