Bill Taylor wrote: > Why do you suppose then that Paul did not use > the term Logos here? Instead he states that it > was by and through "him" (the referent being > "the beloved Son") that all things were created? > It seems that something which does not appear > to be an issue with Paul is having a very big deal > made of it by you.
I'm not making any big deal about this passage. You are. You brought Col. 1:16 up and claimed that "the beloved Son" is what is being referenced. I'm simply pointing out that this is not the case. He does not use the term "Logos" because he is leading the readers from this person they know who brought them this kingdom to seeing him as the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature, and finally as the Creator of all things, whether visible or invisible. His stress is not on "eternal sonship" as you try to make it, nor on his being the logos per se (syntax wise), but on his being before all things, the head of the body, the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, etc. Bill Taylor wrote: > it is not at all uncommon in the process of translation to sometimes > supply the antecedent in a statement where only a pronoun stands > in the text Fair enough, but this should be done sparingly lest the wrong antecedent is used. Do you know any other translators who have translated the passage this way? I have read all your comments about when certain terms apply to Jesus, and for the most part, you see them as applying to him from eternity past. I tend to have a different perspective initially, so your comments lead me to think we are not really that far apart in our perspective. Mostly we have a difference in how we apply terms to the Godhead. David Miller wrote: >> 7. Is the term "everlasting Father" applicable to this person >> prior to his being born of Mary? Bill Taylor wrote: > No, I don't think so (a lot of certainty there, huh?). Allow me > to explain. It is in the incarnate person of Jesus Christ, that > the Son of God can be called the everlasting Father, and this > by way of union, because in Christ the entire Godhead is > represented via the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, which is the > unity which makes God "one." Hence, the "eternal Father" is > known and represented in and through the person of Jesus Christ. This is interesting to me that you single out this one term to make inapplicable prior to his being born of Mary. Did his taking on this title of everlasting father change who he was in the Godhead? If not, then why would someone seeing the term son as referring to his incarnation have any different effect? Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
