The Trinity Doctrine

This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by Proclaimer.

Viewing 20 posts - 5,081 through 5,100 (of 18,301 total)

Author
Posts

November 25, 2006 at 5:27 pm#33124

Participant

(Acts 24:14) But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

November 25, 2006 at 8:28 pm#33131

Is 1:18

Participant

Hi AP,
Could you do me the favour of quoting Psalms 102:23-27 from the LXX. And we'll examine it!

Cheers

November 25, 2006 at 8:32 pm#33132

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote

Posted: Nov. 25 2006,17:27

——————————————————————————–
(Acts 24:14) But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Adam Pastor

I Jn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
[2] Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

November 25, 2006 at 11:19 pm#33134

david

Participant

Quote

So appealing to 1 Cor 8:6 to substantiate the existence of many “gods” (of which Yahshua is one) is unscriptural

Is 1:18, I'm starting to agree with you on this scripture. Well, I do agree. I think I have been looking at it improperly. This scripture really shouldn't be a building block to disproving the trinity belief. I thank you for your insights.

david

November 26, 2006 at 12:10 am#33140

Is 1:18

Participant

Quote (david @ Nov. 25 2006,23:19)

Quote

So appealing to 1 Cor 8:6 to substantiate the existence of many “gods” (of which Yahshua is one) is unscriptural

david

*thump*…..excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor….

November 26, 2006 at 12:13 am#33141

Is 1:18

Participant

Quote

Who are you, and what have you done with David!

November 26, 2006 at 5:07 am#33145

Cubes

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 25 2006,12:36)

Quote (Cubes @ Nov. 25 2006,00:43)

Hi WJ,

1. I am not a polytheist but I thought to respond to #1. Firstly, we are not polytheist. Secondly, we do not claim to have two Gods as you say… but we acknowledge that there are many Gods, but for us, there is ONLY ONE GOD, namely, The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Period. 1 Cor 8:6.

2. I agree and AMEN.

Hi again Cubes, hope you are having a good thanks giving weekend so far…I'm afraid I have to take issue with your statement regarding polytheism. Here is how it is classically defined:

polytheism
/pollithee-iz’m/
– noun
the belief in or worship of more than one god.

(Compact Oxford English dictionary)

————————————————————————————-

polytheism
Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[pol-ee-thee-iz-uhm, pol-ee-thee-iz-uhm]
noun

the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods.

(Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1))

————————————————————————————–

polytheism
(pl-th-zm, pl-thz-m) Pronunciation Key
n.

The worship of or belief in more than one god.

(American Heritage Dictionary)

More dictionaries….

A polytheist believes in the existence of more than one god. That IS what a polytheist believes. Now you might not like that definition Cubes – but it is the correct one nonetheless.

Paul was a strict monotheist, and was not teaching the existence of multiple divinities in 1 Cor 8, but rather contrasting monotheistic christian dogma with the false notion of “many lords and gods” that was ubiquitously endemic in pagan Corinth. That is why he identifies them as “so called” gods in 1 Cor 5.

1 Corinthians 8:5
“For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,”

And why he wrote this in Galatians:

Galatians 4:8-9
8Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. 9But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Compare 1 Cor 8:1-5 with a passage two chapters later in 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthians 8:1-5
1Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. 2If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; 3but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him. 4Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,

Cf.

1 Corinthians 10:19-20
19What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.

The “Lords and gods” in 1 Cor 8:6 are the same “idols” described in the earlier verses of the chapter. The power behind these idols is identified as “demons” in 1 Cor 10:20. The “lords and gods” are demons Cubes. So appealing to 1 Cor 8:6 to substantiate the existence of many “gods” (of which Yahshua is one) is unscriptural and, no doubt, highly offensive to the Lord. Yahshua is definately not one of these, in fact if you read I Cor 8:5-6 carefully you'll see He is differentiated from them. He is uncreated, and there is One uncreated being in all of existence, YHWH.

Or am I incorrect when I assert that YHWH is the only uncreated being in existence? And there is One divine being?

Blessings Cubes
Is 1:18

Hi Is,

Thanksgiving was lovely, thank you. Got a little worn out from cooking but it was well worth the effort as we enjoyed our gathering together.

Now, regarding this polytheism thing, I'll say it as Jesus said it, “if he called them Gods/gods to whom the word of the Lord came…” The Psalmist or Jesus did not mean that those who are called Gods/gods are to be compared w/ his Father, the one and only true God whom he worships. Neither do I worship anyone else besides YHWH as my God or equal anyone to him.

All the same, there are dignitaries –even villian dignitaries against whom even Michael did not dare breath an accusation but said “YHWH rebuke you,” (Jude) or something to that effect. It is the bible that addresses other beings w/ the same “God/Lord” titles, regardless of whether they are YHWH or the goddess of whatever.

Thus I acknowledge that the bible addresses other beings as Gods/gods, yet I recognize and worship only the Father as my God. Do I obey the risen Lamb of God and honor him in songs to the glory of the Father? You bet. Rev 5.

November 26, 2006 at 5:13 am#33146

Cubes

Participant

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 25 2006,12:48)

Quote (Cubes @ Nov. 24 2006,20:49)

Hi Is,

The first thing I would say regarding Ps 102:22f and Heb 1:10 is that I don't understand them as clearly as I would like at this time, but it would seem that the Father speaks of his son, in much the same way as when he says, “therefore God, thy God has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows…”

If this is right, and we have correctly understood the scriptures as speaking about Jesus, then again, it confirms that Jesus has a God and creates within the frame work and with the resources provided by God, consistent with the point already established.

The creation after all is saved THRU Christ. God gives him credit for his part but it is more true that it is the Father who saves us. Jesus rose from the dead but it is more true that the Father raised him from the dead.

All sorts of people toil night and day to heal or save others, but it is more true that God sustains his creation. As long as such examples exist, Christ as creator must be seen within the existing framework and examples, taking all that is known of him into account (even as in the cases of the rest of creation).

We must rely on precedence in these things: We can't do without the pattern of examples shown us in scripture and the creation.

1Cr 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have NO SUCH CUSTOM, neither the churches of God.

Okay. Thanks for replying Cubes, and for being honest about your depth of knowledge of the two verses. But I have to say that, after reading your post, my conviction articulated below has been strengthened:

Quote

How can we reconcile Isaiah 44:24 and Hebrews 1:10 within the framework of monarchial monotheism? I don't think you can…..

Hi Is,

Nice posting this time around. I'll leave it here for now then as I haven't much else to add at this time.
Love to you and yours.

November 26, 2006 at 5:24 am#33147

Cubes

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 25 2006,10:40)

Quote

I don't know how, but it seems this post of yours escaped my attention. I just saw it this morning when looking to respond to “Is's” last to me. So my apologies for that.
• you are right in that Col 1:15 doesn't say that Jesus is the “Firstborn Image of the invisible God,” but rather that he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature. However, your refutation does not hold because I did not alter the meaning of the verse.

Letting scripture interpret Scripture:

Fact: Jesus is the image of his Father, the Invisible God.
Fact: Jesus is the firstborn (of God, obviously) of every creature and subsequently of many brethren. [He is the firstborn of God in this context since Mary is not referred to as our own mother and we are by and large not the children of David. But God is “Our Father.”]

1a. Image of the invisible God + firstborn of every creature and subsequently of many brethren = firstborn image of the invisible God. Precept upon precept.
1b. or the Invisible God's firstborn image.

Other Possble interpretations:

We cannot well say of Christ that he is:
2a. the image of the Invisible God's firstborn. (That would be speaking about us).
2b. Or the Invisible God's Image firstborn, (that's ambiguous and could mean Christ or us)

3. Or Firstborn Invisible God's Image… that would be awkward, and the meaning most certainly ambiguous if not outrightly wrong… possibly suggesting that the Invisible God could be someone's firstborn. But then that is the outrageous Trinity claim).
So for the purposes of constructing Jesus's profile by adding precept upon precept and line upon line, the equation turned out to be as I said: he is (both) FIRSTBORN & IMAGE of the Invisible God. aka FIRSTBORN IMAGE of ….

Thus I used it not as a quotation, or to take or add anything to scripture, but simply as a consolidation of scriptural facts which was not intended to alter the scriptures intent.

So hope you concede this point.

——-
Secondly:

Firstborns or beginnings are not the creators and origins of THEMSELVES: they tend to ensue from others. That is the simplest and most basic form of understanding. Actually, the biblical examples given follow that understanding: ADAM, CAIN, SHEM, ESAU, REUBEN… all ensued from someone.

Were this not so, evolutionists would be right after all, in contending that the universe came into existence of itself without any one causing it to be {GOD}.

(Interestingly, and for what it's worth, I am just noticing that, with the exception of Shem, the rest of the above share a similar pattern of the first Adam, in that each is a major branch in human/religious history and is succeeded by a pattern of the “second” Adam).

As for the rest, most definitely, Jesus has the preeminence in everything, being the prince of glory and son of the King of glory. Still, let's keep it straight and not think to instult him through unwarranted flattery, by making him out to be who he is not. He said, “I SAID, 'I AM THE SON OF GOD.'” Nothing more.

Warm Regards.

Hi Cubes

I could comment or respond too many of the individual statements that you made.

However I think I will keep it simple and just go to the root of your thesis.

The scriptures say:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

As you know the Word God is elohiym which is plural for Gods or the true God.

The Apostle John who leaned on the bosom of Jesus indicating a deep relationship with the Lord under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit spoke of Jesus as follows:

I Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the **Word of life**;
[2] (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
[3] That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

John who was familiar with the writings of Moses and the the pluaral application of the word elohiym understood that their was something absolutely divine and marvelous about this Jesus that he walked with for approximately 3 years.
He touched him, and he looked upon him , he heard him speak, and seen his eyes. Jesus who was the Word made Flesh. This Jesus also revealed himself to John on the Isle of Patmos in his resurrected Glory and also Spoke to him saying,
Rev 1: 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Something that none of us who talk about him on this forum can make such a claim.

So we know his words are true.

He speaks of him as not only the Word, but as the Word of Life.

But in Vs. 2 He shows us something more spectacular about this Word of Life,

Vs. 2 For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that **eternal life**, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us…

Skeptics of the Trinitarian view, some anyway, would
turn their eyes and ears to this marvelous revelation of the Son of God and try to forget.

The Word was not only the life that was with the Father but is in fact the **eternal
Life**.

John goes on to give us an understanding of who this Eternal Life was, who was this Word of Life?

I Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

YLT reads it 5:18 We have known that every one who has been begotten of God does not sin, but he who was begotten of God does keep himself, and the evil one does not touch him; 5:19 we have known that of God we are, and the whole world in the evil does lie; 5:20 and we have known that the Son of God is come, and has given us a mind, that we may know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ; this one is the true God and the life age-during!
Anyone who closely examines these scriptures and is honest with himself can plainly see that Jesus is the True God one with the Father, the Eternal Life.

The word John uses for eternal is aionios, which means
1) Without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2) Without beginning
3) Without end, never to cease, everlasting

The Word had no beginning! Out of Jesus the eternal Word came everything into existence.

Jesus said the Words that I Speak unto you they are **Spirit** and they are **Life**.

Then John goes on to say in Jn 1:1. in words so similar to Genesis 1:1.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2] The same was in the beginning with God.
[3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

There is that eternal Life that was with the Father! I Jn 1:1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon,
and our hands have handled, of the **Word of life**;
[2] (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us 😉

Now this Life, this Word that was with God and is God(the Word was God), That life that had no beginning and no end that eternal life is the express Image of God.
Col. 1
15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
[16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
[17] And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
[18] And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
[19] For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

The fact that the evidence here shows that Jesus, the Word that Eternal life, should be enough to throw out all of the watch towers interpretations of Jesus as the Firstborn or the Begotten as meaning that he had a beginning or was created will probably not be enough for those who would close there eyes to the truth being revealed.

Cubes your interpretation of Col 1:15 is out of context.

First of all the the word for firstborn is prototokos which could also mean first created. Now since we know the context here is Jesus being the Firstborn of the creation not of the Father then we have to ask is Jesus a created being?

The problem is that the context clearly shows that “first created” was not Paul's intended meaning in Colossians.
Paul uses the same basic word for “all things” in vv.16-17 as he used in his expression “every creature” (all creation) in v.15. Syntactically then, Paul says Jesus existed before (v. 17), created (v.16) and sustains (v.17) that set of things of which he is the “first born” (v.15), i.e., the set of “all creation.” This agrees with John, who says, “In the beginning was the Word (literal Greek “…was existing the Word.” John's use of the imperfect tense shows continuous duration of existence in the past)…. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1,3).
If Paul was saying that Jesus was created or born then why would he go on to say vs 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Now we know he didn’t create himself. ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM AND FOR HIM. Hes not a part of the all things.

So what do we have? Creator and created.

YLT reads Col 1:15-20 like this…
:15 who is the image of the invisible God, first-born of all creation, 1:16 because in him were the all things created, those in the heavens, and those upon the earth, those visible, and those invisible, whether thrones, whether lordships, whether principalities, whether authorities; all thing s through him, and for him, have been created, 1:17 and himself is before all, and the all things in him have consisted. 1:18 And himself is the head of the body — the assembly — who is a beginning, a first-born out of the dead, that he might become in all [things] — himself — first, 1:19 because in him it did please all the fulness to tabernacle, 1:20 and through him to reconcile the all things to himself

Conclusion:
. Since the scriptures here are evidence that Jesus is the one by whom God created ***all things***, then pure logic says that God could not have created Jesus out of or through Jesus. Foolishness!

Nor is he a part of the creation. Creator and Created.

Good bye watch tower!
He is and was the Eternal Life that was with the Father!

For anyone who apposes the Trinitarian view this creates a real problem.

God = Father, Son and Holy Spirit, these three eternally existed and these three are ONE!

Blessings

WJ,

For sure, we see things differently regarding who our God is. I'll have to leave it here for a while. May the grace of God keep and lead us all into truth.

Until next time, blessings.

November 26, 2006 at 7:23 am#33156

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote

WJ,

For sure, we see things differently regarding who our God is. I'll have to leave it here for a while. May the grace of God keep and lead us all into truth.

Until next time, blessings.

Cubes

Yes I see that my friend. Nice chatting with you.

Blessings to you and yours!

And I pray the Father give us all a Spirit of revelation in the knowledge of him!

November 26, 2006 at 7:28 am#33157

NickHassan

Participant

Hi w,
You say
“For anyone who apposes the Trinitarian view this creates a real problem.

God = Father, Son and Holy Spirit, these three eternally existed and these three are ONE! “

For your view to have any validity trinity would be taught in the bible.

Since it is not then any imagined relationship with it is irrelevant.

We cannot design human concepts to try to answer apparent divine scriptural incongrueties.

We must go back and compare verse with verse to find what answers we can from scripture-it is revealed truth.

November 26, 2006 at 8:03 am#33159

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote

Hi w,
You say
“For anyone who apposes the Trinitarian view this creates a real problem.

God = Father, Son and Holy Spirit, these three eternally existed and these three are ONE! “

For your view to have any validity trinity would be taught in the bible.

Since it is not then any imagined relationship with it is irrelevant.

We cannot design human concepts to try to answer apparent divine scriptural incongrueties.

We must go back and compare verse with verse to find what answers we can from scripture-it is revealed truth.

I like how you refute my summary. But noticed that you didnt refute anything in my post that supports my conclusion.

Instead of responding with “I disagree” or “this is not in scripture”, then show me how it is. Of course I hope that you don't do what you always do.

Throw a bunch of pasted scriptures at me which you isolate to support your belief without any personal explanation or interpretation of those scriptures.

Show me Nick besides my conclusion which we both agree cannot be found word for word in scripture no more that the word agency or other expressions that people on this sight use to describe their belief is found in the scriptures word for word.

Instead of making broad statements and attacking my relationship or experience with God, or saying I teach an evil theology called the Trinity.

Just give me examples of me being unscriptural. And I will reconsider. I doubt it but Im open to listen!

November 26, 2006 at 8:11 am#33160

Is 1:18

Participant

Quote (david @ Nov. 25 2006,23:19)

david

Hi Dave,
You're welcome by the way. I was so stunned by what you wrote I neglected to mention that. The post shows real character on your part….

Blessings

November 26, 2006 at 8:25 am#33162

Is 1:18

Participant

Quote (Cubes @ Nov. 26 2006,05:07)

Thanksgiving was lovely, thank you. Got a little worn out from cooking but it was well worth the effort as we enjoyed our gathering together.

Hi Cubes, glad you had a great time.

Quote

Yes, but these questions still remain unanswered for me:

In what sense is Yahshua “God”?
Is there more than one divine being in existence?
Is Yahshua a lower being 'in His nature' than the Father?
If so, what kind of being is He?
Can we be “bond servants” of a primary and secondary God, in light of what the scriptures say about idolatory?…

Many blessings

November 26, 2006 at 8:28 am#33163

Is 1:18

Participant

Quote (Adam Pastor @ Nov. 25 2006,10:32)

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 25 2006,07:48)

Quote

How can we reconcile Isaiah 44:24 and Hebrews 1:10 within the framework of monarchial monotheism? I don't think you can…..

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Nov. 21 2006,08:56)

Quote

Psalm 102:25 was written in exclusive reference to the Most High God, YHWH, and the writer of Hebrews unequivocally applied it to Jesus. According to the writer it was the Father Himself who personally addresses His Son as the actual executor of the Creation event!

Do you have any comments to make on how can we can reconcile Isaiah 44:24 and Hebrews 1:10 within the framework of monarchial monotheism?

Greetings Is 1:18
The short answer is that the writer of Hebrew's quote of Psalms 102:25 is taken from the LXX (Septuagint).

The LXX text reads different from the Hebrew text (MT).
Hence, the LXX rendering has a different sense entirely from the Masoretic rendering of Psalms 102:23-25; however both are speaking of the new heavens & earth to come i.e. the restoration of Zion, etc (cp. Acts 1.6, 3.21)

The writer of Hebrews is using the context of the LXX's rendering of Psalms 102:23ff!
In the LXX rendering of Psa. 102:23ff, the quote of v. 25 (as quoted in Heb 1.10) is taken from GOD's answer to the suppliant (the Lord Messiah); and the context is about the new heavens & earth to come! i.e. the Coming Kingdom of GOD here on earth.
In the LXX rendering, GOD is addressing the Messianic Lord in connection with the rest of Psalm 102 which speak of “the generation to come” and the set time for YAHWEH to build up Zion and appear in His glory. This is a vision of the coming Kingdom!

Quote (F.F. Bruce @ New International Commentary on Hebrews)

In the LXX, Septuagint text, the person to whom these words (‘of old you laid the foundation of the earth’) are spoken is addressed explicitly as ‘lord.’ God bids him acknowledge the shortness of God’s set time for the restoration of Jerusalem (v. 13) and not summon Him [God] to act when that set time has only half expired, while He [God] assures him [the suppliant] that he and his servants’ children will be preserved forever.

The risen, glorified Jesus is now indeed the agent of the new creation to come!

Remember, the writer of Hebrews does explain his context:
(Heb 2:5) For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

It is the world to come, the inhabited earth to come, the new heavens & earth to come, the Kingdom to come,
of which he speaks. Not the Genesis creation.

For more info see http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/92.htm#1

Oh BTW Is 1:18,
As you rightly pointed out,

Quote

Isaiah 44:24, as I read it, is an unequivical and exclusivist statement – strongly affirming that no one other than YHWH “stretcheth forth the heavens” and “spreadeth abroad the earth”

Yes. YHWH alone created all things. No one was co-creating with Him! YHWH created all things alone!

Thus, John 1.3 is simply speaking about GOD's [spoken] word i.e.
(Psa 33:6) By the word of YAHWEH were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
(Psa 33:9) For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

John 1:3 as nothing to do with the Messiah or any other being! It is simply talking about GOD's word by which GOD created all things.

(Incidentally the majority of English Bibles before the 1611 KJV, translated John 1:1-4 using it instead of him, beginning with Tyndale's translation e.g. “3 All things were made by it; and without it was not any thing made that was made. 4 In it was life; …”

This translation brought out the true sense of John 1:1-4; since these verses are speaking about GOD's word, not Jesus nor anybody else! It is simply about GOD's word which wasn't made flesh until v.14 i.e. the conception of Jesus of Nazareth!)

1 Cor 8.6 & Heb 1.2 speaks of GOD creating all things through (Greek dia not 'by') Jesus His Son.
That is, GOD created the ages and all things with His Son in mind. GOD's Son is the reason for the Creation. Jesus, the Son of GOD, the Son of the Father [2 John 3] is not himself the creator nor a co-creator in the Genesis creation. However the Creator, GOD Himself, had foreordained that His Son would be made, Lord of all His Creation. GOD thus created all things with this in mind.
Even Jesus attributed the Genesis Creation to GOD alone [Mark 10.6, 13.19]

Now Col 1.16 like Heb 1.10 is speaking of the new heavens and earth, the Coming Kingdom of GOD, hence,
(Col 1:16) … visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by [not 'by', THROUGH, Gk. dia] him, and for him:
The context is about the thrones, dominions, principalities, & powers to come in the Coming Kingdom of GOD [Heb 2.5]

Hope this helps to answer your questions!

Hi AP,
I've been doing some research on these texts today (and made some discoveries!) but won't have a post organised till later in the week. Keep an eye out for it in this thread.

Blessings

November 26, 2006 at 8:39 am#33166

NickHassan

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 26 2006,08:03)