Well, likewise. :)
He is both a creator and a creature, which is impossible
Not to the Greeks. The idea of the demiurge creating the world was perfectly familiar Platonism.
There is a fuller explanation in God Questions?
Well, more doesn't necessarily imply quality, FK. For example, the author argues "Christ’s relationship to His Father begins with the phrase 'the image of the invisible God.' The word 'image,' meaning copy or likeness, expresses Christ's deity."
That argument is wholly naive. Man was created in God's image and likeness and was not divine.
He then continues by saying "The 'Word' of John 1:1 is a divine Person, not a philosophical abstraction."
Why is he using John (who wrote at the end of the century) to corroborate Paul (who wrote in the middle of it)? John's purpose and agenda was completely different, as was the situation with Christianity vs. Judaism, and Christianity vs. Hellenism.
Then the author uses Hebrews 1:3, saying "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word."
Well, radiance is not the same as the Sun, and being the exact "representation" of something is not the same as the thing itself. he is also saying that it was the Son who was sustaining all things with his powerful word rather than being the Word himself.
Then he quotes John 1:10 to show that Christ pre-existed the world.Ppre-existing the world doesn't preclude him form being creatured. Angels pre-existed the world and they are created. Creation did not only unlocked the material world. But calling something the first born of all creatures can only mean one thing: the first creature.
I realize that Christians will never admit to that, even if in the back of their minds they understand that this is precisely what Paul is saying, because it would be a devastating admission.
Then the author states a classical heresy: "In the incarnation, the invisible God became visible in Christ; deity was clothed. with humanity." Good to see that ancient Christological heresies submit alive and well in triniatrian Protestant communities. :)
submit = subsist
Not to the Greeks. The idea of the demiurge creating the world was perfectly familiar Platonism.
True, but of course I meant in Christianity (or in the broader sense Monotheism).
Well, more doesn't necessarily imply quality, FK. For example, the author argues "Christ’s relationship to His Father begins with the phrase 'the image of the invisible God.' The word 'image,' meaning copy or likeness, expresses Christ's deity." ---- That argument is wholly naive. Man was created in God's image and likeness and was not divine.
But naturally, different words are used for "image". In Col. 1:15 it is NT:1504 eikon (i-kone'); from NT:1503; a likeness, i.e. (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: KJV - image.
In Gen. 1:26, "image"is - OT:6754 (tseh'-lem); from an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance; hence, a representative figure, especially an idol: KJV - image, vain shew. ------ And "Likeness" is - OT:1821 (dem-ooth'); from OT:1819; resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like: KJV - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.
The author's statement is therefore perfectly permissible.
He then continues by saying "The 'Word' of John 1:1 is a divine Person, not a philosophical abstraction." ---- Why is he using John (who wrote at the end of the century) to corroborate Paul (who wrote in the middle of it)?
Because he/she sees the Bible as I do, as coming from a single source not affected by time. Therefore, nothing in the Bible is ineligible to be used as corroboration of anything else scriptural due to author or time written.
Well, radiance is not the same as the Sun, and being the exact "representation" of something is not the same as the thing itself.
I don't see anything unreasonable in taking the phrase "exact representation" to mean having the same nature. The author actually notes that it is "more than a representation".