Jesus is God

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
But aren't they in some sense.. each-other.. if we have one God? I agree they are distinct personas of God.. but they aren't seperate. Actual seperateness and that to me looks like Polytheism.
There is no Polytheism in Matthew 3:16,17: And Jesus [the Son], when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God [the Holy Spirit] descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice [of God the Father] from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
3,229
1,126
113
New Zealand
There is no Polytheism in Matthew 3:16,17: And Jesus [the Son], when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God [the Holy Spirit] descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice [of God the Father] from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Yeah.. the video from Sander is good to explain this.. it is one God. But we don't see the way God is formed exactly since we are on a different plane. God's view is more dimensions than we see.

So .. it kind of resolves any issue I had. I still insist there is no seperation though between the 3. Distinction.. but not seperation.
 

ThewindBlows

Active member
Sep 30, 2019
231
91
28
From the bible without demoninations and putting things in boxes to apply labels, There is no talk of persons, There is

Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

I did find this verse that is plain if you apply it to the carnal but if you look at it spiritually there could be big trouble

James 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

Old and New testament clearly say that God is One, And God said this about Jesus

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,182
1,574
113
68
Brighton, MI
I apologize for not responding sooner.
"
Form/Structure/Setting

Mark 1:1 beginning with an anarthrous noun (ἀρχή) and containing no verb has the form of a heading, title or superscription (e.g., LXX Hos 1:2; Prov 1:1; Eccl 1:1; Matt 1:1; Rev 1:1). Although it is frequently designated the title or superscription for the entire Gospel (Anderson, 66; Gnilka, 1:42; Haenchen, 38–39; Pesch, 1:74–75; Schnackenburg, Orientierung, 322–23; Taylor, 152), syntactical considerations and comparable literary models make such a designation most improbable (Arnold, ZNW 68 [1977] 121–27).

Syntactically, to function as a title 1:1 would need to stand grammatically independent from the following verse(s), since the content of 1:1–2 (3) could hardly form the title for the Gospel that follows. But this is not the case. First, καθώς never introduces a sentence in either Mark or the rest of the NT documents except in the unrelated καθώς/οὔτω combination (cf. Taylor, 153; Anderson, 67–68; Haenchen, 39). Second, when καθώς occurs in a formula with γέγραπται, it always refers to the preceding rather than to the succeeding material (cf. Schmidt, 18; Haenchen, 39; Marxsen, Mark, 32–33). Therefore, 1:2 clearly requires a close syntactical relationship with 1:1.

From a literary standpoint, 1:1 compared with similar openings in extrabiblical literature indicates that similar headings refer either to the immediate introduction of a work (e.g., Isocrates, De Sob. 1; Spec. Leg. 1; Tacitus, Hist. 1.1.1—cited by Arnold, ZNW 68 [1977] 124–25) or to the opening of the main part of that work in contrast to the preliminary comments (Polybius 1.5.1; Dionysius Halic. 1.8.4; Josephus, War 1.30) and not to the work as a whole. The frequent reference to the apparent parallel of Hos 1:2 merely offers a comparable sentence, since the analogy breaks down when one recognizes that Hos 1:1 rather than 1:2 is the title of the book. Indeed, Hos 1:2 provides the heading for the following section. Therefore, 1:1 designates the heading of the initial section as the "beginning of the gospel" rather than entitling the Gospel as a whole (Arnold, ZNW 68 [1977] 123–27; Cranfield, 34–35; Feneberg, Markusprolog, 186–87; Lane, 42; Lohmeyer, 9–11; Schweizer, 30).

"
https://ac21doj.org/resources/commentary-Comparison.html
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,182
1,574
113
68
Brighton, MI
You are really saying a lot using smoke screens.

Real simple question, Is Jesus God or not, from your understanding, and is the son of God the same as God or not?
aside note about arians aka JW's or the Watchtower. When a quote from a JW source that uses "..." in the middle of a paragraph indicates misquoting, lying, dishonestly by the watchtower.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,182
1,574
113
68
Brighton, MI
The OT verses I quoted were out of context? I don't know why you would say that unless you're claiming that God is a human being.
Yes, they in context are not about the nature of God. He simply is saying he does not lie like people do. It is a well know Jewish objection to who Jesus really is. Having a Jewish background I used it dishonestly like you did or quoted from source that used it dishonestly.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,182
1,574
113
68
Brighton, MI
.



It's all about the Pentiums, baby
Uhh, uh-huh, yeah


What y'all wanna do?
Wanna be hackers? Code crackers? Slackers
Wastin' time with all the chatroom yakkers?
9 to 5, chillin' at Hewlett Packard?
Workin' at a desk with a dumb little placard?
Yeah, payin' the bills with my mad programming skills
Defraggin' my hard drive for thrills


I got me a hundred gigabytes of RAM
I never feed trolls and I don't read spam
Installed a T1 line in my house
Always at my PC, double-clickin' on my mizouse
Upgrade my system at least twice a day
I'm strictly plug-and-play, I ain't afraid of Y2K
I'm down with Bill Gates, I call him "Money" for short
I phone him up at home and I make him do my tech support


You've gotta be the dumbest newbie I've ever seen
You've got white-out all over your screen
You think your Commodore 64 is really neato
What kinda chip you got in there, a Dorito?
You're usin' a 286? Don't make me laugh
Your Windows boots up in what, a day and a half?
You could back up your whole hard drive on a floppy diskette
You're the biggest joke on the Internet


Your database is a disaster
You're waxin' your modem, tryin' to make it go faster
Hey fella, I bet you're still livin' in your parents' cellar
Downloadin' pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar
And postin' "Me too!" like some brain-dead AOL-er
I should do the world a favor and cap you like Old Yeller
You're just about as useless as jpegs to Hellen Keller


Wanna run wit my crew, hah?
Rule cyberspace and crunch numbers like I do?
They call me the king of the spreadsheets
Got 'em printed out on my bedsheets
My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box
You say you've had your desktop for over a week?


Throw that junk away, man, it's an antique
Your laptop is a month old? Well that's great
If you could use a nice, heavy paperweight
My digital media is write-protected
Every file inspected, no viruses detected
I beta tested every operation system
Gave props to some, and others? I dissed 'em
While your computer's crashin', mine's multitaskin'
It does all my work without me even askin'


Got a flat-screen monitor forty inches wide wide
I believe that your says "Etch-A-Sketch" on the side
In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user
You've got your own newsgroup, "alt.total-loser"
Your motherboard melts when you try to send a fax
Where'd you get your CPU, in a box of Cracker Jacks?


Play me online? Well, you know that I'll beat you
If I ever meet you I'll control-alt-delete you
What? What? What? What? What?
(Weird Al Yankovic, It's All About The Pentiums, 1999)
_
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/15/bill-gates-sr-father-of-microsoft-co-founder-dies-at-94.html
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,182
1,574
113
68
Brighton, MI
Passages which refer to Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father include, but are not limited to, John 1:1, Philippians 2:6-11, Hebrews 1:10-12, John 8:58, Matthew 11:27, Colossians 2:9, just to name a few.

John 1:1 and Philippians 2:6 directly speak of Jesus' consubstantiality with God prior to the incarnation, whereas texts such as 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 1:10-12 seem to imply it. For example, in 1 Corinthians 8:6,

εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν
one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for Him

καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι'αὐτοῦ
And one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him

Notice the parallelism: Jesus’ work in creation is coextensive with the Father’s. It is the one Creator — the “one God, the Father, from whom,” and the “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom” — are “all things.” All things that subsist in the category of “creation” — and without exclusion — are “from” the Father. If it exists inside that category of “creation” then it is “from” the Father. That means, all things in creation, without exclusion to any created thing. If Jesus is “created,” he falls into that category. Yet, according to Paul, all things that are “from” the Father, came into existence “through” the Son. You cannot distinguish between the “all things” that are “from the Father,” and the “all things” that are “through the Son.” Therefore, this implies Jesus' eternality, which is a trait that is uniquely God's. This is why I suggest that 1 Corinthians 8:6 implies Jesus' consubstantiality with the Father.

We can discuss some of these other texts which I mention, but I really do not want to exhaust my efforts at this time to explain them, because I'm not so sure you read all my responses. The overall gist of what I'm suggesting is this: That the pre-incarnate Jesus eternally existed with God, and in the incarnation He took upon Himself the form of a servant by coming in the likeness of men, or as John 1:14 states, "the Word became flesh." So when we come to texts such as John 17:3 or 1 Corinthians 15, these should be understood in light of the fact that the pre-incarnate Jesus became a man, who was born under the Law (Galatians 4:4), and could therefore refer to the Father as His God. You have heard it said in the Psalm (22:10),



Who is Psalm 22 speaking of (Mark 15:34 cf. Psalm 22:1)? And from whence does He claim that the Father had been His God? And in Jeremiah 32:27, what does the Lord claim that He is God of? Is it not even remotely ironic that “the Word of the LORD” can say, “Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?” and yet, become flesh?

And even though the pre-incarnate Jesus took on flesh, and as a result of that, has a God; He retained His consubstantiality with the Father, “For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).
con·sub·stan·tial
/ˌkänsəbˈstan(t)SH(ə)l/
adjective
of the same substance or essence (used especially of the three persons of the Trinity in Christian theology).
"Christ is consubstantial with the Father"
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
Yes, they in context are not about the nature of God. He simply is saying he does not lie like people do. It is a well know Jewish objection to who Jesus really is. Having a Jewish background I used it dishonestly like you did or quoted from source that used it dishonestly.
In those contexts God revealed something about His nature. He said He isn’t a man or a son of man. That’s plain. To deny that is dishonesty.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,771
113
So .. it kind of resolves any issue I had. I still insist there is no seperation though between the 3. Distinction.. but not seperation.
If there was no separation, how could Jesus of Nazareth on earth pray to the Father in Heaven and receive direct answers? And how could He cry on the cross "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It seems that you are being influenced by some who deny the Trinity one way or another.
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
3,229
1,126
113
New Zealand
If there was no separation, how could Jesus of Nazareth on earth pray to the Father in Heaven and receive direct answers? And how could He cry on the cross "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It seems that you are being influenced by some who deny the Trinity one way or another.
No .. I am trying to make sense of seperate beings and that not be polytheism. The Godhead .. that's monotheism. One being... God.

3 distinct persona of God.. Jesus is God..fully.. the Holy Spirit is God fully.. the Father is God fully.. but to be monotheism.. they are one being.

That being.. beyond our view as people but .. one Triune God.

I believe in the Trinity.. I just think the line between the 3 is dotted/shadowed rather than thick separation
 

williamjordan

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2015
516
126
43
Something Paul said. Notice the "from whom", the "for whom", and the "through whom." This is important. Also note who Paul said God is and who Paul said the Lord is.

1 Corinthians 8
6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.
The prepositions in 1 Cor. 8:6 show a distinction of function as it relates to their roles in bringing about creation, but do not say anything of consubstantiality. Consubstantiality pertains to nature/essence, not function. But even that being said, Paul speaks of God the Father as the one “from” whom, “through” whom, and “for” whom everything exists (Romans 11:36, Hebrews 2:10). These three prepositional phrases express God’s causation of all things in three ways: as the efficient cause for (“from whom”), the instrumental cause (“through whom”), and the final cause (“for whom”). In 1 Cor. 8:6, Paul assigns two of the causal functions to the Father, and one to Christ.

Paul uses these prepositions almost interchangeably for the Father and the Son. Whereas Paul attributes the roles of instrumental cause and efficient cause to the Father (Romans 11:36, Hebrews 2:10); he freely—without hesitation—attributes to Jesus the roles of instrumental cause (“through whom,” 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:2), and efficient cause (“for whom,” Col. 1:17). And in Hebrews 1:10 an active verb (ethemeliōsas) is used when speaking of Jesus as the one who “laid the foundations of the earth.” This only goes to show that the Son’s role in creation is not a lesser role than God’s role; it is exclusively God’s role.

I do want to point out something that I don’t think a lot of people catch: In Colossians, Paul states not only that all things “were created” (ektisthē) in the Son, but also that all things “have been created” (ektistai) through Him and for Him (Col. 1:16). Ektisthē and ektistai are the same verb but in different forms. The first form is the aorist, and functions as a simple past tense. The second is in the perfect form, which refers not only to past activity, but also carries with it an emphasis on present results. The shift of the tense from aorist to perfect indicates creation’s ongoing existence; not only were all things created but they also remain in their created existence through and for Christ. Thereby, creation stands in an ongoing relation of dependence on the Son for its existence. What is implicit in v. 16, is explicit in v. 17: “In Him all things hold together.”

Whereas Col. 1:16-17 speaks of Jesus as the one “in,” “through,” and “for” all things have their place in existence, and that “in” Him all things hold together; just one chapter later in 2:19, it is Jesus, “…the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.” Similarly, Eph. 4:15-16 speaks of Jesus in this way, but with one slight adjustment: “Him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” Whereas Col. 2:19 speaks of “a growth which is from God,” in Eph. 4:16, it is Jesus who “causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”

While Col. 2:19 and Eph. 4:15-16 are not about creation, these texts do help demonstrate that Paul freely used prepositions interchangeably for the Father and the Son.

But on a final note, the point I originally made still stands: In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Jesus’ work in creation is described as being coextensive with the Father’s. It is the one Creator — the “one God, the Father, from whom”, and the “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom” — are all things. The same “all things” — without exception — that are “from” the Father, are the same “all things” that came into being “through” Jesus. Thus, by placing Jesus’ work in creation in juxtaposition with God’s, the text affirms Jesus’ eternality with the Father. It is this eternality which speaks of consubstantiality, as it is a trait unique to God’s own being.
 

williamjordan

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2015
516
126
43
Correction to my last post, second paragraph:

"Paul uses these prepositions almost interchangeably for the Father and the Son. Whereas Paul attributes the roles of instrumental cause and efficient cause to the Father (Romans 11:36, Hebrews 2:10); he freely—without hesitation—attributes to Jesus the roles of instrumental cause (“through whom,” 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:2), and efficient final cause (“for whom,” Col. 1:17). And in Hebrews 1:10 an active verb (ethemeliōsas) is used when speaking of Jesus as the one who “laid the foundations of the earth," which demonstrates that He is the efficient cause, because the verb is not passive. This only goes to show that the Son’s role in creation is not a lesser role than God’s role; it is exclusively God’s role."
 

ThewindBlows

Active member
Sep 30, 2019
231
91
28
What I quoted is pertinent to the point I was making. Hebrews goes to length to discuss the superiority of the sacrifce of Jesus because he was spotless. The perfection of the sacrifice was related to it's quality. It's all in Hebrews, but long story short the sinlessness of Jesus makes him the perfect sacrifice.
Jesus is more than a sacrifice, Jesus is our life

John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

We are told to walk in newness of life

Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
 
Mar 4, 2020
8,614
3,691
113
The prepositions in 1 Cor. 8:6 show a distinction of function as it relates to their roles in bringing about creation, but do not say anything of consubstantiality. Consubstantiality pertains to nature/essence, not function. But even that being said, Paul speaks of God the Father as the one “from” whom, “through” whom, and “for” whom everything exists (Romans 11:36, Hebrews 2:10). These three prepositional phrases express God’s causation of all things in three ways: as the efficient cause for (“from whom”), the instrumental cause (“through whom”), and the final cause (“for whom”). In 1 Cor. 8:6, Paul assigns two of the causal functions to the Father, and one to Christ.

Paul uses these prepositions almost interchangeably for the Father and the Son. Whereas Paul attributes the roles of instrumental cause and efficient cause to the Father (Romans 11:36, Hebrews 2:10); he freely—without hesitation—attributes to Jesus the roles of instrumental cause (“through whom,” 1 Cor. 8:6, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:2), and efficient cause (“for whom,” Col. 1:17). And in Hebrews 1:10 an active verb (ethemeliōsas) is used when speaking of Jesus as the one who “laid the foundations of the earth.” This only goes to show that the Son’s role in creation is not a lesser role than God’s role; it is exclusively God’s role.

I do want to point out something that I don’t think a lot of people catch: In Colossians, Paul states not only that all things “were created” (ektisthē) in the Son, but also that all things “have been created” (ektistai) through Him and for Him (Col. 1:16). Ektisthē and ektistai are the same verb but in different forms. The first form is the aorist, and functions as a simple past tense. The second is in the perfect form, which refers not only to past activity, but also carries with it an emphasis on present results. The shift of the tense from aorist to perfect indicates creation’s ongoing existence; not only were all things created but they also remain in their created existence through and for Christ. Thereby, creation stands in an ongoing relation of dependence on the Son for its existence. What is implicit in v. 16, is explicit in v. 17: “In Him all things hold together.”

Whereas Col. 1:16-17 speaks of Jesus as the one “in,” “through,” and “for” all things have their place in existence, and that “in” Him all things hold together; just one chapter later in 2:19, it is Jesus, “…the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.” Similarly, Eph. 4:15-16 speaks of Jesus in this way, but with one slight adjustment: “Him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” Whereas Col. 2:19 speaks of “a growth which is from God,” in Eph. 4:16, it is Jesus who “causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”

While Col. 2:19 and Eph. 4:15-16 are not about creation, these texts do help demonstrate that Paul freely used prepositions interchangeably for the Father and the Son.

But on a final note, the point I originally made still stands: In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Jesus’ work in creation is described as being coextensive with the Father’s. It is the one Creator — the “one God, the Father, from whom”, and the “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom” — are all things. The same “all things” — without exception — that are “from” the Father, are the same “all things” that came into being “through” Jesus. Thus, by placing Jesus’ work in creation in juxtaposition with God’s, the text affirms Jesus’ eternality with the Father. It is this eternality which speaks of consubstantiality, as it is a trait unique to God’s own being.
I agree with a good percentage, probably around 95%, but there's something itching at me about Colossians 1 that I think didn't get addressed; it's verse 15:

So to tie this all together, how does this refer to consubstantiality between the Father and Son if the Son is the firstborn. Doesn't being a firstborn mean having a birthday and imply a starting point?

Colossians 1
15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Also, if you want, just for fun, to see some very interesting things, run a word search on the word "father" in the New Testament and examine all of the instances where Paul, Peter, or Jude mentioned the Father. They made distinction between the Father and Son, calling God the Father and calling Jesus Lord and/or the Son of God.
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
3,229
1,126
113
New Zealand
anyone ever been baptized in the name of Paul?
Well, that might have happened with the Corinthians who were saying the were 'of' Apollos.. 'of' Paul etc..

Although there isn't a passage saying they got rebaptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So probably not.

In Acts there was the group Paul found who were baptized unto John's baptism and had to be re-baptized. They were disciples of Apollos, and he didn't have things quite right, although being mighty in the scriptures.
 

wattie

Senior Member
Feb 24, 2009
3,229
1,126
113
New Zealand
I agree with a good percentage, probably around 95%, but there's something itching at me about Colossians 1 that I think didn't get addressed; it's verse 15:

So to tie this all together, how does this refer to consubstantiality between the Father and Son if the Son is the firstborn. Doesn't being a firstborn mean having a birthday and imply a starting point?

Colossians 1
15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Also, if you want, just for fun, to see some very interesting things, run a word search on the word "father" in the New Testament and examine all of the instances where Paul, Peter, or Jude mentioned the Father. They made distinction between the Father and Son, calling God the Father and calling Jesus Lord and/or the Son of God.
Well he was born in the flesh thru Mary..(although God is the Father, not Joseph).

But He was pre existing before this .. Abraham rejoiced to see His day.

But there is no beginning birth for Jesus in the OT.. He has always been.

I need to look at that one more.
 

williamjordan

Senior Member
Feb 18, 2015
516
126
43
I agree with a good percentage, probably around 95%, but there's something itching at me about Colossians 1 that I think didn't get addressed; it's verse 15:

So to tie this all together, how does this refer to consubstantiality between the Father and Son if the Son is the firstborn. Doesn't being a firstborn mean having a birthday and imply a starting point?

Colossians 1
15The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Also, if you want, just for fun, to see some very interesting things, run a word search on the word "father" in the New Testament and examine all of the instances where Paul, Peter, or Jude mentioned the Father. They made distinction between the Father and Son, calling God the Father and calling Jesus Lord and/or the Son of God.
I think you're missing the point. Remember what I said in the first sentence of my last post: Consubstantiality pertains to nature/essence, not function. The point of citing Colossians, was not to prove consubstantiality from Colossians, but to solely make a point about the prepositions used in 1 Cor. 8:6.

In my concluding remarks I stated,

But on a final note, the point I originally made still stands: In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Jesus’ work in creation is described as being coextensive with the Father’s. It is the one Creator — the “one God, the Father, from whom”, and the “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom” — are all things. The same “all things” — without exception — that are “from” the Father, are the same “all things” that came into being “through” Jesus. Thus, by placing Jesus’ work in creation in juxtaposition with God’s, the text affirms Jesus’ eternality with the Father. It is this eternality which speaks of consubstantiality, as it is a trait unique to God’s own being.
Did you catch the point I was making? It is not the prepositions in 1 Cor. 8:6 which speak of consubstantiality; rather, it is from the fact in 1 Cor. 8:6 Jesus' work in creation is placed in juxtaposition with God's. Hence, it is this eternality aspect which speaks of consubstantiality. Eternality is unique to God's being, so for Jesus to then possess a trait that is unique to God's being would then make Him consubstantial.

That said, the only way Colossians 1:15 could be taken as a reference to Jesus not being consubstantial with the Father, is if it somehow contradicts the notion of eternality, i.e., refering to Him being created before creation itself. But I don't think that even you suppose that's what Paul is stating. I would really love to get into the details of Col. 1:15, because I think there's a lot in the text that flies against the notion of Jesus as being created. I am actually working on a couple different projects, and Col. 1:15 takes center stage in one of them.

Finally, in your concluding remarks you state,

Also, if you want, just for fun, to see some very interesting things, run a word search on the word "father" in the New Testament and examine all of the instances where Paul, Peter, or Jude mentioned the Father. They made distinction between the Father and Son, calling God the Father and calling Jesus Lord and/or the Son of God.
But what does this really prove, and how does it relate to our discussion on 1 Cor. 8:6? I have already stated that 1 Cor. 8:6 quite clearly distinguishes between Father and Son, but that they are both participants in the divine decree of bringing forth all of creation. And as expressed elsewhere, for two people to be consubstantial with one another would require them to be distinct.
 

TheLearner

Well-known member
Jan 14, 2019
8,182
1,574
113
68
Brighton, MI
No .. I am trying to make sense of seperate beings and that not be polytheism. The Godhead .. that's monotheism. One being... God.

3 distinct persona of God.. Jesus is God..fully.. the Holy Spirit is God fully.. the Father is God fully.. but to be monotheism.. they are one being.

That being.. beyond our view as people but .. one Triune God.

I believe in the Trinity.. I just think the line between the 3 is dotted/shadowed rather than thick separation
per·so·na
/ˌpərˈsōnə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the aspect of someone's character that is presented to or perceived by others.
"her public persona"
a role or character adopted by an author or an actor.