An image of a thing is not the thing- correct?

Post Reply
User avatar
21centpilgrim
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:17 pm

An image of a thing is not the thing- correct?

Post by 21centpilgrim » Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:14 pm

Col. 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Heb. 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature,

These two verses above, passages as well, are leaned on very heavily as part of proving the Trinitarian view of the deity of Christ.

Question- an image or a exact representation of something is not the same as the 'original' correct?
Then why is these two passages used as proof texts for the deity of Christ in the traditional Trinitarian view?


After all, we are told in Genesis that God created man is His own image yes?

Thanks for the opportunity to present questions that would be taboo to even bring up in most Christian venues.
Then those who feared the LORD spoke with each other, and the LORD listened to what they said. In his presence, a scroll of remembrance was written to record the names of those who feared him and loved to think about him.

User avatar
psimmond
Posts: 438
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:31 pm
Location: Sharpsburg, GA
Contact:

Re: An image of a thing is not the thing- correct?

Post by psimmond » Fri Mar 25, 2016 7:52 pm

Hi 21centpilgrim,
You may already be familiar with these sites, but they do a good job of examining various verses used to support trinitarian theology:
http://trinities.org/blog/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarleyblog/
Let me boldly state the obvious. If you are not sure whether you heard directly from God, you didn’t.
~Garry Friesen

dizerner

Re: An image of a thing is not the thing- correct?

Post by dizerner » Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:30 pm

You'll get a lot more fun and vigorous interaction at a more active forum like CARM (hope I'm allowed to link)
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?36-Trinity

Basically, Trinitarians don't say Jesus IS the Father, that's modalism.

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: An image of a thing is not the thing- correct?

Post by jaydam » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:08 am

You hit on an argument that I am finding as I study theosis.

Col 1:15 and 2Co 4:4 use the same Greek (εἰκών) to say Christ is the image of God as the Septuagint uses to say man is created in God's image in Gen 1:26, 27.

Many who support theosis have no problem with applying the referenced uses of image in the New Testament to support Christ being divine because they believe that Genesis can be equally translation to mean mankind's destiny is to become divine.

Another idea that I have read about is that the word εἰκών can be understood as "representative" rather than "image". In this understanding, mankind was made as a representative of God and Christ also was a representative of God - albeit in different ways.

I don't have the answer, just these couple of thoughts to throw into the mix.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: An image of a thing is not the thing- correct?

Post by Paidion » Sat Mar 26, 2016 7:00 pm

For Jesus to be "the exact imprint of [God's] essence" (Heb 1:3), as I see it, means more than being similar to God, and less than being God Himself.

If I have an image of myself attached to this post. If I copy this image, and post it elsewhere, in one sense it is a different image (count them: one, two) but in another sense, it is the same image (because it is an exact imprint). I see Jesus as Another divine Being EXACTLY like the Father in character and intentions, with the same likes and dislikes, plans, etc.—in short, the same divine attributes. The Father and Son differ from one another in no way, except Jesus is under the authority of his Father, always was, and always will be. He is the ONLY-begotten Son of God, and the ONLY-begotten God (John 1:18 in Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 the earliest manuscripts in existence). Jesus can be called "God" not in the sense that he is the Father, nor in the sense that He is part of a "Trinity" but in the sense that He is the Father's only true offspring. No other human being was ever the Son of God in this sense. The Son was begotten by the Father. The Father was unbegotten.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “The Trinity”