[Kosta: Not to the Greeks. The idea of the demiurge creating the world was perfectly familiar Platonism][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.
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). Then Paul could not have been a Christian since demiurgic theology and Christianity are absolutely mutually exclusive. To hold demiurgic theology REQUIRES that one utterly reject key sections (and large sections) of scripture. I don't see any other possibility.
And if Paul was not Christian then of course his claim to having received the true Gospel from Christ must have been a complete and utter lie. That would make the majority of the NT completely unreliable for its truth, since it was authored by a known liar. If that is the essence of the Church's position (and I hope that it isn't :), then I assume that the resolution is that the Church simply determines which of Paul's teachings are COMPLETE lies and should be ignored altogether, and which are only partial lies and can be salvaged through interpretation. But even so, it seems a little surprising that the Church would have ANYTHING to do at all with a Christian-murderer who never became Christian and was known to have been a serial liar.
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.
Even so, the qualitative similarity could not possibly have included nature. Nobody thinks that Gen. 1:26 says that God and man share the same nature. However, Paul's use of "eikon" DID include nature. The only way Paul could have been Christian would be if there is more than one legitimate use of "eikon". Although a layman, Bruce Hurt gives at least a credible sounding explanation in his commentary on Col. 1:15. Please forgive the length, but here is an excerpt:
AND HE IS THE IMAGE: hos estin eikon: (Jn 14:9, 15:24 2Co 4:4,6) ----- "He is the perfect image, the visible representation, of the unseen God" (Lightfoot)
Image (1504) (eikon) an artistic representation, as one might see on a coin or statue (an image or a likeness, as in Mt 22.20). Eikon can also refer to a visible manifestation of an invisible and heavenly reality form (see Hebrews 10:1) As used here in Colossians eikon speaks of an embodiment or living manifestation of God.
Eikon is used 23 times in the NAS (Matt. 22:20; Mk. 12:16; Lk. 20:24; Rom. 1:23; 8:29; 1 Co. 11:7; 15:49; 2 Co. 3:18; 4:4; Col. 1:15; 3:10; Heb. 10:1; Rev. 13:14f; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4) and in the NAS is translated as - form, 1; image, 19; likeness, 3. The KJV translates every use with "image."
Eikon is used 29 times in the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, the Septuagint (LXX) (Gen. 1:26f; 5:1, 3; 9:6; Deut. 4:16; 2 Ki. 11:18; 2 Chr. 33:7; Ps. 39:6; 73:20; Isa. 40:19f; Ezek. 7:20; 16:17; 23:14; Dan. 2:31f, 34f; 3:1ff, 5, 7, 10ff, 14f, 18; Hos. 13:2), the first use being in Genesis where "God said "Let Us make man in Our image (LXX = eikon)...." (Genesis 1:26)
......... Paul in fact confirmed that man "is the image (eikon) and glory of God" (1 Cor 11:7). Paul went on to add that "just as we have borne the image (eikon) of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." (1 Cor 15:49)
Paul emphasized that Jesus is the image of the invisible God explaining in the case of unbelievers who are perishing "the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image (eikon) of God." (2 Cor 4:4)
Believers are now being progressively transformed from a likeness to Adam into a likeness of Christ. Man was created in the image of God but the fall of man defaced this image and yet did not totally erase it. When one becomes a new creation in Christ a transformation begins taking place. Gradually the Holy Spirit transforms believers into the image of Christ, Who as Paul says here in Colossians 1:15 is Himself the image of the invisible God. And so we read that...
"we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being (present tense = speaks of a continual process of being) transformed (metamorphoo- word study) (~present tense salvation, sanctification, growth in holiness, being conformed to the image of Jesus) into the same image (eikon) from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit." (2Cor 3:18)
Paul is saying that Jesus is the very stamp of God the Father as He was before the Incarnation Jn 17:5 and is now.
Eikon is the basis for such English terms as icon ( a conventional religious image typically painted or engraved on a small wooden panel and venerated in Eastern Orthodox Churches), "iconography" (the illustration of a subject by drawing), or "iconoclast" (the medieval zealots who broke up religious statues and then anyone who attacks cherished beliefs or practices).
Wayne Detzler explains that......... "God created us in His image, and we are to be a living testimony to our Creator. Only one image is ordained by God to represent Him. This is the crown of His Creation, human beings. To form any other image as a representation of God is a violation of the Ten Commandments. Furthermore, it is sheer blasphemy. This was the sin which Paul condemned so strongly in the prologue to his Roman Epistle (see note Romans 1:23)." (Detzler, Wayne A: New Testament Words in Today's Language)
In early Greek the eikon was an engraving of the Emperor's head on a coin but soon was also attached to a statue or a metal image. Likewise eikon was the copy of a picture or the embodiment of a certain virtue. This idea is seen in English phrases such as, "She is the `image' of loveliness."
The Jews rejected all images of God. The Ten Commandments forbade any casting of images, which was the sin into which Aaron fell at the foot of Sinai. In fact, the only image of God which is depicted in Scripture is man (Genesis 1:26). In this connection the New Testament uses the word eikon.
Eikon expresses two ideas. First, likeness, as in the image on a coin or the reflection in a mirror. Second, manifestation, with the sense that God is fully revealed in Jesus. Eikon does not denote mere likeness or resemblance. Eikon conveys the meaning that Christ is whatever God is--spiritual, omnipotent, omniscient, holy--all the attributes of the eternal God.
The idea that Paul is conveying with eikon is that the glorified Son sets forth, to those who behold Him, the nature and grandeur of the Eternal Father. The image includes the glorified manhood in which the Eternal Son presents in created and visible form the mental and moral nature of God. Men knew the Father because they had seen the Incarnate Son (Jn 14:9) The heretics falsely viewed Jesus as one among a series of lesser spirits descending in sequential inferiority from God. In this verse Paul refutes that with two powerful descriptions of who Jesus really is - the image or essence of God and the firstborn (see discussion below) or the one pre-eminent over all creation. Paul says that Jesus Christ is not a created being but that Christ is the essence of God made visible in the flesh. Christ is essentially and absolutely the perfect expression and representation of God the Father. (emphasis added)
I see this explanation at least being on the right track as the only way one could possibly consider Paul a Christian. Otherwise, your analysis holds and Paul was not a Christian (as I interpret it).