ezAad wrote: Colossians 1:15
He is the firstborn of all creation:
1. if you read context you see that He is not pictured as a creature but as the origin of creation.
2. He is the firstborn in this sense that Christ, who was generated as a man, was Gods firstborn: His holy firstborn. Ex.13:2. This firstborn was the image of the invisible God;

Malachi's response: I don't know how I missed this one. It must have been posted after one of my previous replies.

First ezAad: This also goes for Rev 3:14. The word "arche" in Greek NEVER means source in the Bible. There are no examples to demonstrate this meaning and I've not even seen any clear references where it ever meant that in secular writings. In fact, 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.

eZAad you go on to say: He is the firstborn in this sense that Christ, who was generated as a man, was Gods firstborn: His holy firstborn. Ex.13:2. This firstborn was the image of the invisible God;

Malachi's response: I really don't need just a statement of your belief. That does nothing to prove your position concerning Rev. 3:14. or Col 1:15. What you need is to present an argument or at least refute the one I have presented. As it is, my argument stands. Yours doesn't because "arche" does not mean what you say it does nor is it ever used as "source".

ezAad wrote: Revelations 3:14:
He is the beginning of creation: I don't really see the problem. It can perfectly be understood as: He is the active cause (arche) of creation.

Malachi's response: A person can choose to believe whatever they personally want to believe, but the danger is subjectivism. We are not our own clearing house for accepted belief. We must allow the scripture to mold that belief. The fact that you have no examples in either Biblical or secular Greek to show "arche" to mean "source" says enough as to its validity. In other words, that view has no validity except in your own personal mind, and that is no way to determine truth.

ezAad wrote: Only begotten son: = son of God.
1. in his human existence: generated by God (Matth.1)
2. in his transcendent existence: born from God before all times, light of light, always at the bosom of God;

Both meanings can be read in the text. Although John emphasizes the second, transcendent meaning.

Malachi's response: Again, no scriptures to back up what you say the GT teaches. Jesus and his disciples used a lot of parables and examples to explain his teaching but NEVER the examples you gave above. Again this is the doctrine of man not of G-d.

ezAad wrote: To me the evidence is far from overwhelming. I'm not convinced at all.
The doctrine is founded on the self-revelation of God in Jesus, in accordance with the Scriptures.

Malachi's response: Self revelation? I guess that explains it all. Wonder why then if it is so self evident why there are over 100 different doctrines coming from the same source, which suppose to be G-d breathed.

Therefore, believe what you wish, but fortunately it is not about what "you" as an individual decides is true, it is what the scriptures demonstrate through precedented examples, lexical meanings and grammatical patterns that establish the truth of a matter. If we just listen to what we WANT to be true, then we will ultimately end up with MAN'S teachings rather than G-ds.

ezAad wrote: Prov.8:22-26.
The Word/Wisdom of God has been generated by God, was born of God, before al times; and the Word always was at the bosom of God, like the proverb says: I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him (verse 30).

BTW: The text of Prov.8 and 'the Wisdom' of course is antropomorphism; from Christian perspective it may be read as signifying the eternal Word/Wisdom. But the text itself does not prove anything.

Malachi's response: Trinitarians must invent new meanings for the expressions used in Proverbs 8, which when taken naturally show creation. The problem with such inventions is that they never mean that anywhere else! Aad, youre arguing for the text to not really mean what it says. Even with the poetic language used and even with there being figurative illustrations, the events themselves are always true and what you are trying to say is that there was no actual event of creating and that Wisdom was simply there. Well the text doesnt in any way articulate this. In contrast, it speaks of the creation of a number of things, all of which actually took place.

Aad The apostles took the language used to describe Wisdom and applied it to Jesus. Of course this doesn't equate the two in and of itself, but there can only be one FIRST created, because FIRST is one, and the apostles took the language used of Wisdom and alluded to it in describing Jesus.

The idiomatic aspect of this expression is seen in Jesus' birth. Wisdom is spoken of as being born, which is contextually understood as "created." Similarly, Jesus would be understood as being "born," with the background of the text being that of creation (it being an allusion to Wisdom literature).

So Aad, my refutation stands: Proverbs 8:22 says that wisdom was CREATED by G-d and the church always this to mean Jesus, and then used as a masterworkman.

Aad you nor have the other Trinitarians have not come close to making a case for the Trinity as a doctrine from G-d but only as a man made invention of the 4th Century Church Fathers.

Best regards,
Malachi