Jesus is God

ON THE FIRSTBORN Con asserts that Colossians 1:15 explicitly speaks of the Son as one of God's creatures. Interpreting Colossians 1:15 in such a way contradicts these scriptures: Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature, God...(NIV) John 1:1 The Word is God by nature * John 1:18 The only begotten one, who is God by nature * Colossians 2:9 In him dwells all the entire divine nature bodily Hebrews 1:3 The exact imprint of his nature...( ESV) * Both occurrences of the Greek word "theos" ( God) in John 1:1 and John 1:18 is anarthrous ( without the Greek definite article) and hence, the noun God is used as an adjective. It means " the whole qualities i.e. nature of God himself. In order to avoid contradicting these passages in the Scriptures, we must interpret Colossians 1:15 that fits its both immediate context and greater context: Immediate context: verse 15 - The Father and the Son are of same nature ( both are invisible spirit). verse 16 - The Father created everything through, in and for the Son. verse 17 -The Son is before everything else. Greater context: Through the Son everything was created ( Hebrews 1:2) Through the Word everything was created ( John 1:3) Through Wisdom everything was created ( Proverbs 8:21-30) Conclusion: The Son cannot be a creature because he is of same nature with the Father. In fact, he was the active agent of creation. He pre-existed as the Son for he is the image of the Father before creation was. The Grammar and linguistic evidence also abounds: The Greek word " prototokos" literally means " first in birth order" and figuratively it means " special status associated with a firstborn even when you're not a literal firstborn * Jer. 31:9 LXX). The Greek word "Prototokos" doesn't have an inherent partitive value as proven from the scriptures per se: Colossians 1:18 prototokos ek ton neknon ( ton teknon is partitive genitive because of the preposition EK). Revelation 1:5 prototokos ton nekron ( preposition EK is NOT present. So we need to see the context to know what genitive it is. Contextually, ton nekron here is impossible to be a partitive genitive because Rev. 1:17-18 explicilty said that Christ was no longer dead so he can't be part of the dead. Context shows that genitive of subordination is the plausible answer. ...Ruler over the dead, ruler over the kings of the earth... v.5) So, in Col 1:15, the Son must be Over all creation for through him were created all of it as the next verse clearly says. In fact, Proverbs 8:22 and Revelation agree: "YHWH ordained me as the source of his work, before his works of old." ( Proverbs 8:22) Jesus is " the source of God's creation" ( Revelation 3:14). ON THE AGENCY OF THE SON Con interpreted Colossians 1:16 to mean that the Father created everything through/in and for the Son in order to put them into his Son's headship using Ephesians 1:9-11. This interpretation is obviously wrong and very problematic because no where in Ephesians 1:9-11 is there an allusion about "creating" everything through/in and for the Son. The fact that Colossians 1:16 is a PAST EVENT and Ephesians 1:9-11 is about the FUTURE only shows how wrong and problematic is this sort of interpretation. ON THE SON AS CREATOR The Scriptures repeatedly speaks of the Son as the active agent of creation. The Father creates THROUGH the Son( Hebrews 1:2, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). Therefore, the Son is c0-Creator because he creates. In fact, "the Son only does what the Father does" ( John 5:19).