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".
[FK: True, but of course I meant in Christianity (or in the broader sense Monotheism]
But Paul was preaching to pagan Greeks. There is a lot of similarity between Paul's idea of the "firstborn of all creatures" and the Platonic demiurge the Greeks could relate to. It is no coincidence that Gnostics found Paul's gospel dear and near to their own (Maricon, Valentius, etc.)
The demiurgic theology of Paul seems evident all over his Epistles, but nothing as clearly stated as in 1 Corinthians 8:6 "yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." (see also Hebrews 1:2).
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,
An icon is not considered the thing itself, FK. The Orthodox do not worship the 'picture' of Christ but the Christ which the pictures represents. If Paul says that Christ is only an icon of God then Christ (icon, a graven image) is not to be worshiped.
"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.
Tselem is used in Genesis 1:26, for example and it is defined as (a) images (of tumors, mice, heathen gods), (b) image, likeness, (of resemblance), (c) mere, empty, image, semblance (figuratively). The word tselem is translated in the Septuagint as eikon, a physical image.
And "Likeness" is - OT:1821 (dem-ooth'); from OT:1819; resemblance; concretely, model, shape; adverbially, like: KJV - fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.
Demooth is also used in Genesis 1:26 and corresponds to the Greek homoiosis, which is to say similitude, likeness. This is a qualitative term, not a physical image or representation. It is the quality man lost in the Fall, and it is the quality man must regain in order to be saved, i.e. become Christ-like or God-like.
In the West, especially in the English-speaking West, the two terms are synonymous; for example Dictionary.com defines image (eikon) as physical likeness (homoiosis). Thus, in English being made in "the image and likeness of God" is understood as distinction without a (real) difference. In the East, however, the theological and soteriological implication of the difference cannot be overemphasized.