I see what you are saying. But I think it is fair to talk about difficult passages. After all they were on topic. Them failing to directly address the Scriptures I have presented will show that they do not care to interpret those verses within context. Because the context does not strengthen their interpretation of those verses. They are thus forced to reject those passages at face value and must resort to spinning an alternative meaning to the text.
I see. Well let's hope it doesn't have to go there. So far so good.
Yup it's a lot harder I would imagine to go from believing in a "1 person God" to a "3 person God" than 1 to 1.
I'll consider these verses. It does seem that you are making a lot of inferences by your interpretation. Where you believe it is referring to a "new" creation it could just mean creation in general. I don't see it necessary to force a dilemma of either "old" or "new" creation.
you have to choose one of the 3. old, new or both. the scripture I posted from romans with the word creation in it was posted by me only for the purpose of showing that in Romans the new creation is just called creation. so one cannot argue that col. 1.15 cannot refer to the new creation simply because the word new isn't in there.
Toxic said:
Remember, the Trinity is also a doctrine of inference (which is the process of deriving the strict logical consequences of assumed premises). I made a thread a while back about if Jesus pre-existed his birth. I'll look for it and give it a bump.
But without a doubt your position that Jesus did not pre-exist his birth, definitely would back up the scriptural truth that Jesus is not God Almighty, but he is the holy one of God, the anointed-one of God, the son of God etc. I'll give you that.
not to mention the second or last adam. i.e. the new man.
Toxic said:
But I have to ask. Do you see the context within Colossians also supporting the view that the passage is referring strictly to a new creation?
yea. one has to either take first born literally or figuratively, if you take firstborn literally, then Jesus has to be the firstborn of all new creation. the new creation being the new human male seed God created to begat Jesus with.
if you take firstborn in a figurative sense, as for example occupying the place of the firstborn, or the preemininent one, then you can interpret it to mean that Jesus is forstborn of the old creation. other verses , in my opinon, lean heavily to firstborn of the new creation, such as firstborn amongst many brethern, the beginning of all (new) creation. and some others I can't reacall off hand.
Romans 8:29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be
the firstborn among many brethren:
and those in Christ, the brethren, are new creations, not old creations.
(Rotherham) 2 Corinthians 5:17 On the contrary, now, no longer, are we gaining it. So that, if
any one is in Christ, there is a new creation! the old things, have passed away,--Lo! they have become new!
So Jesus is, according to other scriptures than col. 1.15, the firstborn of all new creation. (rom. 8.29,2 cor 5.17)
Also, Jesus is a new generation of humans.
Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:1
The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Douay-Rheims) Matthew 1:18 Now
the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.
Just as adam was a generation of the old man.
Genesis 5:1 This is
the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;