Is Father a name?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He that knows ME knows the Father also. He that perceives ME perceives the Father also...Im sure Mr Eastman would have no problem with this either. In essence Jesus is saying to know the person of Christ is to know the Person of God...is that not another way for Jesus to say "I am God"?

Or at least that Jesus is "the image of the invisible God."

Originally Posted by Chan

Or at least that Jesus is "the image of the invisible God."

“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Colossians 1:15, KJV).


Chan if the Son, whose mentioned by name specifically as ‘the Son’ at Colossians 1:13, is the image of the invisible God, who must be God the Father, as it isn’t logically impossible to be the invisible image of yourself. Then how could anyone argue that speaker at Colossians 1:15, is really both God the Father and also the Son? Such reasoning is completely idiotic as it defies all common sense! To be the image of someone means that that person is another person from the original person whose image he bears! The Son does possess the very same single divine nature and essence as God the Father according to Hebrews 1:3, but isn't the Father himself, he's the Son of ((genitive)) the Father (2nd John 3).

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:” (Colossians 1:15, KJV).


Chan if the Son, whose mentioned by name specifically as ‘the Son’ at Colossians 1:13, is the image of the invisible God, who must be God the Father, as it isn’t logically impossible to be the invisible image of yourself. Then how could anyone argue that speaker at Colossians 1:15, is really both God the Father and also the Son? Such reasoning is completely idiotic as it defies all common sense! To be the image of someone means that that person is another person from the original person whose image he bears! The Son does possess the very same single divine nature and essence as God the Father according to Hebrews 1:3, but isn't the Father himself, he's the Son of ((genitive)) the Father (2nd John 3).

I don't know of anyone who would argue that the "speaker" (writer actually) is really both God the Father and also the Son. Unless you're really illiterate or you're stupidly reading your theology into scripture, it's obvious that the "speaker" (writer) in Colossians 1:15 is the Apostle Paul.

And, yes, Jesus (the man Christ Jesus) is the image of the invisible God - just as Colossians 1:15 says.

Originally Posted by Chan

I don't know of anyone who would argue that the "speaker" (writer actually) is really both God the Father and also the Son. Unless you're really illiterate or you're stupidly reading your theology into scripture, it's obvious that the "speaker" (writer) in Colossians 1:15 is the Apostle Paul.

And, yes, Jesus (the man Christ Jesus) is the image of the invisible God - just as Colossians 1:15 says.

Is this the SON or the Father who is the image if the invisible God?

Second question; who is the creator who made 'all things' at Colossians 1:16-17 is this the Son mentioned at verse 13?

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Is this the SON or the Father who is the image if the invisible God?

You already know the answer to that: the Son. It is, in fact, Jesus' status as the Son (by way of the Incarnation) that makes Jesus the "image of the invisible God" and the "express image of God's person." No man has seen God at any time but Jesus is what God has allowed us to see of Himself.

Second question; who is the creator who made 'all things' at Colossians 1:16-17 is this the Son mentioned at verse 13?

GOD is the Creator. Jesus, as the logos (John 1:1), is the means by which God spoke Creation into existence.

Originally Posted by Chan

You already know the answer to that: the Son. It is, in fact, Jesus' status as the Son (by way of the Incarnation) that makes Jesus the "image of the invisible God" and the "express image of God's person." No man has seen God at any time but Jesus is what God has allowed us to see of Himself.

GOD is the Creator. Jesus, as the logos (John 1:1), is the means by which God spoke Creation into existence.

But you've just admitted that the SON is the image of the invisible God (Father) at Colossians 1:15, so if the Son is the context of this verse, why on earth can't you see that the Son is also the creator of the next two verses: Colossians 1:16-17! Also if you go back to verse 13 the use of the word 'SON' here proves that teh context for the creator of verses 16-17 is the Son, at verse 18 the context remains the Son as the Father wasn't firstborn form the dead .... the Son was!

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

But you've just admitted that the SON is the image of the invisible God (Father) at Colossians 1:15, so if the Son is the context of this verse, why on earth can't you see that the Son is also the creator of the next two verses: Colossians 1:16-17! Also if you go back to verse 13 the use of the word 'SON' here proves that teh context for the creator of verses 16-17 is the Son, at verse 18 the context remains the Son as the Father wasn't firstborn form the dead .... the Son was!

Yes, the Son is the IMAGE of the invisible God (and, no, I didn't say the image of the Father, I said the image of the invisible GOD - there is more to God than merely His fatherhood). If you are going to disagree with me then you had better get what I said right! I'm really getting sick of you continually bearing false witness against what I said and I DEMAND an apology.

Now, why can't I accept that the SON is also the Creator in the next two verses? (Even though you said "creator OF the next two verses," suggesting that Jesus created the verses themselves, I'm going to assume you really meant to say that the next two verses refer to the SON as the Creator). Because of what I said in my earlier post: "GOD is the Creator. Jesus, as the logos (John 1:1), is the means by which God spoke Creation into existence." Genesis 1:1 tells us "In the beginning, GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth" (emphasis mine). It doesn't say "In the beginning, THE SON CREATED." Also, the SON was begotten, which means HE HAD A BEGINNING (that beginning having occurred when He was begotten). If He had a beginning then He couldn't have been the One who did the creating.

There is more to Jesus than His status as the Son and you don't seem to understand that. All you can seemingly think of is that Jesus is "the Son." Go study John's concept of the logos.