Date: Mon Nov 09 1998 - 10:04:01 EST

In a message dated 11/8/98 9:12:04 PM Pacific Standard Time, writes:

<< At 05:55 PM 11/8/98 -0600, Ricardo y Judith Garrett wrote:
>First, if EIKWN meant for Paul what
>it means in Hebrews 10:1, then 15a is not saying that Christ is a
>reflection of God but rather his very essence. Coming immediately after
>this frase, PRWTOTOKOS could emphasize that Christ is God within the
>creation, and thus visible (in contrast to TOU QEOU TOU AORATOU). But he is
>still divine, EIKWN, in a way no mere creature could be. >>

Of course, man is made in God's image, also, and that hardly makes us part of
his essence.The author of Hebrews, in 1:2-3, makes it clear that Christ is not
merely the reflection of God's glory, but the CHARAKTHR THS hUPOSTASEWS. This
is about as temporal as you can get, for one cannot be the CHARAKTHR of
another, and be temporally equal, otherwise, why is one the CHARAKTHR of the
other, and not vice versa? Does anyone know of a non-temporal use of

There is some event which triggered the "reproduction" of God in Christ. Also,
I do not believe anyone is denying that Christ has a divine essence, but there
is nothing to suggest that he shares a Godhead Beingess with the Father, nor
that they are temporally equal. The descriptions "firstborn" CHARACTHR, "Son,"
MONOGENHS and others are all used of Christ, but not for God the Father, and
there must be some reason for that, especially since those who use such words
in Scripture do not say anything about their using such descriptions in a
sense different from how they are typically understood.

Greg Stafford

B-Greek home page:
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: []
To unsubscribe, forward this message to
To subscribe, send a message to

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:07 EDT