ezAad wrote: Malachi, you are claiming to understand the NT, though not believing the core testimony of the NT: the revelation of God in Christ Jesus, His eternal Word, through which He created everything.

Malachi's response: The above is not relevant to this discussion. I was studying the GT since I could read. I was a Trinitarian myself until I was about 26 years old and discovered thru studying the GT without the commentaries that G-d was not Triune.

ezAad wrote: So you say that the writer of Col. says in ch.1 verse 15: he is a creation, and in verse 16: For by him were all things created......all things were created by him,for him; and verse 17: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. How do you match this? (without explaining this by calling the writer stupid).

Malachi's response: First, The word "all" can carry with it the understanding of exceptions to the ALL if the context demands it, (there are many examples of this) and this context clearly does since he is first of all revealed as a creation.

Second, "Other" is a semantic part of "pas"(Greeek) according to context. As I said there are many examples of this. Col. 1:15 is one of those contexts. Now let's correctly translate this to english verse 15: he is a creation, and in verse 16: For by him were all (other) things created......all (other) things were created by him,for him; and verse 17: And he is before all (other) things, and by him all (other) things consist.

By translating it correctly it refutes you misunderstanding of the language as you said you do not know Greek nor Hebrew.

ezAad wrote: As I said: 'Firstborn of creation' is, I think, a reference to the HT where is spoken of the firstborn (Ex.13:2); the firstborn is holy to the LORD. And this firstborn is the heir. This could explain the use of the phrase the firstborn of creation: he is the rightfull heir of everything. If you have a better
explanation that is in harmony with what follows in the text, I'm interested

Malachi's response: You can THINK anything you WANT, 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. Do you agree then that wherever the phrase "firstborn OF something" is found that the firstborn is always a part of the group? If not, then you have to come up with something better than what you have for it doesn't address the grammatical, statistical problem that confronts you.

Now back to, what you wrote: reference to the HT where is spoken of the firstborn (Ex.13:2); the firstborn is holy to the LORD. And this firstborn is the heir. This could explain the use of the phrase the firstborn of creation: he is the rightfull heir of everything.

Malachi's response: Even if a firstborn possess preeminence among the group and the heir, 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.

ezad wrote: Rev.3:14 'arche' :OK it does not mean source; but it is translated as 'beginning'.
Now, is not God the Beginning of creation?

Malachi's response: The GT nor the Hebrew Bible calls YHWH the begining of the creation by G-d, where of where did you get that?

Also Revelations 3:14, proves beyond doubt that the so called 2nd person of the Trinity is a creation by G-d.

In fact, like I said before, 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.

Malachi's response: Now, to paragraphs 1 and 2:

What you have presented is a non answer. If you can not answer that very simple and unsophisticated question then it reveals that you have no argument against it and therefore the point stands. I have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the "firstborn OF something" is a member OF the SOMETHING. Therefore, according to all scriptural examples that bear on the subject, the Son being called the firstborn OF creation makes him a member of creation. That stands unrefuted with no Biblical examples to the contrary.

ezAad wrote: 3. "In the beginning was the Word..." John 1. This means : before everything else, before creation.
John 1:3 : All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Malachi's response: John 1:4 will also not help you as it is ambiguous and determines nothing, besides, we need to finish Col 1:15 before we move onto that. Beside Aad The grammar employed in Col 1: verse 16 clearly shows Christ to be the instrument of creation employed by someone else, not the originator of creation. So your misunderstanding of the Greek continues.

ezAad wrote: . The birth of Jesus is indeed within the context of creation: Luke writes that way, and I agree.

Malachi's response: Prov 8 shows that this "production" was from times "earlier than the earth", so that could not apply to his becoming a son at Luke. You started with that and came up again with the doctrine of man claming it is the word of G-d.

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

Please respond point by point so I know you have considered what I have said.



Best regards,
Malachi