Quote:
Malachi
I would say it is confusing! Because it is the doctrine of man not of G-d. Now, let's go back to what you wrote. Colossians 1:15-16 is talking about is in the begining not when Jesus was born, otherwise how could he be the firstborn of creation? he would not be the First one born. No Aad, this is talking about the preexistence of Jesus, as the Son.


Sounds good. Than there is still the possibility that firstborn is only used to stress the heir-position of Jesus.

Quote:
Aad I read the rest of what you had to say and you could not overturn anything I wrote without you adding "from my pont of view"


I don't claim to have all the knowledge, that's why I say: "from my point of view"; I 'm being cautious, I don't trust myself to much (on an intellectual level) in these matters of theology.

Quote:
Malachi
And the "hoti" clause that follows naturally provides the reason why he was the FIRSTBORN creation, because all other creation came AFTER him by means of the fact that they came THROUGH him. Fits like a glove!!
Therefore to believe that Col. 1:15,16 shows the Son to the first creation of G-d is entirely contextual and grammatically and denotionally precedented with a huge number of database examples to support it, in fact, none to the contrary found within the Hebrew Bible nor your GT.
That coupled with the same scenario in regard to "arche" in Revelation and "qanah" in Proverbs, I personally feel that a Trinitarian should feel extreme guilt in trying to overturn such outstanding evidence.
That threefold witness to the creation of the Son should stand as the ABSOLUTE to clean up any ambiguity presented in the scriptures as to the relationship between the Father and the Son because they stand natural and precented statements fully consistent and comliant with what is revealed in the scriptural record.


You seem to have a strong case. What you say sounds like a Jehovah witness view. Still I have questions:
-Are you saying a creature created heaven and earth?
-The Son was brought forth by the Father before creation, how then can the Son be created? (the Son was "begotten, not made/created, before all ages"; so before creation God did not create; you did not answer this).

Quote:
Malachi
It is interesting that only the Unitarian understaning of G-d finds this natural and precedented harmony within the Bible, without the need to pull in extra-Biblical philosophy and terminilogy found in Greek and pagan systems of belief.
I have often wondered and have presented the challenge for a Triniarian to attempt to defend their doctrine without the usage of their Biblically unprecedented definitions and philosophical ideas. Unitarians can defend their position and explantions every step of the way with the Bible, using its natural languiage and precedented meanings, Trinitarians simply can't, even to the extent of denying that the Son is an actual, literal son of G-d. In a very certain sense, they deny the Son, and if you deny the Son, you don't have the Father, at least according to John.


I think the Unitarian position does short to the glory Jesus has a right to. Even God Himself has given Him the Name above all other names (Phill.2), the Most high position one can ever possess (which is the throne of God): no creature can have a right to this position, it would be idolatry.

Aad