And the amplification of verse 15 by verse 16, which you leave out of your analysis, states, For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.. He cannot logically have created ALL things if He Himself were a created thing.
As footnote 44 points out,
If Paul believed Christ was a created being or a being with origins as the Arians suggest, then Paul had available to him the terms prwtovktisto" (first-created) or prwtovplasto" (first-formed). Murray, 44.
In verse 9, which precedes these verses Paul says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form"
The Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker lexicon renders the word "the state of being god, divine character/nature, deity, divinity, used as abstract noun for qeo,j Louw and Nida have, "the nature or state of being God - 'deity, divine nature, divine being.' Thayer's lexicon says, "deity, i.e. the state of being God, Godhead: Col. ii. 9." Thayer is here giving us the words of Grimm. However, he then goes on to provide some important information on his own:
[SYN. qeo,thj, qeio,thj: qeo,thj deity differs from qeio,thj divinity, as essence differs from quality or attribute]
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1173
So eikon tou Theou tou aoratou must be understood in this context.
If eikon means an "artistic representation" in the strict sense, and a "mental image" in the metaphorical sense, or, as in the sense of a "copy" eikon means a "living image," a "likeness," an "embodiment" and a "manifestation, as the translators/commentators say, then what makes you think that calling Christ the image of God is not simply to say, as F. F. Bruce points out, that in Him the being and nature of God have been perfectly manifested--that in Him the invisible has become visible? And if all this were only to emphasize His Sonship, how does emphasizing His Sonship deny His Deity?
Cordially,
The Greek original says in him (en autos). Sometimes the proposition in is translated differently because otherwise it may sound awkward in English, but there is no doubt that the Greeks swear in the prophets then by the prophets. Perhaps saying "in his name" would preserve the original meaning if not the form.
He cannot logically have created ALL things if He Himself were a created thing.
Well, no that doesn't follow if he was the only thing created.
Anyway, suggesting that Christ created the universe, rather than God the Father (who is considered the first principle or source of all existence of everything, including the divinity), would is rather Gnostic, making Christ a demiurge-like Platonic idea.
It is no wonder than Gnostics particularly liked Paul and John, for that reason.
If Paul believed Christ was a created being or a being with origins as the Arians suggest, then Paul had available to him the terms prwtovktisto" (first-created) or prwtovplasto" (first-formed). Murray, 44.
John and Luke use the term "one of a kind," or only-begotten (monogenes) rather than firstborn (prototokos).
In verse [2 Col:]9, which precedes these verses Paul says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form"
Well, yes, the same can be said of all believers. Is the Holy Spirit not the "fullness of divinity" dwelling inside a bodily form? We can debate if the term Paul invented (theotes) which is somewhat incorrectly translated as "Godhead" in some Bibles is a "who" or a "what."
If eikon means an "artistic representation" in the strict sense, and a "mental image" in the metaphorical sense, or, as in the sense of a "copy" eikon means a "living image," a "likeness," an "embodiment" and a "manifestation, as the translators/commentators say
That is just plain wrong. Icons are used in the Apostolic Churches and they don't represent a "living image." In fact the Catholics and Orthodox are often accused of "idolatry" by Protestants for showing reverence to graven images.
The image must never be confused with the thing. No Orthodox or Catholic will tell you that an icon of Christ is a 'living image" of Christ, or Christ himself, or a copy of Christ, or a duplicate of him, or embodiment of him, etc. but only a symbolic representation of him, which makes you mentally aware of the person behind the image.
F. F. Bruce points out, that in Him the being and nature of God have been perfectly manifested--that in Him the invisible has become visible?
Jesus was fully human in Flesh. How can fullness of nature of God be manifested in bleeding, suffering flesh?
And if all this were only to emphasize His Sonship, how does emphasizing His Sonship deny His Deity?
In the Judaic sense it is a given.