Doug wrote: I have answered this question by you several times before at this forum. It is not "created" in that verse but firstborne.

Malachi's response: No you haven't Doug. Why don't you listen to what I have said instead of just repeating the same old disproven arguments over and over again?

What does "Firstborn" mean Doug? It means exactly that the first one born.

Once again, if we stick to scriptural precedent and usage, the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus being referred to as the "firstborn of all creation" indeed makes him a creation, and the first one at that. There is an extreme burden of proof upon you to prove otherwise.

The scriptural pattern proves that the most natural way to take the phrase at Col. 1:15 is that Jesus is a part of creation, the FIRST part, the FIRSTBORN. There are NO exceptions for the use of that phrase in the Bible. Whom shall we believe? You, or the scriptural established precedent? The answer should be obvious.

Doug wrote: Firstborne is indication of his prominence above all in creation. Everything was created by him, including the angels - which the hebrew bible says that God created all things. So what conclusion can be drawn from the text is but that Jesus, the second person of the trinity, is God.

Malachi's response: You are presupposing the Trinity to prove the Trinity. This is circular reasoning at it's best.

Even if a firstborn possess preeminence among the group, he is still a part of the group and he is still the first one born. There are no biblical exceptions. To deny the primary meaning of the word in regard to Jesus is pure bias at work.

I do however agree that verse 16 tells us exactly why he is called the firstborn. Think about it. If one is a creation yet all other creation came through that one, that one would naturally have to be the first and that is exactly what Colossians tells us. He is the firstborn of all creation because all other creation came through him. By necessity, that makes him the FIRST creation and the firstborn of all creation. The main point of this verse is that Jesus is clearly identified as a CREATION.

In actuality, 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.

Doug wrote: Everything was created by him, including the angels - which the hebrew bible says that God created all things. So what conclusion can be drawn from the text is but that Jesus, the second person of the trinity, is God.

Malachi's response: Ripping verses out of context and trying to use them to back up false doctrines will not help you Doug. The grammar employed in verse 16 clearly shows Jesus to be the instrument of creation employed by someone else, not the originator of creation.

The fact is Doug, Jeus IS spoken of as the firstborn OF creation and every example of that syntax and grammar shows the firstborn one to a part of the group. You have done nothing to overturn that.

Doug, Revelations 3:14 says your second person of the Trinity is the "begining of the creation by G-d"

Wherever the phrase "beginning"(arche) OF something occurs, the beginning is always a part of the group or class. You have the same scenario here with "arche" as you have with "firstborn" in Colossians. Just as "firstborn"(prototokos), so it is with "arche"(beginning). If they are used with OF, then they are a PART of the same group or class as what follows the OF. Both in Colossians and Revelation, what follows the OF is CREATION.

You also did not respond to many of the other points I made which I would appreciate a response to. Your customary short one and/or two liners will not work here if you wish to have serious dialogue, you are going to have to address what is presented to you or your answers will simply look like evasions. I am sure you do not want that, right?

I would appreciate a fuller treatment of the points I made with you the first time around. A point for point response is always best, that way, your opponent knows you have at least considered the points. otherwise if you do not address them, he may feel that you have not given serious enough consideration to his points.


Regards,
Malachi