ellderwho,
Many years ago I had a choice. I could have accepted the writings of brilliant men who wrote commentaries on what the Bible means, or I could treat the Bible as God's letter addressed to me as it is addressed to every person. The trouble with reading commentaries is that there are hundreds of opinions to choose from. Many are Trinitarian, and many are not. Each is persuasive in his own way. But there is great disagreement among scholars, and sometimes scholars contradict their own writings.
Adam Clarke was a Trinitarian. But I don't think he would be accepted in some Trinitarian circles today. For example, Trinitarians believe that God the Son is eternal just as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are said to be eternal. But Adam Clarke didn't think so. He wrote:
But in the above reasons it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is absolutely irreconcilable to reason, and contradictory to itself. ETERNITY is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time: SON supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas. -- Commentary, on Acts 13:33.
Elsewhere he wrote:
It is true, that to Jesus the Christ, as he appeared among men, every characteristic of the Divine nature is sometimes attributed, without appearing to make any distinction between the Divine and human natures; but is there any part of the Scriptures in which it is plainly said that the Divine nature of Jesus was the Son of God? Here, I trust, I may be permitted to say, with all due respect for those who differ from me, that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and highly dangerous. This doctrine I reject for the following reasons:-
1st. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it.
2dly. If Christ be the Son of God as to his Divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for son implies a father; and father implies, in reference to son, precedency in time, if not in nature too. Father and son imply the idea of generation; and generation implies a time in which it was effected, and time also antecedent to such generation.
3dly. If Christ be the Son of God, as to his Divine nature, then the Father is of necessity prior, consequently superior to him.
4thly. Again, if this Divine nature were begotten of the Father, then it must be in time; i.e. there was a period in which it did not exist, and a period when it began to exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead.
5thly. To say that he was begotten from all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and the phrase eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction. ETERNITY is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to TIME. SON supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation. Therefore the conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas. -- Commentary, on Luke 1:35.
My point is that Trinitarian scholars just don't agree on what the Trinity means. And they disagree among themselves about a whole lot of other things.
I'm not suggesting that scholarly commentaries are useless, but I am saying that the Bible itself should have the final word. Some persons, however, become addicted to commentaries, and they prefer what they have to say over statements in the Bible that are quite easy to understand without the need for commentaries that sometimes confuse the issue.
So, you can accept what Trinitarians say about Eph. 3:19 and Col. 2:9, or you can accept what the Bible itself says. Eph. 3:19 is understandable enough. I'm not going to consume a lot of time by citing text after text, but the NT is clear enough that God's purpose for each of us is that we be patterned after the image of his Son just as the Son is a perfect image of the Father. Or, to put it in the words of Eph. 3:19, "that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."
Col. 2:9, 10, basically says the same thing. It tells us that "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." Jesus is a perfect example of what God is like. Then the epistle continues, "and you have been given fullness." But it doesn't stop there. Our "fullness" depends upon our submission to Christ: "in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority."
At any rate, the potential of Christians to be "filled to the measure of all the fullness of God" (Eph. 3:19) should balance the Trinitarian stress on "the fullness of the Deity" in Jesus as a proof of his being God. (Col. 1:19; 2:9, 10)
Then how would Jn. 1:3 fit into your reference of Christ the new creation of things to come.Heb 1:10
I take from this that you don't accept that the writer of Hebrews was discussing "the new creation of things to come." I can only tell you what pops out at me as I read the Bible. Hebrews was written with a Jewish audience in mind. Jews did not believe in a Trinity or that any man could fill the role of God, except as was their view of David and others who sat upon "the throne of Yahweh."
As for John 1:3, I'm convinced from comparing translations that most Bibles have followed the example of the Catholic Douay-Rheims translators and personalized "the word." That was not done by translators before the Douay version. Accept it or not, my view is that the verse is simply saying what other passages say about the Genesis creation. By means of the "word" of God, he spoke creation into existence. (Gen. 1; Ps 33:6, 9; Heb 6:5; 2 Pet 3:5)
Or Col. 1:16 My point if He(Christ) is before "all things" then Heb 1:10 fits with the above quoted creation verses, without conflicting with creation verses of the OT.
Here again, Trinitarian commentaries have played havoc with the true meaning of the Scriptures. A careful reading shows that Col. 1:15-17 is not describing the Genesis creation of physical things. I explained this in my previous post. To ascribe the Genesis creation to Jesus flies in the face of everything Paul had taught about the Christian creed as belief in "one God, the Father."
At somepoint the non-trinitarian has to fit Jesus' creative contrabutions into a pre-creation timeline. Anything less of what John says in 1:3 is pure speculation on when did the beginning begin.
That is a statement far more dogmatic than any evidence will support. Trinitarians automatically assume that John 1:1-3 is speaking of Jesus, whereas the text simply speaks of "the word." Just as that "word" became a universe, it became a special person when it produced Jesus in the flesh. (John 1:14)
I think you misunderstood my question about our not being able to grasp how Christ could be equal to God. There is no Bible text that says such a thing. The answer you gave doesn't touch on my question at all.
I hope the above is helpful.
herk
