Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus the "firstborn of all creation". Some have understood this to mean that Jesus is a creature of God, but not fully divine. But they are mistaken, though in a sense they are correct that Jesus is being grouped in with creation here as a "creature", and yet it would be wrong to say that Jesus is being thought of as "created" in the same respect. This confusion comes from the latter theological distinction between creator and creation.What the inspired author has in mind here is not a subordination of Jesus to creaturhood as something being hand crafted or molded as a demiurge does, but rather he has his eternal and unique generation in mind. In fact it is Jesus who plays the demiurgic role, a "craftsman", by making the world (Colossians 1:14-17, John 1:2-3). This is the way Origen of Alexandria used the term creature for Jesus (for which, it is true, that he was criticized by latter theologians such as Rufinus), and yet he is well know for his prolific defense of the doctrine of Christ's eternal generation from God the Father. When we understand the theology of John 1:1-18, where Jesus is called God's "only begotten" who is "in the bosom of the Father", and taking into account Philippians 2:6-11, Hebrews 1:3, Proverbs 8:22 and Wisdom 7:24-26, we find that Paul has Christ's generation in mind in this passage. This is why John talks about being born again ("regeneration") in John 3, because we become children of God through adoption, but Jesus is God's child from all eternity, because he is by nature divine and shares the Fathers nature (homoousios) since he is his "only-begotten". This also explains the dialogue in John 10:31-36 most sufficiently, especially when taking into account the Greek grammar.
The only thing in common creatures have with Jesus is that both have an "origin", but the origin is in completely different respects. Jesus eternally exists with God, in his presence, in his bosom, because by his nature he is divine, his "origin" is one of begetting, whereas our origin is one of being brought into existence. So yes Jesus is technically a "creature" (forgive me, I know that this sounds heretical, and ordinarily it would be to say this without reference to the human nature of Christ), but in a entirely different respect than creation itself. Jesus remains fully divine, fully God, the eternal and everlasting God, co-equal with the Father by nature. Simply put the Trinity is the only coherent way to maintain the clear distinction between God the Father and the Son without also denying the divinity of Jesus or collapsing into gross polytheism. Monarchianism on one extreme destroys the distinction, but Arianism on the other extreme destroys the full divinity and becomes polytheism. Misinterpretation of Colossians 1:15 results in being confused about different types of metaphysical "creature-hood".
>>18347479>>18347477I'll be honest, the Trinity makes more sense if it's the Father and Jesus is an image of the Trinity, having the qualities of oneness, intellect, and soul. You have the Father and the Son, and both are Trinities in themselves.
>>18347480St. Augustine analogized the Trinity in terms of Memory, Intellect, and Will, where God the Son is basically the Father's eternal self-contemplation of his own nature which generates an "image" of itself and thereby becoming a distinct hypostasis of the divine nature. Really, to be a hypostasis is to be an instantiation of the divine nature, and the Trinity doctrine claims there are several: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
>>18347477Paul wrote that. Don’t read into it too much
I really don't give a shit about your jewish fairytales about the super-rabbi
>>18347768>>18347769 Enjoy hell
If the Holy Spirit does not proceed from father AND son does that mean Greeks and orthodox are Arians then?
>>18347984Denial of the filioque does not necessarily imply heresy, for the Remonstrants removed it from the Creed on the grounds that they did not see it explicitly in scripture, not because they found it theologically objectionable. The Greek church however objects to it on the ground that it makes the Son equal to the Father, which convicts them of the heresy of Semi-Arianism.
