Quick Question for Trinitarians # 2

 These questions aren't designed to accommodate trinitarian presupposition. They're designed to make a trinitarian reconsider his or her presuppositions with common sense, unqualified, honest, and reasonable usage of plain texts. It isn't that I don't know the typical trinitarian responses to such questions. It is that they don't seem honest, reliable, reasonable, or consistent. So when I ask such questions it is to plant seeds as opposed to gathering trinitarian responses unless those responses are going to help them see that they are abusing scripture. That they are defining God however they like whenever they like instead of just taking the explicit texts to tell them who he is without their added inference when they desire it. In other words, if Yeshua and the apostles says the father is creator, who are you to say the trinity is or to add your own ideas on top of those succint kindergarten revelations? A trinitarian's first instinct will be to run to Hebrews or Colossians chapter 1. I will provide links below the video to other videos which could help one exegete those widely misused passages.

Question # 2:

Acts 4:24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, 4 said by the Holy Spirit,“‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? 26 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against his Anointed’

Ok, so far would you agree that the God who is being spoken about here is the One who "made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them?" The One who spoke in the Old Testament? Keeping that answer in mind, what do you make of verses 27 and 30 in the same chapter that refer to the "holy servant Jesus" OF this One God who "made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them?" In other words, if the One God who "made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them" and spoke in the OT was a trinity, then wouldn't this mean, according to Acts, that Yeshua is the "holy servant" of the trinity? Yes, if the creator in Genesis is a triune godhead, then how can that One be said to have a "holy servant" named Yeshua when we all know Yeshua is the holy servant of the father and not of the trinity? Malachi 2:10 actually agrees with Acts chapter 4 when it says the God who created was the father. Do you agree with Malachi and Acts? If not them, then how about Yeshua who identified the creator of man and woman as a "he?" Who IS the "he" Yeshua spoke of in Matthew 19:4, the creator Malachi spoke of in 2:10, and the God the apostles prayed to in Acts 4:24 who "made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them?" A triune essence? You know, the one with the "holy servant Jesus?" This milk of the word should prove without a doubt that certain New Testament passages which seem to be talking about a new creation and not the Genesis one, are being widely misused. Unless, of course, Malachi, Yeshua, and the apostles were all simply clueless as to who created man, woman, heaven, and earth. They all propose that the father alone did, while trinitarians propose that the trinity did. I guess none of them had anything that could articulate a trinity in their vocabulary?


Hebrews 1:10-12 exegesis:

Anthony Buzzard on Hebrews 1.10 & the Age to Come, the Kingdom of God

 Colossians 1 exegesis:

Colossians1:15-19 - Jesus: Co-Creator of the New Creation - Dustin Smith and J. Dan Gill

All things in and through Christ

from youtube user humanityofjesus

Colossians 1:16 take 2

I found something in my documents that I want to share.I don't know who posted it because I can't find the webpage anymore.I only had this portion pasted too and not the whole dialogue!So I am really sorry for that.But because I think there are some valuable arguments from this,as well as sharper more pulled together argumentation than my peabrain is generally able to produce or my flawed writing style to articulate,thought I would post.I do remember this much:this was written in response to Dave on his scripturaltruths website I think on one of his blogs about Colossians 1:16.(that I can no longer find so if anyone has the link to this particular blog,I would like it)Dave holds to the position that Jesus is a pre-existent spirit being who is the LITERAL firstborn of creation,God's first creation.This is I would presume a response from someone who knows better.Here 'tis:

In my original post I pointed out that the “all things” of Colossians 1 could not mean the “all things” of creation. You said that, according to the usage of “all things” elsewhere, it has to be all created things. This does not hold up. Let me explain.

If I take Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6 and Heb. 2:10 as the scriptures you state, I will end up with a trinitarian stance. These scriptures refer to all created things coming from God, Jesus included. If all these very things came by and through Jesus, he is immediately excluded from that creation, making him the Creator or co-creator. Reading the Colossians text in such absolute terms creates an exegetical problem, even for you. In this case you, as the Watchtower did, resort to reinterpreting the section, claiming that Paul used some kind of tautological figure of speech. Hence the parenthetic insertion of [other] in the NWT.

If one allows Scripture to interpret itself, one has to keep the possibilities open for other, albeit typically Pauline, usages of “all things” and “creation.”

2 Cor. 5:17, 18 (NWT): “Consequently if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a NEW CREATION; the old things passed away, look! new things have come into EXISTENCE. But all things are from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of the reconciliation.”

Romans 8:19-25 (summarized): “The creation” was subjected to futility but eagerly expecting the freedom of the children of God. Not only “all creation,” but also ourselves are groaning while we wait for adoption as sons.

Ephesians 1:9, 10, 20-23, 2:10, 15 (NWT): “It is according to his good pleasure which he purposed in himself for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to gather ALL THINGS together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth…[He] raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. He also subjected ALL THINGS under his feet, and made him head over ALL THINGS TO THE CONGREGATION, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all. For we are a product of his work and were CREATED in union with Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared in advance for us to walk in them. By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, that he might CREATE the two peoples in union with himself into one new man and make peace.”

Ephesians 4:23, 24 (NWT): “But that you should be MADE NEW in the force actuating your mind, and should put on the new personality which was CREATED according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.”

All these instances show that we, the human creation, are offered recreation through Christ. NONE of these instances refer to the “all things” of creation. Following the reasoning of Paul in Ephesians 1:19-23, a clear parallel can be drawn with his sequential reasoning in Colossians 1.


Something else to consider is Paul’s presentation of Jesus being the first-born Son of God. Granted, the Synoptics present Jesus to be God’s Son (Mt 1:21, 3:17, Mr. 15:39, Lu. 1:35, 9:35). The former lawyer, Paul, however focuses more on Jesus’ preeminence and his legal right as God’s Son. He presents Jesus’ preeminence as first-born, not by virtue of some unstated and unsubstantiated claim of being the one God started his creation with, but by virtue of the legal proof of his preeminence, namely, his resurrection. See for instance Ac. 26:23, Rom. 1:4, Col. 1:18.

Now, returning to Colossians 1, verse 20 says (NWT without parenthesis):
“and through him to reconcile again to himself all things by making peace through the blood on the torture stake, no matter whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens.” (cf. the reference to peace in Eph 2:15)

Again, these “all things” have to be reconcilable things, things that can be gathered together in Christ (Eph 1:10). This immediately excludes unintelligent or lower life forms. This can only involve the candidates for and members of the New Creation.

To summarize: However you look at it, it puts you in a “catch-22.” As a Jehovah Witness you have to believe that Jesus is the first in sequence of all literal creation. You reason? Romans 11:36, 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 2:10. But these scriptures refer to creation in its totality, including Jesus, so, you’re not proving your point. The WT Society realized this, hence the parenthetic insertion of [other] in Colossians 1. The text doesn’t say that. Secondly, if we look at Romans 8 creation in this context necessitates human creation only. Colossians 1:20 confirms that. Hence my and others’ contention that the “all things” of Colossians 1 speaks of matters pertaining to the New Creation, and not universal creation, hence no proof of preexistence.

You said that new creation has already been reconciled. Yes, what has been reconciled is in that state, but the work of creating the New Creation is not over, hence the still continuous process of reconciling “all things” with Christ (2 Cor. 5:20, 21). Secondly, our state of being reconciled is not final. It is not a matter of “once saved always saved.” Jesus will be the ultimate judge for our living forever in the age to come. As an aside, as a Jehovah Witness you should be the last one pointing to the completion of reconciliation with God. Your theology states that the “other sheep” will only reach full reconciliation during the millennial reign of Christ. Your objection renounces this very position. (I’m saying it with respect).

As regards our interchange on John 17:5, you state,

“The only way he could have the glory of an idea would be to return to the state of being the thing he had the glory of, which is an idea.”

Firstly, as I said, RETURN is not at issue here. Jesus prayed to receive the glory which God had reserved for him. I’m not sure why you strain the thought with your reference to “idea.” As I showed in Job, something being with God, especially abstract things such as wisdom, is never seen as being literally alongside God. Likewise, God intended to give Jesus glory as his inheritance. This was reserved for Jesus, hence Jesus’ requesting the glory (abstract) he had (reserved for him) before the world was.

In John 17:22 Jesus speaks of the glory God gave him which he also gave his disciples. Now, this glory that was given had obviously not been attained by either Jesus or his disciples. Hence, again, the understanding of glory assigned to or reserved for Jesus and his faithful followers – not only for those in the First Century, but also for those in the centuries to follow.

This is not a new thought. It is a thought expressed somewhat differently in John’s writings, but John’s approach is not primarily historical, but more theological. It is more concerned with the eschatological realities of Jesus’ redemption work, hence its proleptic approach to matters. The idea of God’s foreknowing the appearance of someone (Isa 1:5) is not foreign to Hebrew thought. The apostle Peter speaks of prognostically determining the appearance of Christ and his Church (1 Pet 1:2, 20, 21). Once again not personally existent in their pre-human past, but intentionally in God’s foreknowledge (cf. Mt. 25:34b).

This scripture – John 17:5 – is another text putting JWs in a doctrinal “double bind.” They have to believe in a version of preexistence Christology, and John 17:5 is often sited as proof. But, if that text is to be taken literally as the Watchtower asserts, then Jesus has to physically return to glory he previously possessed. That contradicts, not only Scripture which says that he received greater glory (Php. 2:9), it also contradicts Watchtower theology.

As regards the striking silence of his alleged pre-existence in the Synoptics, I think I do have a point there. The Synoptics, written as historical accounts, presents the Messiah as the one prophesied to come, starting his existence with his virgin birth (Lu. 1:35) and not before that. John’s writings – written with the Messiah’s accomplished purpose in mind, presented, not primarily historically but eschatologically and proleptically – necessitate the reader to understand preexistence notions within the frame of John’s purpose in writing and the metaphor used by the Jews.

I agree that Jesus Christ is what God’s Word, purpose and wisdom produced. Jesus is wisdom in human form. But this metaphor doesn’t change the reality of his coming into existence at his human birth as foreordained by God.

The end.From me:

Welp,I think some good points were made here that I hadn't even thought of.I STILL(because of knowing how the Hebrews spoke and thought of God's word and wisdom) think Colossians 1 has a poetic allusion to the original creation in Christ's great cosmic foreordained significance and in his fulfillment of all things(and because of what he represents that's been with God from the beginning in which all things were created,namely,his wisdom and word) ,which this guy doesn't seem to address at all.That being said,there were so many good points made here and correlating texts provided(especially in relation to Paul's use of "all things" and his mindset on a new creation typically)that I wanted to post.God bless.

Colossians 1:16(a response to a blog someone else wrote)

You have to read the blog here:

Ivan's blog on Colossians 1:16

before this one will make any sense.His blog was in response to a video I sent him where Sean Finnegan and Sean's friend discuss the text.I highly recommend watching that too here:

Sean's video


Here's my response to Ivan,too lengthy to post as a comment on his blog.Hopefully this will be of some help to those having any difficulty with this subject.

Hi Ivan.Glad you watched the video!Keep in mind the reconciliation and renewing process for humanity is ongoing till what happens at 1 Cor 15:27,28 takes place.Also,what I'm working with as *milk of the word* first before anything else are the following facts(these must be heeded when examining Colossians):

1.God created alone(Is. 44:24..who was with him?)
2.Jesus gave God credit for creating with no hint of agency.(Matthew 19:4,Mark 13:19)This would be odd if he created FOR God with his own hands.
3.God rested instead of Jesus.(Heb. 4:3,4)This would be odd if Jesus did all the work on behalf of God.
4.preposition dia can mean *in* or *for the sake of*,not just *through* or "by"
5.I think the bible is more than clear God created alone in his word and wisdom,not spirit creatures at all in unambiguous passages such as Proverbs 3:19 & Psalm 33:6.Christ fulfilled those functions of God when he became flesh.

Unlike some,I am not dogmatic that Col 1:16 can refer ONLY to a new creation.I find validity in James Dunn's points about God creating in his wisdom that *became* Christ(1 Cor. 1:30,1 Cor. 2:6,7) and his ruminations on the poetic writing and literary idiom the Hebrews sometimes employed to validate the cosmic significance of Jesus as the poetic fulfillment of all things.As a remarkable representation of that wisdom in which God created..A few quotes from him worthy of consideration(he did THOROUGH research on Hebrew mindsets and Wisdom literature):

"What at first reads as a straightforward assertion of Christ's pre-existent activity in creation becomes on closer analysis an assertion which is rather more profound--not of Christ as such present with God in the beginning,nor of Christ as identified with a pre-existent hypostasis or divine being(Wisdom) beside God,but of Christ as embodying and expressing (and defining) that power of God which is the manifestation of God in and to his creation."-James Dunn "Christology in the Making" p.194

Dunn also says:

"Paul picked up the Wisdom terminology and found it an important tool for asserting the finality of Christ's role in God's purpose for man and creation.But in using Wisdom terminology he inevitably incorporated language and ideas which were appropriate to Wisdom,the personified function of God.It is at least questionable whether in so doing he intended to assert the preexistence of Christ,or to affirm that Jesus was a divine being personally active in creation.This was simply the language which contemporary speculation and apologetic dictated that he must use if he was to assert the cosmic significance of Christ."pp.194-195

He goes on to point out that Paul had the same Hebrew mindset and was as firm in his monotheism as the OT authors who would have reacted negatively to a too literal interpretation of their Wisdom material.Some today use that Wisdom material(Prov 8:22-31 especially) to correlate with Colossians 1:16.Many Arians maintain that together they prove not only the pre-existence of Christ but also that he is creator.I agree with Dunn that this is ultimately unfounded,while also noticing a clear new creation context in Colossians 1 that he doesn't personally mention.

There is a STRONG kingdom context in Colossians,not just in verse 13.The context:kingdom of beloved son(verses 12-13),redemption and forgiveness(verse 14) the church(verse 18) & reconciliation(verse 20)(this is ongoing as I pointed out previously).."All things” are defined by kingdom terms as opposed to any Genesis narrative.Paul also wrote Ephesians in which you'll find many correlating verses.Verses which involve a new creation.Even IF you weren't satisfied with any Colossians 1 immediate context you would have to deal with Paul's writings elsewhere.Immediate context isn't always all that's to be heeded,as larger ones and correlating scriptures on the same subject can be just as helpful when interpreting.

From Ray Faircloth,who has written some great studies available on http://www.biblicaltruthseekers.co.uk/:

"The parallel letter of Ephesians (Eph.1:9-23 and 2:10) speaks only of the New Creation and gives a precise doctrinal correlation with Colossians 1. This further demonstrates that Colossians 1 applies to the New Creation consisting of “the Congregation of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23) and the newly created angelic thrones, lordships, governments and authorities. (a new administration in 1 Peter 3:22). Nothing here applies to the inception of the Genesis creation. (Please also note the parallel phrases: Col.1:12/Eph.1:11; Col.1:16, 17, 20/Eph. 1:10, 21, 22).

Verse 16: “Because in (KIT) him all things were created , in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him.”

The creating of an authority is not the physical creating of people.

‘In him’: Meaning ‘in union (or connection) with’, ‘in association with’, or ‘by reason of’ Bauer’s lexicon. In context this verse does not mean ‘by’ or ‘by means of’ "

Basically,I think the main creation in view overall is a new creation with allusions to the old poetically.That is why I'm able to embrace both Dunn's view(& Hebrew allegory or metaphor) as well as the new creation context,immediate AND larger.I feel this way because I think God had the new in mind even as he made the old.They were intertwined in some cosmic way as he created.Decreeing the end from the beginning and seeing things that aren’t as though they are.(Rev 13:8,Is. 46:9)Scriptures oft have allusions to dual fulfillments and I personally think that may be the case here.

If Colossians 1 is about a new creation,then firstborn "of all creation"(verse 15)and firstborn "from the dead"(verse 18) correlate beautifully in the tradition of Hebrew parallelism.To quote Greg Deuble:

"If we take into account the Hebrew literary style of parallelism,where the same idea is repeated but in slightly modified form,it is quite reasonable to suggest that the qualifiers "of all creation" and "from the dead" mean the same thing."~p.244 "They Never Told Me THIS in Church"

I think that makes sense given the kingdom terminology employed to define "all things.""All" is oft qualified in context.I'm not entirely satisfied that he was just defining a couple of the things created in Genesis given the clear kingdom & new creation context,as well as the new creation correlating Ephesians(and other NT)passages.

I also understand that preexistence in the Hebrew mind(which I think you addressed in a blog..things like the Torah and the kingdom preexisted..Matt. 25:34) absolutely had to do with the decrees and plans of God in his heart and mind as good as fulfilled even if they didn't or won't materialize till a particular appointed time.(1 Peter 1:20,Gal. 4:4)

"When the Jew said something was ‘predestined,’ he thought of it as already ‘existing’ in a higher sphere of life. The world’s history is thus predestined because it is already, in a sense, preexisting and consequently fixed. This typically Jewish conception of predestination may be distinguished from the Greek idea of preexistence by the predominance of the thought of ‘preexistence’ in the Divine purpose."~E.C. Dewick, Primitive Christian Eschatology, The Hulsean Prize Essay for 1908, Cambridge University Press, 1912, pp. 253, 254. (gathered from Anthony Buzzard article "The Nature of Preexistence in the New Testament")

Also from the article:

A knowledge of the background to the New Testament reveals that Jews believed that even Moses "preexisted" in the counsels of God, but not actually as a conscious person:

"For this is what the Lord of the world has decreed: He created the world on behalf of his people, but he did not make this purpose of creation known from the beginning of the world so that the nations might be found guilty . . . But He did design and devise me [Moses], who was prepared from the beginning of the world to be the mediator of the covenant" (Testament of Moses, 1:13, 14).


I think it's fantastic that you're critically assessing all this.I had crises of conscience galore over my Arian beliefs,even wondering and having to pray about *exactly* who Jesus is now.For months on end.My view now was not an overnight occurrence but a real process.The more I studied the bible and Hebrew thinking,the more clear it all became.Oh,and yes,we WERE seated in Christ before time began so we preexisted according to the Hebrew definition of the word.(Rom 4:17,2 Tim. 1:9,Eph. 1:1-7)Saying we had glory in Christ with God since before the world was even made is not any different than saying that Christ had glory with God since before the world was even made.(Jn. 17:5)Only his glory is greater as savior of the world and heir of all things.

When wondering about these things,keep close in mind the milk first.Then the rest comes together.Some of that again would be:

1.God created alone(Is. 44:24..who was with him?)
2.Jesus gave God credit for creating with no hint of agency.(Matthew 19:4,Mark 13:19)This would be odd if he created FOR God with his own hands.
3.God rested instead of Jesus.(Heb. 4:3,4)This would be odd if Jesus did all the work on behalf of God.
4.preposition dia can mean *in* or *for the sake of*,not just *through* or *by*
5.I think the bible is more than clear God created alone in his word and wisdom,not spirit creatures at all in unambiguous passages such as Proverbs 3:19 & Psalm 33:6.Christ fulfilled those functions of God when he became flesh.


Yes,I learned quite well as a former Jehovah's Witness how to reiterate my points.

Oh,and I just thought of a 6th point.

2 Peter 3:16 says that Paul's letters contain some things that are hard to understand.If we let Paul interpret himself,he is speaking of a new creation.(Some Ephesians texts correlate with the Colossians ones language-wise and thoughts-wise as noted above)And we must let scripture interpret itself.Listening to Jesus is ALWAYS key.Who did he say made man and woman?

Matt. 19:4:Have you not read that *he* who created them from the beginning made them male and female

Hebrews 1:10 addendum + a little reasoning with Colossians 1:16

After my last blog I was faced in a comment "debate" on someone else's blog with this good,tough question from Dave Barron from scripturaltruths.com,who is,along with Patrick Navas,one of the best apologists for the view of a preexisting Christ.(not for a trinity.)Thought I would address it some here.If you haven't already read my previous blog,it should be read to make sense of this one.

He asked after my assertion that Hebrews 2:5 is the context that must be heeded for Hebrews 1:10:

"Now I'll ask you on Hebrews 1, if 2:5 is to be read back into 1:10, when will the earth to come "perish" and be "changed"? "

my response:

E-sword(easily downloadable online) says that aion for "worlds" in Heb. 1:2 can mean specifically "a Jewish MESSIANIC period present or future."And the fact is that when Christ became the "beginning of God's creation"(Rev. 3:14),which was when he became the "firstborn from the dead"(Colossians 1:18),"the firstborn of many brothers"(Rom. 8:29),a new aion,or age,was inaugurated.So even though by his accomplishments and resurrection Christ has already metaphorically "laid the foundations of the earth(the new one)" by becoming the "chief cornerstone"(Eph. 2:20) and by being the "foundation already laid"(1 Cor. 3:11),what has been accomplished and laid thus far is changeable and perishable(Heb. 1:11-12) in that ,to quote Anthony Buzzard "Even the millennial age of the future will be replaced by a further renewed heaven and earth (Rev. 20:11; 21:1)."So we have a taste of the kingdom to come and Christ has laid the foundation of the new kingdom,but it won't be perfected or fully realized till after the millennium when all evil and wickedness will have been utterly destroyed so that peace may reign without hindrance.Hebrews 1:10-12 is contrasting the imperishability and immutability of the resurrected "clothed in immortal glory" Jesus the Messiah to the perishable and mutable "age" he's inaugurated but that hasn't yet been perfected(and won't be till the kingdom at last eventually becomes “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ"(Rev 11:15)..

To quote a webpage:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Jesus-the-Chief-Agent-of-Gods-New-Creation

"This Millennial new creation “perishes rolled up like an old garment…they will be changed” as God’s plans move on to the next ‘New Heavens and New Earth’ (Revelation 20:11; 21:1, 2) as part of the developing ages noted in Hebrews 1:2 NJB, Rotherham, and Young’s Literal. Please see the ‘New International Commentary on Hebrews’ by F.F. Bruce for further explanation of Hebrews 1:10."

Ephesians 1:21 notes that Yeshua has been seated:far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in THIS AGE but also in the ONE TO COME. (Heb. 9:8-9 also speaks of changing ages.)

So to isolate Hebrews 2:5 as the sole context for Hebrews 1:10-12 I personally think would be a mistake as Christ "creates" (currently) changeable "ages",(figuratively since all is made new IN him),which goes beyond *just* the perfected world to come.He has also laid the foundation for this current kingdom age which ISN'T precisely in totality the "world to come" and so will be changed.Hebrews 1 is current and looking ahead and isn't commenting on the Genesis ch. 1 narrative.Every single creation passage as relates to Christ has the context of our current time and the future.Though I don't discount that because Jesus perfectly represents what was there from the beginning with God(his purposes,plans,word,wisdom,and spirit) and that because Jesus was slain and foreordained before the world was even made(Rev 13:8,1 Peter 1:20) that Yahweh created the Genesis creation "in Christ" in that respect as the one He knew He would inhabit to reconcile the world unto Himself.As the one he foreknew would redeem mankind,hold all things together in his body,and make the survival and thriving of creation not only possible but assured by means of his obedience and subsequent inimitable extolling,gifted privileges,mediatorship,and high priesthood.

Because the Hebrews had positively no problem with bringing God's "wisdom" to life poetically with vivid personification,I suppose even if the NT authors had passages like Proverbs 8:22-31 in mind in Colossians ch. 1 and Hebrews ch. 1 then they were simply recognizing how Christ has become that same wisdom that God created the world in.Yahweh gave fruition to a plan known as the Messiah before he even made the world,again.(1 Pet. 1:20,Rev. 13:8)And this plan was his "wisdom" for the reconciliation of the world unto himself.(2 Corinthians 5:19) Christ at last became that *wisdom* in these last times(1 Cor. 1:30,1 Cor. 2:6,7),and so,again,represents ( & actually fulfills to perfection and completion)what was there from the beginning.I don't think this conjecture is necessary however given the kingdom(as opposed to the Genesis)contexts of Colossians and Hebrews.Just something to ponder though considering the Hebraic poeticism and personification,and subsequent fulfillment in Christ,of Yahweh's *word* and *wisdom.*

"What at first reads as a straightforward assertion of Christ's preexistent activity in creation becomes on closer analysis an assertion which is rather more profound--not of Christ as such present with God in the beginning,nor of Christ as identified with a preexistent hypostasis or divine being(Wisdom) beside God,but of Christ as embodying and expressing (and defining) that power of God which is the manifestation of God in and to his creation."-James Dunn "Christology in the Making" p.194

I've used this quote a lot because of how,well,"true blue" it rings:

"The "memra"(word) performs the same function as other technical terms like "glory,""Holy spirit",and "Shekinah" which emphasized the distinction between God's presence in the world and the incomprehensible reality of God itself.Like the divine Wisdom,the "Word" symbolized God's original plan for creation.When Paul and John speak about Jesus as though he had some kind of preexistent life,they were not suggesting he was a second divine "person" in the later trinitarian sense.They were indicating that Jesus transcended temporal and individual modes of existence.Because the "power and "wisdom" he REPRESENTED(emphasis mine) were activities that derived from God,he had in some way expressed "what was there from the beginning."These ideas were comprehensible in a strictly Jewish context,though later Christians with a Greek background would interpret them differently."-Karen Armstrong..(from A History of God:From Abraham to the present:the 4000 year quest for God,p.106)


There's no point in saying the bible doesn't give us context and scriptural precedent throughout the NT to understand the creation in the NT is a "forward thinking" one as opposed to a nostalgic one.

Here's just a sampling of some texts to place our minds in the proper focus,time,and position.

“…if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17).

“…in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body” ( Col. 1:17).

· “…to head up all things in Christ things upon the heavens and things upon the earth; in him, in whom also we were assigned” (Eph. 1:10, 11KIT).

“For in Christ Jesus...a new creation” (Gal. 6:15).

“For we are the product of His work and were created in Christ Jesus ”(Eph. 2:10).

And who wants to argue with this one?:

“I Jehovah am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?” (Isa. 44:24).

The context of Colossians 1:16:
kingdom of beloved son(verses 12-13),redemption and forgiveness(verse 14) the church(verse 18) & reconciliation(verse 20)

To quote Ray Faircloth,who has written some great studies available on http://www.biblicaltruthseekers.co.uk/

" The parallel letter of Ephesians (Eph.1:9-23 and 2:10) speaks only of the New Creation and gives a precise doctrinal correlation with Colossians 1. This further demonstrates that Colossians 1 applies to the New Creation consisting of “the Congregation of the firstborn” (Heb. 12:23) and the newly created angelic thrones, lordships, governments and authorities. (a new administration in 1 Peter 3:22). Nothing here applies to the inception of the Genesis creation. (Please also note the parallel phrases: Col.1:12/Eph.1:11; Col.1:16, 17, 20/Eph. 1:10, 21, 22).

Verse 16: “Because in (KIT) him all things were created , in the heavens and on the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him.”

The creating of an authority is not the physical creating of people.

‘In him’: Meaning ‘in union (or connection) with’, ‘in association with’, or ‘by reason of’ Bauer’s lexicon. In context this verse does not mean ‘by’ or ‘by means of’ "


The context of Hebrews 1:10:

First of all,it's a quote from Psalm 102 in the LXX where the context is “the generation to come” (v. 18).Then in Hebrews we have the "last days"(1:2),the inhabited earth to come(2:5) and..

Hebrews 1 mentions a kingdom,a throne and a scepter.(verse 8)This is forward thinking not Genesis narrative nostalgia.

Hebrews 9:11: But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)

So we have the present age or "new creation" he's inaugurated then the one to come that will perfect this one entirely.That will swallow it in unfathomable glory,making it so new,enticing,and pure that we can't grasp the thought of it in it's totality with our wee pea brains.And it is when we pray for this kingdom wholeheartedly to come,while seeking to understand what it actually is while possibly discarding years of erroneous Hellenistically influenced indoctrination,that God's spirit can fill us with the purity & sincerity of his truth in it's Hebrew context & reality.Jesus was a Jew.No Jew of true faith thought an angel or God would become the Messiah.Why so readily discard their wisdom that God gave them?"Progressive revelation" only counts if what "progressed" wasn't the entire truth.NO indication whatsoever that Abraham,Isaac,Jacob,and the like didn't know who Yahweh REALLY was.That they didn't know the Messiah would be a man.(with the personality of a perfect man born from above as opposed to a millenniums old spirit creature's disposition inhabiting the vessel of what appears to be a man)No inference,speculation,councils,or anything but the bible needed for these basic fundamental truths.One question I haven't heard an Arian satisfactorily answer:How did Jesus the Messiah grow in wisdom and knowledge daily if he had the wisdom and knowledge of a millenniums old spirit creature?Could I claim to be a GENUINE 30 some yr. old "woman" if I had Gabriel's personality,disposition,knowledge and centuries of age?(except perhaps "vessel wise" ONLY)Could I expect my followers to follow my footsteps closely by walking by faith and not by sight if I walked by millenniums of "sight?"Could the LAST ADAM be the Last Adam absolutely purely if he was also "something else" before,during,or after his time on earth?

Unitarian explanation of Colossians 1:16

Some interesting and reasonable biblically-supported exegetical insight here.To be honest at this point..I am leaning more toward "Socinian" interpretations.I hate labels like that but it's a quick way to make it clear what I'm talking about.For Jehovah's Witnesses,of particular interest should be the discussion here of "firstborn."I still see it as a red flag that those within the "Arian" community disagree amongst themselves on who Jesus is NOW.That being said,I can certainly see why they think Jesus DID preexist as certain texts here and there seem pretty explicit that he did.However,to construct doctrines and beliefs on scattered texts with possible alternative interpretations instead of the plain reading of the bible as a whole I would say is a mistake.No one anywhere ever identified Jesus as an archangel,the angel of Yah,or Godman.It was only ever the Messiah,the Christ,God's Son.I don't think the Jews were expecting a Messiah who had just been an angel or God.By any means.Surely this would have been communicated,as would the trinity have been,in clear and unambiguous terms if an angel was reincarnated as a genuine man.