"This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
-----------------
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
Jesus was fully human in Flesh. How can fullness of nature of God be manifested in bleeding, suffering flesh?
That is a great question.
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!"For who has known the mind of the Lord,For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.
or who has been his counselor?"
"Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?"
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.
You are talking about man-made images. Paul is talking about the Person, Who is not something that was made. It says he is the image of the invisible God.
Eikon is also used in 2 Corinthians 4:4 - "Christ, who is the image of God",
2 Corinthians 3:18 - "But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit",
Romans 8:29: "or those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers",
and Colossians 3:10 - "and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him--".
Roberton says,
Like eikwn we find prwtotokov in the Alexandrian vocabulary of the Logov teaching (Philo) as well as in the LXX. Paul takes both words to help express the deity of Jesus Christ in his relation to the Father as eikwn (Image) and to the universe as prwtotokov (First-born).
[emphasis mine]
http://studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=1&verse=15
"He who has seen Me has seen the Father"
Roberton says of verse 17:
Colossians 1:17 Before all things (pro pantwn). Pro with the ablative case. This phrase makes Paul's meaning plain. The precedence of Christ in time and the preeminence as Creator are both stated sharply. See the claim of Jesus to eternal timeless existence in John 8:58; 17:5. See also Revelation 22:13 where Christ calls himself the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning (arxh) and the End (telov). Paul states it also in 2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:6.
http://studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=001&verse=017
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.
You are correct here - Robertson again points to, "in him" as the sphere of creative activity, and "through him" as the intermediate and sustaining agent. And don't forget "And unto him". And "because of whom" and "by means of whom" are applied to God concerning the universe in Hebrew 2:10. But he also says, "This central activity of Christ in the work of creation is presented also in John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2 and is a complete denial of the Gnostic philosophy."
http://studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?book=col&chapter=001&verse=016
In short, there is nothing here in any of these comparative and superlative terms to support the heretical notion that Christ is a created being, In fact, the whole context proves just the opposite.
Cordially,
After all, that's what is wrong with the whole thing. With bits and pieces, like a Leggo set, you can build whatever you want, and if you ignore the context, historical and other factors, never mnind the language, that are involved in these different writings then you are on a verge of fraud that looks deceptively true.
Jesus is quoted as saying that he is "I am"; he also claims to be the "other" lord in Psalm 100:1, which to a Greek unfamiliar with Judaism may seem perfectly believable, especially given that the LXX addressed both Lords with the same word (kyrios), unlike Hebrew which leaves no doubt the first Lord is the Lord God (Yahveh) and the second one is not divine (because that word is never used as a divine title).
And, given the intended purpose of the Psalms, which would be unknown to an average Greek listener, or for that matter any non-Jewish person being "saved" by the wondeirng apostles and missionaries, the "official truth" would be easily established.
There are many instances in the NT where Jesus is not making himself equal to God the Father, but lesser to him, but I didn't expect you to balance your examples with those or to explain why John would be more likely to say so then the others.
Man is an icon of God, according to the Bible, and with the Holy Spirit supposedly indwelling the believer, all the fullness of deity is in him bodily too! So what's the difference, except that Jesus, according to Paul, was the first to be transformed that way, hence the "firstborn of all creatures"!
Your examples of 2 Cor 3:18 (I imagine inadvertently) confirms this.
He who has seen Me has seen the Father"
How can that be? When, on another occasion, whoever wrote it the same Jesus says "the Father is greater than I"
If he and the Father are one (and the same, save for his Sonship) then how can he not know some things that only the Father knows?
If I hadn't mentioned the "in him" that would have been conveniently ignored and the "by him" would suggest otherwise. All these verbal acrobatics are an English necessity to attempt to express without going into deceptive language the meaning of the original languages.
In short, there is nothing here in any of these comparative and superlative terms to support the heretical notion that Christ is a created being, In fact, the whole context proves just the opposite
It doesn't prove anything. The Bible is believed on faith. That is its "proof." This book has been 'cooked' numerous times for the past 2,000 years and subjected to innumerable rationalizations, alterations, redactions, additions and deletions, to make it appear "harmonized" and without contradiction. Apparently, the "harmonization" continues to mimick the prevailing doctirne of the editors.
For a Book that is supposedly perspicuous, that even a 5-yearold can understand [sic], it sure is laborious and requires endless hyperbolic exegetical explanations by multiglot PhD intellectuals who can selectively stitch together any "official truth" to their liking.