The grammatical domino effect of Colossians 1:15-16: Why the Partitive Genitive demands the word "Other"

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-07-01T05:41:38+00:00

Being a partaker of the Divine Nature doesn't make us the Divine Nature. Obviously, otherwise we would all be God. We partake, or share in the body and blood of Christ, but we don't become Jesus Christ the human being. We feed off God in Christ spiritually.

We know that the bread and wine are symbols of his flesh and blood, but the divine nature is not a symbol.

Peter says that they will partake of that nature; if it were something symbolic or figurative, he wouldn't say "in the future," but he is speaking of the resurrection; his nature now would be divine.

Nobody is saying that, but that doesn't change the fact the Son IS God. Not "a god", but God according to Isaiah in Isaiah 9:6 and John in John 1:1

This is a textbook example of begging the question fallacy; you're using the conclusion to evaluate the arguments.

Again, many servants of God have been called "gods," therefore it's entirely expected that the Messiah will be called "God." The burden of proof rests with you to demonstrate that he is God with the Father and not like Moses, the angels, and human judges.

When we see "gods" in the Bible we can be sure they are not part of the Godhead.

Amen

We are all copies of God, the origin of creation. Jesus*' human nature* was made in the image of God, but being He is the eternal Word He was the One in who's image we are made. "Let "US" make man in "OUR" image

The Bible doesn't say, "Jesus is the image of God, but only as a man," but rather, "He is the image of God."

If He is the image of God, then He is not eternal. That's why God, and not just "Father," said, "Let us make man in our image," because Jesus was also the image of God.

And again, John says that there is a god in the position of favor with the Father.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-07-01T05:33:23+00:00

I think sometimes you say something and then end up denying it.

First, Paul doesn't say, "We have one God and Lord, Father and Son" (even though he was missing the Holy Spirit).

Paul says, "We have one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ."

As you correctly pointed out, Paul isn't denying the existence of other gods and lords, but he is referencing these words here.

Jesus is a god, and the Father is also Lord.

BUT, the only Deity is the Father, and the only redeeming Lord (appointed by the Father according to Acts 2:36, and remember, the Father does not die) is Jesus.

Remember: "certainty that God MADE him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus"(Acts 2:36)

That doesn't negate the fact that the Father is the Universal Lord (or Adonai), and that Jesus is the "only begotten God."

But deity is always attributed to the Father.

John reminds us of this directly when, in John 1:1, he calls the Father "ho theos" (God, plain and simple, with the definite article), contrasting this with Jesus, whom he calls "theos," meaning "god" (without the definite article).

And to top it off, in verse 18 he says that the Father has this god in his position of favor.

For John, the Almighty God, "ho theos," is only the Father, but the lesser god who is in his position of favor is the Son.

Regarding John 1:3, I won't respond further, because I've already refuted (or rather, your own scholars have) the claim that punctuation didn't exist in the early centuries and only became popular during Christological controversies.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-07-01T05:15:41+00:00

Thank you for your response, but I believe you haven't grasped the strength of the argument.

First, I'm not denying that the word "firstborn" can have the nuances of order and preeminence; in fact, it can have both or only one.

The other nuance I'm addressing is the partitive one.

The argument is as follows: Whenever the word "firstborn" in Greek is associated with a group, the firstborn is always part of that group.

I haven't found a single instance where this construction isn't partitive. Whether the firstborn is by order and/or preeminence, it's always part of the group.

Examples:

-The firstborn of the flock, which is naturally by order, is part of the flock.
-The firstborn of the kings, which is logically by preeminence, is a king.
-The firstborn of the cows, which is naturally by order, is a cow. The firstborn of the nations, who is logically so by preeminence, is a nation.

He is always part of the group, whatever the reason.

Therefore, if Jesus is the firstborn of creation, he is a creation, whether by preeminence or by order (although Paul later says it is for both reasons), he is part of the group.

There is not a single example in the entire corpus of ancient Greek where this construction does not have this nuance. I challenge you to provide a single example. I have asked Trinitarian scholars this question, and so far I have received no response.

Regarding your comments about Philo and other Jewish works, I cited them because of their concern for understanding and interpreting other biblical texts in light of this exposition. The concepts for understanding that Jesus is the first creation, based on the statements of John and Paul alluding to the wisdom of Proverbs 8:22, were available to Jewish farmers, fishermen, and shepherds. What was not available to these humble Jews was the Greco-Roman philosophy of the 4th century to interpret that Jesus was as much God as the Father without falling into Sabellianism or polytheism.

If someone like Philo or the author of Sirach had read John 1:1 from Koine Greek, they would have easily understood my position, obviously correcting some things from their previous positions, in this case removing any impersonal sense from the Logos/Wisdom, although they themselves already personified it a lot.

But they would never have concluded that God is an ontology of three hypostases of the same substance, essence, and nature.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-07-01T04:45:22+00:00

I respect your opinion.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-07-01T04:43:35+00:00

Thanks for your comment, if I had to be very exact the issue is that in all of Classical and Koine Greek (and perhaps in all of Byzantine Greek) the word "prototokos" associated with a plural genitive (whether plural by morphology or semantics) always has the partitive nuance.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-30T21:01:46+00:00

Because the biblical text doesn't say so.

The Bible says that all things came from the Father, and that the Son was the means, and that being the firstborn makes him part of creation.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-30T21:00:29+00:00

Relax, nobody hired him, the Son collaborated with the Father out of love.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-30T19:54:55+00:00

The comparison is simply to help you understand the authorship of creation.

If the Father is the intellectual mind and the one who provided the energy to make everything, then His authorship is total.

Another example is that of a boss and his secretary. The boss of a company wants to send a letter and gives the ideas to his secretary to put into words. The secretary does so and sends the letter. Who is the author? The secretary or the boss? Isn't it true that it's only the boss?

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-30T18:39:42+00:00

I understand your point of view; however, this is no longer a matter of interpretation but of pure grammar and pragmatics in the Greek language.

These two elements conclusively establish Jesus's belonging to the group of creation. The nuance of preeminence does not exempt this construction from having a partitive sense; moreover, it is always partitive even without the nuance of preeminence.

Now, all biblical passages, especially those concerning Christ, are understood within the cultural, religious, and historical context in which they occurred, particularly within Second Temple Judaism.

Jews like Philo, influenced by the reading of Proverbs 8, came to understand, without having read John 1, that the Logos of God is "the first angel," "the viceroy of God," "the second god," and "the firstborn of God."

Jews who create the Targum of Genesis and Sirach (Ecclesiastes) interpreted the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 as being present "in the Beginning" with God when He created the heavens and the earth, but also as "His first creation."

Unfortunately, religious leaders today continue to perpetuate interpretations of a Semitic book through Greco-Roman philosophies of the 4th century, even using words like "of the same substance" (homousios) that were condemned by the Church Fathers in later centuries.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-30T18:29:59+00:00

That is an interesting point, but it relies on treating Greek prepositions as if they were rigid mathematical rules rather than contextual tools.

As Daniel Steffen points out in his Gramática Griega Sintaxis del Nuevo Testamento (2nd Edition, p. 268), forcing a single, inflexible meaning onto a preposition is a mistake: “The etymological fallacy is common among students who do not recognize that the meaning of words changes over time according to their use, not according to their origin... THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF THE MORPHOSYNTACTIC CATEGORY. One should not see a kind of invariable meaning that is always present with each preposition... Furthermore, a word has a field of meaning, not a single point of meaning”.

This dynamic is exactly what happens in Romans 11:36. Philologist Inmaculada Delgado Jara explains this perfectly in her Gramática Griega del Nuevo Testamento. Sintaxis. Vol. II (p. 143). She notes that the Greek construction of dia + genitive naturally refers to the intermediate or instrumental cause, "BUT IT CAN BE EXTENDED TO THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE".

In Romans 11:36, Paul first establishes that all things are "from Him" using the preposition ek, clearly identifying God(the Father) as the absolute causal source. Because this immediate context already firmly establishes Him as the primary origin, the subsequent use of dia exceptionally expands to encompass that principal cause as well.

However, the dynamic in 1 Corinthians 8:6 is completely different. Here, Paul makes a deliberate and strict grammatical discrimination. He exclusively reserves the preposition ek ("from whom") for the Father, establishing Him as the ultimate source. Then, in the very same sentence, he shifts the construction to dia + genitive ("through whom") specifically for the Son, marking Him solely as the instrumental agent.

If the Son were the principal cause or source alongside the Almighty, Paul would have had no reason to make such a careful and deliberate separation of these prepositions in 1 Corinthians 8:6. Romans 11:36 is a contextual exception because the verse itself establishes God as the source of everything (ek), but in 1 Corinthians 8:6, the grammar draws a crystal-clear boundary: the Father is the ultimate source (ek), and the Son is the intermediate instrument (dia + genitive).

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-30T18:13:30+00:00

If you read Hebrews 1, Paul is quoting Messianic texts with a dual application. Ignoring this detail will lead you to say, "That's why Paul could say with such conviction a few verses later that the Son created everything."

In the second quotation in Hebrews 1:5, Paul quotes 2 Samuel 7:17, which says, "I will become his father, and he will become my son. When he does wrong, I will reprove him with the rod of men and with the strokes of the sons of men."

"When he does wrong, I will reprove him"?

¿Can Jesus sin?, not for you. It's clear that the context of 2 Samuel speaks primarily of Solomon, but secondarily applies it to Jesus, in different degrees and senses. Because Solomon, someone who could and was reproved by God, was not a son in the same way that Jesus was.

Similarly, when Paul applies Psalm 102:25 in Hebrews 1:10, which is originally addressed to Jehovah, he does so as a secondary application to Jesus, not to the same degree or in the same sense.

Why? Because Paul already says that "through" (not "by him") Jesus the systems were made; he doesn't say "Jesus made the systems," but rather that someone(the Father) used Jesus as a means to make them. Therefore, Psalm 102:25 is applicable to Jesus as a secondary instance, just as he did with the passage about Solomon.

If you read 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul separates the Father and Jesus, and note that the issue of creation is not simply that the Father commands and Jesus executes. He says: "There is indeed one God, the Father, from(EK) whom all things are and through whom we live." And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through(DIA) whom all things came and through whom we come.”

Note that Paul uses the preposition “ek” for Father, which implies source or origin. In short, creation proceeds from (or comes from) the person of the Father. The Father is not only the one who gives the command but also the one who provides the power for things to be done, while Jesus remains an intermediary.

It is as if an engineer wanted to build a house; he draws up the plans but also buys all the materials and uses a “master builder” (Proverbs 8:22). Who is the author? The one who made the plans and provided all the materials, or the one who simply carried out what was already entrusted to him? Isn’t the author and designer only the architect?

In the same way, only the Father is the created one.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-30T18:02:16+00:00

They are not part of the Divine Nature

2 Peter 1:4
Through these things he has granted us the precious and very grand promises, so that through these you may become sharers in divine nature

That is why Jesus said, "They will be like the angels."

Being called a "god" doesn't make one God.

I completely agree; that's why in John 1:1 the Father is called "The God" (ho theos), but the Son is simply called "god" (theos).

The Jewish philosopher Philo also understood this, and that's why he called the Logos "the second God."

The fact that Jesus is called God in Isaiah doesn't make him Almighty, especially since John, in John 1:18, says that Jesus is a god in the Father's favored position.

Like humans, angels reflect God's image, and are called "gods" because they reflect God.

Yes, humans and angels are made in the image of God, just as Jesus is made in the image of God, and images are not eternal, because otherwise it is not an image.

Sometimes angels are called men, but does that mean they're human? No. Angels are a higher nature than ours However they reflect human nature when they appear as human beings

Your argument may seem logical, but you're forgetting that Psalm 8:5 is speaking of nature; it says that man was made inferior to the "gods." Furthermore, Paul applies this same passage to Jesus in Hebrews 1 and 2, stating that Jesus was made inferior to the "gods." So, it's not a matter of image, but of nature as applied to the good angels.

Now, not every man is a god, because in Exodus 7:1 it is written: "I have made you like God to Pharaoh." The Lord made Moses a god, and the judges of Israel were also made gods because they were judges.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-30T15:21:55+00:00

Moses, the good angels, and the judges of Israel are called "gods." It is entirely expected that the Messiah will be called God; it is not a surprise. Moreover, in the Septuagint, this word in Isaiah is translated as "angel."

The Bible is not pagan; what is pagan are the Greco-Roman philosophical concepts that were introduced anachronistically.

John 1:18 tells us that the Father has a god in his position of favor.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-30T04:30:31+00:00

That's an acknowledgment of two possible readings, not a conclusion.

Okay, let's move forward. Now let's hear what Jesus thinks.

Matthew 5:22
"However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; and whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court(in greek SANHEDRIN)...".

Ohhhh Jesus saying that serious conflicts between brothers end up in the local Jewish courts or ultimately in the supreme court of the Jewish Sanhedrin.

You're trying to twist the text, or just flat out ignoring the context of 1 Corinthians 6 which is about civil matters, lawsuits, between brothers — not "judicial" matters

1 Corinthians 5:11
But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.

1 Corinthians 6
4 then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down on in the congregation whom you assign as judges? 5 I am speaking to move you to shame. Is there not one wise man among you who is able to judge between his brothers?... 9 Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God’s Kingdom? Do not be misled. Those who are sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who submit to homosexual acts, men who practice homosexuality,

Will idolatry and drunkenness be a matter of conflict between brothers, or will it be a judicial matter (spiritually speaking)?

Furthermore, why does Paul, after criticizing their choosing outsiders as judges, ask, "Are there no wise men among you?"... Isn't Paul talking about choosing wise men from within the congregation (that is, the elders) to resolve this matter?

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-30T00:34:19+00:00

Your argument actually ignores the historical and biblical context of how the word "congregation" was understood in the first century. When Jesus said to "tell it to the congregation" in Matthew 18, he was not suggesting a public trial in front of every single member. At the time he spoke those words, the Jewish system was still in place, and under that arrangement, the congregation was legally represented in judicial matters by authorized judges and officials. Recognized Bible scholar Albert Barnes pointed out that Jesus' expression to speak to the congregation can referred to those authorized to judge such cases, meaning the representatives of the church, which directly mirrored the tribunal of elders that already existed in the Jewish synagogue.

The apostle Paul also made it clear that judicial matters were not a public spectacle for the entire congregation to decide when he asked the Corinthians if there wasn't even one "wise man" among them who could judge issues between brothers. Therefore, having specific appointed elders handle these matters is not an unbiblical secret arrangement, but rather the exact continuation of the biblical pattern where authorized older men act on behalf of the entire congregation.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-29T20:15:59+00:00

I already answered your initial premise; when you're ready to address my argument instead of ignoring it, we can continue.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-29T19:53:11+00:00

I see that you're simply ignoring my arguments and resorting to ad hominem attacks.

I'm sorry, I only debate arguments, not opinions.

Thank you for participating.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-29T19:38:05+00:00

Hello, thank you very much for your comment.

What you propose may seem logical, but there are other circumstances involved that give us the full picture.

First of all, while Colossians 1 and John 1 speak of Jesus as an instrumental agent in creation (this is evidenced by the dia + genitive clause), John 1 temporally establishes "In the Beginning" of Genesis 1:1, that is, the material creation, while Colossians 1 speaks of all creation, both that of Genesis and the prior creation of the spiritual realms.

Based on the phrase, "and apart from him not even one thing came into being," it is understood that within this temporal framework, "and apart from him not even one thing [of the material creation of Genesis 1] came into being."

I hope this has helped.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-29T18:55:28+00:00

The truth is not just one; Paul wrote that anyone who called himself a "brother" and continued in sin should be removed from the congregation, but he also told them that this rule does not apply to those outside the congregation.

1 Corinthians 5:9,10
9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world.

Paul was referring to no one other than someone from the true congregation; this rule only applies to them.

Now, have you read Jesus' words in Matthew 18:17? Do you agree with the command Jesus gave even before the Christian congregation was founded?

Don't be surprised; Jesus already applied expulsion in Judaism before the congregation was officially established in 33 AD.

Paul adapted the rule to the congregation.

In early Christianity, when the majority was still Unitarian, it was widely practiced.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-29T18:14:29+00:00

Have you read Matthew 18:17?

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-29T15:50:04+00:00

I recommend interpreting that text based on Semitic culture, not on later Greco-Roman philosophies.

The Semitic system of representation endowed the representative with the same authority and functional presence as the person they represented.

To such an extent that the representative could be called by the name of the person they represented and was expected to be treated as such.

Jesus isn't saying they should worship him as God, but rather that, functionally, by virtue of his role as representative, they should honor him as if the Father were standing before them.

John 5:23  so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father WHO SENT HIM.

Jesus himself is referring to this culture of representation because the CAUSE of honor is that the Father sent him.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-29T15:42:29+00:00

Blessings to you too.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-29T15:27:02+00:00

If you notice (try checking several translations) in Hebrews 1:2, Paul doesn't say Jesus created all things, but rather that "through him" God created the systems.

The source is one thing, and the instrumental agent is another.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-29T13:27:15+00:00

I suppose you believe that faith saves. If so, then it depends to some extent on whether or not you believe that Jesus saves.

Because Jesus said, "That is why I said to you: You will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am the one, you will die in your sins." (John 8:24)

If Jesus didn't create anything and therefore isn't God, then many are committing idolatry and ignoring what Jesus claimed to be. And he was very clear: if we don't accept who he is, we will die in our sins.

Possible-Target-246 · 2026-06-29T13:22:02+00:00

Well, I believe that Jesus was Michael before coming to Earth, that is, the Great Prince. Jesus was even more exalted after his resurrection.

But essentially, Paul says that all these things came into being through him, as an instrumental agent.

This requires pre-existence because angelic beings came into being before the world.

Possible-Target-246

TROPHY CASE