Tough Questions

[Br. Thomas]

If Christ was not (pre-existant- as in the preincarnate existance) how could Paul's writing on Colossians (Chapter 1:15-17) of ;
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 Heis before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
be True?

[nuntym]

And why did Peter greet the recepients of his 2nd letter:

[1] Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
[2] May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

(2 Peter 1:1-2)?

And why did Paul tell Titus:

[11] For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,
[12] training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world,
[13] awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
[14] who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
[15] Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

(Titus 2:11-15)?

[Br. Thomas]

Anyone Have any Answer? :confused:

[David Kone]

We come to the missal of Paul to the Colossians as poor snoops peeking into translated copies of mail that was sent to someone else. It is not that we are invading their privacy that is the shame but it is our lack of understanding of those things that they had already established between themselves that their communication was based upon, and which made complete their understanding but leaves us with more fodder for imagination than proof of meaning. That is not to say we can not deduce the correct interpretation of these writings based on the teachings from which they sprang for they do interpret themselves if they are placed in the context of the Tanach, which was the Bible of the early church. We, however, should be forgiving towards those who have been led from the truth, for indeed honest mistakes were inevitable. If only we could have been one of those who were fully initiated by the early church fathers we would come much easier to the light.

The following is how I have come to understand these passages. First, let's get one thing straight. Paul, a devout Jew, never would have espoused anything that deviated from the belief in one God. Any notion of dividing God into parts one being of God the Son would have been totally rejected. With that in mind, let’s go over the words in question of Colossians 1:15-17. To fully understand them lets look at the proceeding verses also so we can properly assign the pronouns to their respective nouns.

KJV Colossians 1:12-19.

12. Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Starts out praising the Father then introduces the Son.

14. In whom ( Son ) we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15. Who ( Son ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Now we are linked back to discussing God the Father but we are also reminded of the relationship with Adam who was created in the image of God. We would have already learned, as an initiate, that Jesus was the Second Adam; Romans 5:14; 1 Colossians 5:22;1 Colossians 15:45-47. The term firstborn refers to birthright. As the new firstborn of God, Christ takes over the birthright of Adam which is dominion over all creatures.

16. For by him (God) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him ( God ), and for him ( God ):
17. And he ( God ) is before all things, and by him ( God ) all things consist.
18. And he ( God ) is the head of the body, the church:

Christ is the body, the Church. God the Father will always be the head. The object now switches to the Son.

who ( Son ) is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he ( Son ) might have the preeminence.

This is not my interpretation, beliefs, and desires but of the Holy words of the scriptures. They tells us now as they have told all the followers of the Torah, including Paul, that the Almighty alone is God and there is no other.

Living in the Word,
David Kone :innocent:

[David Kone]

This is my understanding of the way these scriptures have been mistranslated.

[1] Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
[2] May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

(2 Peter 1:1-2)?

If you refer to a literal Bible you will find that the Greek says "the god". This is a title frequently used in the Bible for kings, judges, and other great personages. If it was referring to God the Father it would not use the article 'the'. In 2 Peter 1:21 we find an example where God is clearly referred to and guess what there is no article 'the' used.


[11] For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,
[12] training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world,
[13] awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
[14] who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
[15] Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

(Titus 2:11-15)?

Here again the Greek has "the god" which the interpreters saw fit to leave out.

Any more questions?

Loving the scriptures,
David Kone :krolleyes:

[Br. Thomas]

I'm sorry, Br. David, but I find your "dissective pronoun" approach inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. Also your definition of the "headship" is incorrect according to Scripture. For Christ is the Head of the Church (Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.) And God is the head of Christ (1Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.). I don't wish to debate the issue I just wanted to share the fact that I can not agree with your interpretation of this passage in light of the Totality of Scripture.

With the Love of Christ,
+Br. Thomas

[David Kone]

Dear Brother Thomas,

Thank you, no need to apologize; I am grateful for your feedback. I was expecting to be called on that very point the minute I posted. Hey, I am not a theologian. In fact I intend to fully take advantage of my status as a Deacon (Junior Member) to make a fool of my self as often as it takes to become an expert on this very matter. Now, first I don’t feel my mistake was any further a field than the way the Trinitarians have dealt with these verses; the main difference being my willingness to review my opinion. So, the first thing I did when I realized someone was going to challenge my stance was to plead for help from my recently acquired mentor, Uri Marcus. Uri has an excellent site, AdonaiEchad@yahoogroups.com and he also helps run with the Nehemiah Fund which supports the needs of Christians living in Israel. I am going to let Uri set this issue straight as he is much better than I am likely to be for some time to come.

Uri HELP!!!

*Christ is the body, the Church. God the Father will always be the
head. The object now switches to the Son. *!!!!!!*

This is where I am in trouble !!!

Yes, you are David.

Shalom,

You have to be very careful with these prepositions, but more than that, you must put your mind into Sha'ul's Jewish mind, and try to ask, "What is he trying to say?"

Is it possible in Sha'ul's mind that Mashiach pre-existed his own existence? It is possible in Sha'ul's mind that G-d is the head of His Body? How can this be, if G-d has no physical body, be it the church, or otherwise?

There are a total of 4 different prepositions used in Col 1:16, but notice how the translators translate each one in a way that suits what they want the verse to say, even though the prepositions are different.

Example:

For by (ein) him were all things created, that are in (ein) heaven, and that are in (epi) earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by (dia) him, and for (eis) him:

Do you see what the translators are up to? They want the reader to understand that Yeshua is the Creator, and therefore is G-d.

But, what do these prepositions really mean in Greek?

Below is another perfectly legitimate translation... only note the difference in meaning...

For in or with (ein) him (in mind) were all things created, that are in (ein) heaven, and that are on or over (epi) earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through or because of (dia) him, and for (eis) him:

With this translation of the prepositions, the first thing that becomes clear, is that the verse is not speaking about G-d, as you supposed. The subject is Mashiach, who was introduced in verse 13, and continues to be in central view in verses 14, 15, 17 and 18, and of course no less in verse 16 as well.

When we properly discern the person of whom the text speaks, the next thing that becomes clear is that the Mashiach is no longer the creator, but the one for whom the creation was created. Mashiach was written into the center of the plan of G-d from before the foundations of the world were laid. He was the centerpiece around which the world was built. It was WITH the Messiah in HaShem's mind, that HaShem created the heavens and the earth, the seen and the unseen. It was for the Mashiach, because of him, through him or by his way that the world was brought into existence.

Consequently, the office and title of Mashiach is positioned, as G-d's son, as having existed before all things created, and in which office and title, all things are held together (verse 17) in a world which is quickly falling apart. Note that Sha'ul does not mention the Mashiach's name -- Yeshua -- during his entire discourse concerning the title and office of "Mashiach" which begins in verse 9 of chapter one, and ends in verse 20. In fact Yeshua is not mentioned by name until verse 6 of chapter two!

Sha'ul's task is to introduce the concept of G-d, Mashiach and the plan of redemption to a bunch of former pagans, who didn't even know that there was a G-d in the world (verse 21), let alone a redemptive plan to save the world.

So, he lays the groundwork first. Who is G-d. Then, what is the office and title and task of Mashiach. Only after that, who is Mashiach.

The conclusion is that Mashiach is head of the Body, the Messianic Community - he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might hold first place in everything. Obviously G-d does not die, so the Mashiach cannot be G-d.

Hope this helps,

Shabbat Shalom,

Uri Marcus
Jerusalem

Thank you Uri.

As you see this requires deeper understanding than just the muddled - they are all one approach. Another excellent explanation of Colossians 1:12-19 can be found at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/colossians.htm. .


Hope you find this as informative as I have.

The Lord’s fool,
David Kone:jlol:

[Br. Thomas]

Thank you Br. David,

I did find it interesting and I definately need to get ahold of Uri Marcus the Cause of the Holy Land Christian Community is a passion of mine. Do you have any contact info you can share?

[David Kone]

Brother Thomas,

Information about the Nehemiah Trustees Covenant Fund can be found at http://www.ntcf.org/start.html. I recommend downloading their newsletter; it helps explain the work that they do and also contains excellent articles that give us a fresh perspective from the eyes of those who live in the Holy land.

Peace be with you,
Br. David
>:-O

[RabbiBarry]

First, it should be noted that Colossians is not one of the books that is attributed to Paul in modern scholarship. It is a book from the general church that was being developed after Paul's death.

Second, the ideas presented in verses 15 through 20 are a hymn that was sung in the ancient Nasorean Church of St. James the Just, Patriarch of Jerusalem. They make perfect sense when you understand the underlying theology of the Nasorean Sect.

The Nasorean Sect wrote all three of the principle books of the Kabbalah. This hymn comes from the teachings of the third book, the Zohar. That book teaches that G-d the Father, called the Ain Sof, the Endless Light, sent forth a single ray of Light into the vacuum in that He had created in the center of his being. That Single Ray is called Adam Kadmon, that is, the Primitive Adam. Zohar teaches that G-d the Ain Sof created Adam Kadmon who subsequently created the entire visible and invisible universes (all four of them). So the hymn says:

He is the image of the invisible G-d.

Truly Adam Kadmon, is the image of the invisible G-d. He is the Archangel of the Presence, the first one. The invisible G-d made Adam Kadmon One as he was One. He made him filled with essence as He was filled with essence. He made Adam Kadmon the recipient of the Descending Light which is called the Holy Spirit.

He is the first born of all creation.

Thus there would be others born through the act of creation. They are the ten Sephiroth: Kether, the Crown; Chochmah, Holy Wisdom: Binah, the Holy Intelligence; Chesed, the Holy Mercy; Gevurah, the Holy Justice; Tifereth, the Holy Beauty; Netzer, the Holy Victory; Hod, the Glory; Yesod, the Foundation, and Malkuth, the Kingdom. Each of the Sephiroth is one of the Archangels with the King, Kether at the beginning. Thus, Gavriel is Chochmah; Michael is Binah; Raphael is Chesed; Uriel is Gevurah etc.

For in Him were created all thing in heaven and earth,

It was from the substance of the First Ray that all things were created. Adam Kadmon, the Archangel of the Presence, became the Ancient of Days in the Second Dimensio; became Metatron in the third Dimension; and finally, became Yeshua in the Fourth Dimension after his resurrection.

The visible and the invisible

Denotes all four dimensions.

whether thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers.

These are the hierarchies of heaven and hell.

all things were created through him and for him.

Thus it was the First Ray, Adam Kadmon, whose creative power created the other Archangels and they together created all things that exist as it says in Genesis 1:1:

"From the Head created the Archangels (called Elohim) the Heavens and the Earth."

He is before all things

At each stage of creation, in each dimension, Adam Kadmon descends as the first in descent.

and in him all things hold together

All things are Light. Adam Kadmon, the first ray, is the substance that holds all the Light into place and maintains the natural law. Today, we might call him Dark Matter.

He is the head of the body, the Church.

Yeshua, the Resurrected One, the Archangel of the Presence in Assiyah, the fourth Dimension, is Kether, the Crown, the Head of the Body. Malkuth, the Kingdom is the Church. Thus as in all the dimensions the symbiosis between Kether and Malkuth is maintained.

He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,

Yeshua is the first human that truly took on the mantle of the Archangel, despite the statements in Enoch. When he arose he became the High Priest of Heaven, the Archangel of the Presence, as it says:

"Yeshua, the one mediator between G-d and man."

that in all things he himself migh be pre-eminent

It is his pre-eminence, his rank as the first of G-d's creation, the generated one, that gives the world meaning. Thus in all things he is the first one.

For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell.

We know who it is that the fullness dwelt. Exodus 23:20-21 says:

"See, I am sending an angel before you ... be attentive to him and heed his Voice. ... My Name resides in him."

Thus we know that there is an Archangel who is so Holy that the very Essence of G-d, His Name, reside in him. Yeshua is that Archangel. This was the belief of the Nasorean Sect. It was the belief of the Apostles and of the Patriarch Ya'akov ha Tzaddik, St. James the Just.

and through him to reconcile all things for him

He had the power to forgive sins. See Exodus 23:21. He has the power of reconciliation.

making peace by the blood of his cross

We Nasorean see that the Blood is Yeshua is the Blood of the Lamb of Pesach. It is the blood that causes the Archangel of Death, Samiel, to Pass Over us. It is as Paul has said in 1 Corinthians 5:7:

"For Christ our Pascha has become."

That is, he has become the Passover Lamb that protects us from Death.

His blood is also the Sacred Lamb of Yom Kippur who appeases the Divine Mercy Seat in the Temple in Heaven, because all his blood was collected by the Archangel Gavriel and poured on the HaKapporet or Mercy Seat in Heaven where it is multiplied by the High Priest Yeshua and becomes a never ending fountain to appease G-d and gain us mercy.

through him, whether those on earth or in heaven.

Yeshua's ministry, his High Priesthood, continues to justify even in Paradisos or the Third Heaven.

Rabbi Barry Albin
Mebakker of the Nasoreans

[RabbiBarry]

It says in the Psalms: YHVH arises in the Assembly of G-ds. These G-ds are the Archangels of the Heavenly Court. As such, it is correct to call Yeshua "Our G-d" because he is as Zohar says, YHVH. However, he is not the Father, who is Ain Sof, the Endless Light, the Progenitor who is eternal. Likewise we are taught that YHVH is our Savior, so Yeshua is our Savior as well.

[RabbiBarry]

First, it should be noted that Colossians is not one of the books that is attributed to Paul in modern scholarship. It is a book from the general church that was being developed after Paul's death.

Second, the ideas presented in verses 15 through 20 are a hymn that was sung in the ancient Nasorean Church of St. James the Just, Patriarch of Jerusalem. They make perfect sense when you understand the underlying theology of the Nasorean Sect.

The Nasorean Sect wrote all three of the principle books of the Kabbalah. This hymn comes from the teachings of the third book, the Zohar. That book teaches that G-d the Father, called the Ain Sof, the Endless Light, sent forth a single ray of Light into the vacuum in that He had created in the center of his being. That Single Ray is called Adam Kadmon, that is, the Primitive Adam. Zohar teaches that G-d the Ain Sof created Adam Kadmon who subsequently created the entire visible and invisible universes (all four of them). So the hymn says:

He is the image of the invisible G-d.

Truly Adam Kadmon, is the image of the invisible G-d. He is the Archangel of the Presence, the first one. The invisible G-d made Adam Kadmon One as he was One. He made him filled with essence as He was filled with essence. He made Adam Kadmon the recipient of the Descending Light which is called the Holy Spirit.

He is the first born of all creation.

Thus there would be others born through the act of creation. They are the ten Sephiroth: Kether, the Crown; Chochmah, Holy Wisdom: Binah, the Holy Intelligence; Chesed, the Holy Mercy; Gevurah, the Holy Justice; Tifereth, the Holy Beauty; Netzer, the Holy Victory; Hod, the Glory; Yesod, the Foundation, and Malkuth, the Kingdom. Each of the Sephiroth is one of the Archangels with the King, Kether at the beginning. Thus, Gavriel is Chochmah; Michael is Binah; Raphael is Chesed; Uriel is Gevurah etc.

For in Him were created all thing in heaven and earth,

It was from the substance of the First Ray that all things were created. Adam Kadmon, the Archangel of the Presence, became the Ancient of Days in the Second Dimensio; became Metatron in the third Dimension; and finally, became Yeshua in the Fourth Dimension after his resurrection.

The visible and the invisible

Denotes all four dimensions.

whether thrones or dominions, or principalities or powers.

These are the hierarchies of heaven and hell.

all things were created through him and for him.

Thus it was the First Ray, Adam Kadmon, whose creative power created the other Archangels and they together created all things that exist as it says in Genesis 1:1:

"From the Head created the Archangels (called Elohim) the Heavens and the Earth."

He is before all things

At each stage of creation, in each dimension, Adam Kadmon descends as the first in descent.

and in him all things hold together

All things are Light. Adam Kadmon, the first ray, is the substance that holds all the Light into place and maintains the natural law. Today, we might call him Dark Matter.

He is the head of the body, the Church.

Yeshua, the Resurrected One, the Archangel of the Presence in Assiyah, the fourth Dimension, is Kether, the Crown, the Head of the Body. Malkuth, the Kingdom is the Church. Thus as in all the dimensions the symbiosis between Kether and Malkuth is maintained.

He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,

Yeshua is the first human that truly took on the mantle of the Archangel, despite the statements in Enoch. When he arose he became the High Priest of Heaven, the Archangel of the Presence, as it says:

"Yeshua, the one mediator between G-d and man."

that in all things he himself migh be pre-eminent

It is his pre-eminence, his rank as the first of G-d's creation, the generated one, that gives the world meaning. Thus in all things he is the first one.

For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell.

We know who it is that the fullness dwelt. Exodus 23:20-21 says:

"See, I am sending an angel before you ... be attentive to him and heed his Voice. ... My Name resides in him."

Thus we know that there is an Archangel who is so Holy that the very Essence of G-d, His Name, reside in him. Yeshua is that Archangel. This was the belief of the Nasorean Sect. It was the belief of the Apostles and of the Patriarch Ya'akov ha Tzaddik, St. James the Just.

and through him to reconcile all things for him

He had the power to forgive sins. See Exodus 23:21. He has the power of reconciliation.

making peace by the blood of his cross

We Nasorean see that the Blood is Yeshua is the Blood of the Lamb of Pesach. It is the blood that causes the Archangel of Death, Samiel, to Pass Over us. It is as Paul has said in 1 Corinthians 5:7:

"For Christ our Pascha has become."

That is, he has become the Passover Lamb that protects us from Death.

His blood is also the Sacred Lamb of Yom Kippur who appeases the Divine Mercy Seat in the Temple in Heaven, because all his blood was collected by the Archangel Gavriel and poured on the HaKapporet or Mercy Seat in Heaven where it is multiplied by the High Priest Yeshua and becomes a never ending fountain to appease G-d and gain us mercy.

through him, whether those on earth or in heaven.

Yeshua's ministry, his High Priesthood, continues to justify even in Paradisos or the Third Heaven.

Rabbi Barry Albin
Mebakker of the Nasoreans

[brotherkev]

God and Savior Jesus Christ:
our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,


I have always used the and as a splitting of two objects.. a direct object and an indirect object..

I like wine and cheese

I didn't mean to say that wine and cheese are the same thing... but it the view that trinitarians use, then the and makes the two objects the same thing..

I am going to see Cain and Abel

same thing here.. where English has an 'and' to differentiate objects, so does Koine Greek, Aramaic and Syriac which all 3 were spoken in the region during the 1st CE

It's a typical grammar thing seen in numerous languages thru the whole world.

[Augustines Error]

let's not forget my fame & fortune.
You hear those two word together so often that you begin to believe they are one in the same. They are not.
Serial killers like David Berkowitz and Jeffery Dahmer have fame, but not the kind I'd want!
As for fortune, which can mean either wealth or fate, there are plenty of millionaires who have a fortune but lack fame.

Has anyone checked out biblicalunitarian.com?
They have some excellent pamphlets debunking the trinity!

[pre-nicean berean]

These are very good questions and some that do deserve attention and answers. Hopefully some of you are still around as this is a very old post I just came across. Here I have included some brief answers within your post.


And why did Peter greet the recepients of his 2nd letter:

[1] Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
[2] May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

(2 Peter 1:1-2)?

And why did Paul tell Titus:

[11] For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,

It is deffinately by God's grace that he sent his son into the world this when looked at really makes no claim that Jesus is God. It only states God's grace has appeared not God has appeared.

[12] training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world,

[13] awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

I think if you look closely you will see this verse is promising that either God or Jesus will appear to anyone. The key word here is "Glory". And the other key to understanding this verse is " Blessed hope". We are awaiting our blessed hope and the glory of God and Jesus to appear. Our blessed hope is of course the restoring of the Kingdom, and the ressurection, When Jesus returns to make things right here on earth. Another point to look at is it says our great God "and" saviour Jesus Christ. It is not calling Jesus our great God but speaking of two individuals. It is God's great glory that he gave all things to Jesus and Jesus is God's representative and commisioned to do his will. So Jesus will return with the Glory of our great God, Jesus does all to the glory of God.

[14] who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
[15] Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.


(Titus 2:11-15)?
<!-- / message -->

[Danage]

If Christ was not (pre-existant- as in the preincarnate existance) how could Paul's writing on Colossians (Chapter 1:15-17) of ;15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 Heis before all things, and in Him all things hold together.be True?

My view on this is that at least Christ was pre-existent as an Idea. I now believe, once again (after some doubt), that Christ was the first angel of G-d, and thus the first-born.

In Micah 5:2 it says that in Bethlehem would be born the one who was to be ruler of Israel, but that Christ was from ancient days, from everlasting, thus confirming the view that Jesus Christ was pre-existent.

[scriptures]

My view on this is that at least Christ was pre-existent as an Idea. I now believe, once again (after some doubt), that Christ was the first angel of G-d, and thus the first-born.

In Micah 5:2 it says that in Bethlehem would be born the one who was to be ruler of Israel, but that Christ was from ancient days, from everlasting, thus confirming the view that Jesus Christ was pre-existent.

<SUP><SUP>Col 1:15</SUP> Who is the Image of the invisible God, Firstborn of every creature,
<SUP><SMALL>16</SMALL></SUP> for in Him is all created, that in the heavens and that on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones, or lordships, or sovereignties, or authorities, all is created through Him and for Him,
<SUP><SMALL>17</SMALL></SUP> and He is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him.</SUP>
<SUP></SUP>
<SUP>I take it literally, He is firstborn, created, He existed in Heaven before becoming a human...</SUP>

[Danage]



^{I take it literally, He is firstborn, created, He existed in Heaven before becoming a human...}

I now agree with you that Christ was a pre-existent angel.

[Hermes]

Danage: Do you mean Angel as messenger? I don't think it right to equate him with the angels, but he is supreme to them, though inferior to God.

I think one needs to be careful when calling Christ Angel, since Hebrews 1:5 pretty much denies that he is one of the angels. If you talk with someone who doesn't agree with your Christology it's vital to understand this. As a curiosity, Justin Martyr was one of the Church Fathers who used the term of him though, as a title. It's the same with theos, "God".

Then there's the subject if he is an archangel. I don't see it wrong to call him Archangel if it is understood that he is "above angels" and bringing a great message.

(I used a capital letter with Archangel and Angel when I meant the term as a title)

When describing his pre-existence I might prefer to use the terms "the Wisdom", "the Logos" or "the Unique" ("only-begotten", monogenes, unicum) Son of God.

The subject is really fascinating on a philosophical level. Christ acts very much like an angel, yet the scriptures make it seem that he is something more than just an angel (that is why I think the title Archangel would do him more justice than Angel, yet I still view him as more). Yet what Trinitarians and Oneness believers fail to see is how scriptures deny him to be the true God himself also. This is why I think the Arian understanding is simply the best way to see him: more supreme than the other beings,
inferior to God. He is truly unique!

Hmm... If you have any interesting thoughts then do bring them up! The questions addressed here are indeed quite tough.

[Danage]

Danage: Do you mean Angel as messenger? I don't think it right to equate him with the angels, but he is supreme to them, though inferior to God.

I do see Jesus Christ as being the superior to the angels, the firstborn, the first created of G-d.

I think one needs to be careful when calling Christ Angel, since Hebrews 1:5 pretty much denies that he is one of the angels. If you talk with someone who doesn't agree with your Christology it's vital to understand this. As a curiosity, Justin Martyr was one of the Church Fathers who used the term of him though, as a title. It's the same with theos, "God".

Jesus Christ is above all the angels.

Then there's the subject if he is an archangel. I don't see it wrong to call him Archangel if it is understood that he is "above angels" and bringing a great message.

You got it in one.

(I used a capital letter with Archangel and Angel when I meant the term as a title)

I believe that Christ was the first angel created, and thus was the first Archangel, above all angels, including Gabriel who told Mary of his coming to Earth as man.

When describing his pre-existence I might prefer to use the terms "the Wisdom", "the Logos" or "the Unique" ("only-begotten", monogenes, unicum) Son of God.

He was indeed the Logos and the Son of G-d. He is the only Son of G-d (as you noted monogenes).

The subject is really fascinating on a philosophical level. Christ acts very much like an angel, yet the scriptures make it seem that he is something more than just an angel (that is why I think the title Archangel would do him more justice than Angel, yet I still view him as more).

Jesus Christ was indeed above all the angels and below G-d. He was the only-begotten Son of G-d, as you said.

Yet what Trinitarians and Oneness believers fail to see is how scriptures deny him to be the true God himself also.

The religion of Christendom (false Christianity) is a religion based on fear of a non-existent Hell and fear of eternal damnation. Roman Catholicism deemed reading the Bible heresy, and so genuine Christians were killed during the Inquisition. There are still few Roman Catholics who even read the infallible word of G-d.

This is why I think the Arian understanding is simply the best way to see him: more supreme than the other beings, inferior to God. He is truly unique!

I totally agree.

Hmm... If you have any interesting thoughts then do bring them up! The questions addressed here are indeed quite tough.


I hope I have answered your questions satisfactorially.

[MiKael]

Hay!

I have few questions:
-Why You (ACC) are using crosses? What I know is that this symbol wasn't use before IV century, and You are antynicean, so why? Cross is like a electic chair in our time. Why are You using this bloody symbol?!

-Why are You using a title "saint" for example for st. Arius. This is roman tradicion. In Your church exist a cult of saints?

God bless You All!

[Danage]

Hay!

I have few questions:

Welcome MiKael, while I do not represent the ACC I am still an Arian Catholic and will do my best to answer your questions.

-Why You (ACC) are using crosses? What I know is that this symbol wasn't use before IV century, and You are antynicean, so why? Cross is like a electic chair in our time. Why are You using this bloody symbol?!

We do not use the crucifix, for it is a pagan symbol of Sol, the Roman Sun god. We use the Chi-Rho Cross, where the letters Chi and Rho represent the first two letters that spell Christ (in Greek if I remember correctly)

-Why are You using a title "saint" for example for st. Arius. This is Roman tradition. In Your church exist a cult of saints?

God bless You All!

We use the title of saint because Arius taught true Christianity, just like the Apostles did. He deserves recognition and honour for his efforts in spreading true Christianity. Technically all the saved are saints, but Arius is deserving of special recognition, similar to that of the already established Thirteen Apostles (spare the saint of traitors, Judas Iscariot).

I hope I have been able to answer your questions satisfactorily.

[MiKael]

Ok You say that you are using chi-rho cross but in this page cross is diferent:
http://arian-catholic.org/images/arcbishop_pallium_200.gif

under green cadinal's hat is normaly cross, not chi-rho.

P.S. Do You have any church in Poland?

[Danage]

Ok You say that you are using chi-rho cross but in this page cross is diferent:
http://arian-catholic.org/images/arcbishop_pallium_200.gif

under green cardinal's hat is normally cross, not chi-rho.

P.S. Do You have any church in Poland?


I can't really answer that very well, but the cross is still a symbol of Christian religion, of Mormonism, of Christendom and of Christianity.

The Archbishop should be able to answer your question better than I.

The Arian Catholic Church is spread out all over the globe, with parishioners being very (and I mean very) spread out, more so with the clergy and lay preachers. For example, I am the Acting Lay Preacher in Worcestershire, a county in England (in the West Midlands, approximately south-west-west of Birmingham, the second city of Great Britain), and the nearest church is in London, too far to go every Sabbath! I am also, to my knowledge, the only Arian Catholic in the immediate area of Worcestershire.

I am sure that the Archbishop or the Reverend Brian Lane-Fox will be able to tell you weather there are any Arian Catholics in your area, although it must be noted, it will most likely not be the answer you want, unfortunately. Sorry about that.

By the way, your English is just fine.

[Archbishop Michael-John]

MiKael and Danage,

While the cross (+) is a popular symbol and is recognised universally as a symbol for Christianity, it's Christian origin began in the 5th century. Prior to then it was used by pagans. It was criticised by the early Church fathers and was viewed as offensive and macabre. After all it was equivalent to us using a symbol for the electric chair today! There is also strong evidence in the bible that Jesus was crucified on a stake rather than a cross!

The Chi-Rho symbol was also used by the Romans as a symbol for Chronos, their god of time. Emperor Constantine I decided to use the symbol when he decided to merge Christianity with Roman Paganism believing that the Christian God and symbolism would give him victory!
However the "Chi-Rho" (XP {overlaid}) symbol and the "Chi" (X) symbol were used by the early Christians and appeared on 1st century Ossuaries. Just like the Magen David of the Old Testament it touches the same six points of the hexagram.

The Christian symbol of the Fish comes from "ΙΧΘΥΣ" or "Ichthys" in Greek meaning fish but also is an acronym for "Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ" = "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour". It has a 1st century origin and was also written with variations of the Chi-Rho and the anchor (Fishers of men! Mark 1:17).
25
(Chi-rho, Fish, and Anchor symbols found in the Catacombs of St. Sebastian, circa late 2nd century.)

There are later 5th & 6th century versions of the Chi-Rho that attempted to produce a cross similar to the ancient Egyptian and Coptic crosses (frequently found in Egypt, especially Alexandria). Therefore Christian crosses such as the Tau (T), Coptic cross and Roman cross are not forbidden, due to their use in antiquity, but nor are they promoted as very little symbolism was used in the early Church and the Chi-Rho has both the genuine origin and the most significance, and is therefore the only cross authorised for sacramental use. The Chi-Rho is the official cross of the Church.

In official duties I use a Bishop's Pectoral Cross with the Chi-Rho at its centre within a crown of thorns. However the 6th century Crucifix depicting the crucified body of Christ is regarded as idolatrous.

Bishop's Pallium
The new Bishop's Achievement of Arms now incorporates the Bishop's Crosier instead of a cross to represent the Bishop's Oblation and the commission of Moses in Exodus 3:6-10 and God's demonstration through his staff, which had now become an instrument of God, that Moses is the shepherd of His people in Exodus 4:1-5, although the default Cross of St George with the Galleon at Sea in the upper dexter quartile on the shield is still used, unless the Bishop has Armourial bearings of his own to be used. The actual "Pallium" wrapped around the Archbishop's shield displays the Chi-Rho and is derived from the knotted blue cord (tallit & tzitzit) in Numbers 15:38-39 and Deuteronomy 22:12. The Achievement of Arms is a graphical representation of the Bishop and his office and is used where appropriate in all administrative correspondence and communications in the capacity of the Bishop concerned.

The use of Artwork in religion is certainly NOT considered idolatrous, in fact it is encouraged in the bible; for instance:-


The Holy Bible: The New King James Version[/i]. 1982 (Exodus 26:31 & 36:8)]
<!--StartFragment--><SUP>Exodus 26:31</SUP> <SUP>g (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/#_ftn1)</SUP>“You shall make a veil woven of blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine woven linen. It shall be woven with an artistic design of cherubim. <SUP>g </SUP> (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/#_ftnref1)Ex. 27:21; 36:35–38; Lev. 16:2; 2 Chr. 3:14; Matt. 27:51; Heb. 9:3; 10:20
<!--StartFragment--><SUP>Exodus 36:8</SUP> <SUP>h (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/#_ftn1)</SUP>Then all the gifted artisans among them who worked on the tabernacle made ten curtains woven of fine linen, and of blue, purple, and scarlet thread; with artistic designs of cherubim they made them. <SUP>h </SUP> (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/#_ftnref1)Ex. 26:1–14


Church in Poland
MiKael,

Arianism has historically been popular in Poland and I know there are many Arians and Unitarians in Poland today. If you are interested in setting up an Arian Catholic church Community in Poland then we would always be pleased to assist you as much as we can. You can always begin as a Lay Preacher (Laity) and a point of contact were you could co-ordinate translations and distribution of relevant literature for example and fund raising events.
:-)

[Archbishop Michael-John]

And why did Peter greet the recepients of his 2nd letter:

[1] Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
[2] May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

(2 Peter 1:1-2)?

And why did Paul tell Titus:

[11] For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,
[12] training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world,
[13] awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
[14] who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
[15] Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

(Titus 2:11-15)?


In LXX Isaiah 9:6 Immanuel is described as the Angel of Great Counsel. Angel means messenger of GOD. The Septuagint was widley used in Jesus' time, even Matthew quoted from it! I therefore have no difficulty with the words of Paul in the epistle to the Colossians 1:15-17 and the pastoral epistle to Titus 2:11-15 or Peter in II Peter 1:1-2.

Jesus was a man to be followed not worshipped, his spirit was Immanuel whom was greater than the Angels and the greatest of the Archangels, the messengers of GOD.


<SUP>15 </SUP>He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; <SUP>16 </SUP>for in<SUP>h (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/#_ftn1)</SUP> him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. <SUP>17 </SUP>He himself is before all things, and in<SUP>i (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/#_ftn2)</SUP> him all things hold together.
<SUP>h </SUP> (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/#_ftnref1)Or by

<SUP>i </SUP> (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/#_ftnref2)Or by


<!--StartFragment-->
Please note also that a more accurate translation of Titus 2:13 & II Peter 1:1-2 (see below) clarifies the confusion in these sentences. It is quite clear that Paul and Peter (or his scribe) were referring to GOD and Jesus as separate entities...

the great God and our Saviour,[/b] Jesus Christ.


<SUP>1 </SUP>Simeon<SUP>a (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=36#_ftn1)</SUP> Peter, a servant<SUP>b (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=36#_ftn2)</SUP> and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ:
<SUP>2 </SUP>May grace and peace be yours in abundance in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.
<SUP>a </SUP> (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=36#_ftnref1)Other ancient authorities read Simon
<SUP>b </SUP> (http://forum.arian-catholic.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=36#_ftnref2)Gk slave


Notice also that in the Gospel of Matthew 26:53 Jesus himself (as one would expect of an Archangel) speaks of his ability to call upon "over twelve Legions of Angels" to rescue him if he so wanted, he doesn't speak of any ability to issue bolts of lightning from his own fingers to deal with the Romans but must appeal to his Father in Heaven first!



<!--StartFragment--><SUP>53 </SUP>Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

[Jesus John]

In your permission I want to add that Jesus (Pbuh) is really a near person to the Almighty God. This is been explained in the Qur'an also;

"Lo! The angels said: "O Mary! Behold, God sends thee the glad tiding, through a word from Him, [of a son] who shall become known as the Christ* Jesus, son of Mary, of great honour in this world and in the life to come, and [shall be] of those who are drawn near unto God" (3:45) (copied from the Qur'an translation of Muhammad Asad)

*Lit., "whose name shall be `the Anointed' (al-masih)" The designation al-masih is the Arabicized form of the Aramaic meshiha which, in turn, is derived from the Hebrew mahsiah, "the anointed" - a term frequently applied in the Bible to the Hebrew kings, whose accession to power used to be consecrated by a touch with holy oil taken from the Temple. This anointment appears to have been so important a rite among the Hebrews that the term "the anointed" became in the course of time more or less synonymous with "king". Its application to Jesus may have been due to the widespread conviction among his contemporaries (references to which are found in several places in the Synoptic Gospels) that he was descended in direct - and obviously legitimate - line from the royal House of David. (It is to be noted that this could not have related to his mother's side, because Mary belonged to the priestly class descending from Aaron, and thus to the tribe of Levi, while David descended from the tribe of Judah.) Whatever may have been the historical circumstances, it is evident that the honorific "the Anointed" was applied to Jesus in his own lifetime. In the Greek version of the Gospels - which is undoubtedly based on a now-lost Aramaic original - this designation is correctly translated as Christos (a noun derived from the Greek verb chriein, "to anoint"): and since it is in this form - "the Christ" - that the designation al-masih has achieved currency in all Western languages, I am using it throughout in my translation (Muhammad Asad)

[Mpilo]

I have a problem with the following verses

Mat.21
12] And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
[13] And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Did the temple of God belong to Jesus? Temple of Jesus:idea:

Isah.43
[3] For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
[11] I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Isah.45
[15] Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.
[21] Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Hos.13
[4] Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Luke.1
[47] And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Luke.2
[11] For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

1Tim.1
[1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope

1Tim.2
[3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour

How many saviours are we told about in the Bible.

[Danage]

Mpilo, welcome to the forums.

Please don't take this the wrong way but are you a Binitarian or Trinitarian perchance? I don't have anything against them, I am just curious. I can, however, not answer your concerns effectively, yet.

I might note, however, 1 Timothy 1:1 makes a clear distinction between G-d and Jesus Christ, as the verse labels them separately, so surely they must be separate beings?

[Mpilo]

I am one of those people who were made to believe in the trinity and nobody has ever shared with me any other views.

Maybe they are separate biengs.But I still have a problem with those verses that I posted the other day.What is the relationship between Jesus Christ and God.

I will send more verses latter

[Hermes]

I have a problem with the following verses

Mat.21
12] And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
[13] And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

Did the temple of God belong to Jesus? Temple of Jesus:idea:


Do note that he says that "it is written", and he then quotes. While I have no problem calling Jesus God, in this specific place I believe he is referring to the temple that was dedicated to the true God, our Father.


Isah.43
[3] For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
[11] I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Isah.45
[15] Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.
[21] Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Hos.13
[4] Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Luke.1
[47] And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Luke.2
[11] For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

1Tim.1
[1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope

1Tim.2
[3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour

How many saviours are we told about in the Bible.

Both Jesus and our Father are called saviors. We can also ask; how many creators are there? Both of them are called creators, but the Father is the one who is commanding the Son, and therefore is the ultimate, one, creator, who creates through the Son. Same thing in salvation. The Son is the vital instrument in both salvation and creation, and thus as the mediator can be called both our savior and our creator. He is not equal to the Father, the only true God, since God would then have a God beside him, but he is subordinate. Their relationship is very close, so close that they can be called one. That is, like the scriptures reveal, in purpose, like a paintbrush and a painter. Two divine beings; the one unbegotten and uncreated, having no beginning; the other begotten and created, having a beginning; one greater than the other; both highly esteemed, and both one in purpose.

Hope that helps!

[Danage]

Excellent post Hermes, you have certainly read well around the subject!

[Mpilo]

It has been more than 3 weeks and I can say m http://forum.arian-catholic.org/images/icons/icon_confused.gif.my next question will on this particular verse:

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, <SUP>[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%209&version=31#fen-NIV-17836b)]</SUP> Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Is there an difference between ALMIGHTY and MIGHTY.

GOD BLESS!!
http://forum.arian-catholic.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Hermes]

It has been more than 3 weeks and I can say m http://forum.arian-catholic.org/images/icons/icon_confused.gif.my next question will on this particular verse:

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, <SUP>[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%209&version=31#fen-NIV-17836b)]</SUP> Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Is there an difference between ALMIGHTY and MIGHTY.

GOD BLESS!!
http://forum.arian-catholic.org/images/icons/icon7.gif

Hey Mpilo. :)

Congratulations, you've found the favorite Sabellian proof-text. It's certain that the verse can't be interpreted the way that this child is Father God himself; that would be equally awkward for both Athanasians and Arians. Neither have a problem calling Jesus our Lord and God, but calling him the Father would be unorthodox. I've seen plenty of explanations what this verse may mean, but check out the other version of the same verse from the LXX: "For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the angel of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him."

As for "mighty" vs. "almighty", I believe Christ is as mighty as his Father wishes him to be. Whether that is "mighty" or "almighty", and what is meant by these words, is debatable.

[Danage]

The Septuagint verse referring to the Angel of Great Counsel, that Hermes referred to, is more correct.

[Banned User 201202172230]

If Christ was not (pre-existant- as in the preincarnate existance) how could Paul's writing on Colossians (Chapter 1:15-17) of ;15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

17 Heis before all things, and in Him all things hold together.be True?

Well, Arius believed that Christ was pre-existent. I know this is an old thread, but I'm not exactly sure what the point of consternation is about. Does the Arian Catholic Church not accept the pre-existence of Christ?

Arius' Thalia, as quoted by Athanasius in de synodis, states that the Son was created before all ages. So no Arian is required to deny the pre-existence of Christ. The above verses should not be interpreted any differently than any other type of Christian would interpret them. Use of the term 'firstborn' in these verses, though able to be interpreted as a title of glory, is best interpreted literally to vindicate the Arian position, that Christ was the first creation of God, and then Christ created everything else other than himself. There's no threat to Arianism in those verses. Just a threat to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ. Which I understand to mean that Christ existed before the incarnation.

Does this address anything?

[Banned User 201202172230]

And why did Peter greet the recepients of his 2nd letter:

[1] Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
[2] May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

(2 Peter 1:1-2)?

And why did Paul tell Titus:

[11] For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men,
[12] training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world,
[13] awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
[14] who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
[15] Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.

(Titus 2:11-15)?

As others have pointed out, there is just an issue of how the mind reads the verses in modern English. Remember, the Greek did not come with punctuation marks. Try inserting a comma between the word 'God' and the word 'and' in your boldface section. Truth is, the English language does not require and really should not have a comma to distinguish the phrase 'and our Savior jesus Christ.' as the statement is really just a prepositional phrase with an implied preporistion (read='and [from] our Savior jesus christ') So there is no comma used in the English translations in compliance with good English grammar. But if you just insert one to help with the mental distinction, you can see how the verse does not necessarily state that jesus is God.

However, the Messiah is in many places in the Old Testament identified as YHWH, so really, even if this verse were stating that Jesus Christ were God, it really would not be unscriptural. There is still plenty of room to uderstand that we can call Jesus God and still maintain that he is not the Father, or of the same essence as the Father.

[Danage]

God the Father is God of the Universe, with Jesus Christ, as Immanuel, being the god of Israel. Being the god of Israel doesn't make him the One True God. Only God, the Eternal Father, is the One True God, but Immanuel is the god to the Israelites, as an Angel to the Israelites, as gods (spare the One True God) are angels.

Jesus Christ/Immanuel is god to the Hebrews, with God the Father being God to the Earth, as the ultimate, only truly immortal, self-sufficient God.

[Rev Smith]

If Christ was not (pre-existant- as in the preincarnate existance) how could Paul's writing on Colossians (Chapter 1:15-17) of ;

As it says, he was the first; and to Him was given dominion. I don't see this as inconsistent at all, God had to make something first, and that something was Emmanuel and the Angels (who were the "we" he spoke of several times in Gen).

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
be True?

... by Him can be taken to mean either he was the Actor, or it can be that he was the instrument. The key is that he is the image of God, not that he IS God. This is very consistent with John, Who saw Jesus as the logos, God created the Word and the Word was the instrument of all the creation that followed.

Yours in Faith,
Fr. Mark Smith O.C.C.

[Danage]

As it says, he was the first; and to Him was given dominion. I don't see this as inconsistent at all, God had to make something first, and that something was Emmanuel and the Angels (who were the "we" he spoke of several times in Gen).

I agree. When God spoke he used 'We' to refer to Himself and his inferior gods, the angels. Christ is God incarnate, but not God. When prophets and patriarchs saw God, they saw the god Immanuel, who is the Angel of the Lord, the Archangel who was created first.

... by Him can be taken to mean either he was the Actor, or it can be that he was the instrument. The key is that he is the image of God, not that he IS God. This is very consistent with John, Who saw Jesus as the logos, God created the Word and the Word was the instrument of all the creation that followed.

Yours in Faith,
Fr. Mark Smith O.C.C.

Yes, I would agree with that.