- This topic has 18,300 replies, 268 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (soxan @ Nov. 26 2005,06:55) ST.John the Trinity revelator;1Jo 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one……..Jo 5:10He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 1Jo 5:20And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
Hi soxan,
Are you unaware this is a false translation [1Jn5.7]that was inserted in early versions of the KJV and later corrected? I hope your case does not rest on such falsehood.This is too funny. The way he talks. Then, he finally puts down a scripture and the first one he puts down trying to show his beliefs and it's the one that has absolutely no right being in any Bible. Hilarious. And a little sad.
<a href="https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=1;t=70;st=
2750″ target=”_blank”>First InstallmentHi David,
Apologies that this post has taken me this long to submit, I got tied up in some other threads. Anyway, I first wanted to point out that this post will not be an exhaustive exposition of John’s Prologue, just some thoughts I have on the context in which John 1:1c is imbedded. The verses I want to address are in bold:JOHN 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2The same was in the beginning with God.
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.Notice that I’m only going to try to explicate all eighteen verses, just three of the first four verses (I’ll leave v2 because it’s basically a reiteration [for emphasis] of v1b). I think this is best because it encompasses the immediate context of John 1:1c and there are some irrelevancies (to the topic at hand) in the middle and later verses of the prologue (John the Baptist’s appointed role etc). There are also some grammatical and syntactical obscurities in the later verses that are well beyond the limits of my lexical competence. Naturally I was tempted to include John 1:18 since it’s VERY strong data in support of my premise that the BLB & BGW translations render John 1:1c correctly, but it wouldn’t be right to cherry pick verses like that, so I’ll have to leave that one for another day.
1In the beginning was the Word
The “beginning” is a reference to a period before creation. There are, of course strong elements of parallelism between the prologue and Genesis 1 (i.e. references to beginning, life, light…), and I don’t think it was a coincidence that John started his Gospel with the Hellenistic equivalent of the Hebrew “In the beginning….”. The first, and most obvious fact that needs to be made here is that ALL things were created during the creation week, including time itself. So, when the Bible speaks of “the beginning” it denotes timelessness. I am not a quantum physicist, and I won’t pretend that I’m any kind of authority here – but I have done some reading on the subject and I do know a few ‘indisputable’ facts. The universe is a continuum of time, matter and time, and all three are irrevocably interlinked, i.e. no one of which can have a meaningful existence without the other two (Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity). Since Christ actually created T, S & M (I will get to this soon) then it naturally follows that time began when Christ created it, He must have transcended time altogether and therefore be, by definition, time-less. John underscores this aspect of His eternality with the syntax he utilises and (especially) the tense. The verb “was” (Gr: eimi) is the used in the imperfect tense. That denotes a continuous action of the Word existing in the past, or simply put: whenever the “beginning” was, the logos was already in existence. By using this construction John was making it clear that logos is without a beginning, He is time-less.It always surprises me to see people trying to make a case for the Father preceding the Word in terms of their “beginnings”. Words like “first”, “last”, “preceding”, “proceeding”, “before” and “after” are appropriate chronological terms to use onlyin the framework of our time-space continuum. There is no “before” and “after” in the context of timelessness. We move well beyond the physical certainties in which this terminology is applicable, into the metaphysical.
The juxtaposition of the two words used to describe the pre-incarnate existence of the Word and His incarnation is, I think, very provocative. The Greek word for “was” in John 1:1a is the imperfect verb “eimi” (continuous action, perpetuity), whereas John used the aorist verb “egeneto” to describing the incarnation in v 14 which, in contrast, happened at a fixed point in time). By using this contradistinction John delineated the eternal logos from the temporal nature of the “things” He created.
Oh yeah, I would also like to detail some important aspects of the title “logos”. T8 would like to think that it’s denotative of His ontology but I’m afraid that is simply not true. It’s actually borrowed by John from Greek philosophy, but John greatly modifies its connotation. The Greeks understand “logos” to mean the impersonal, but rational, ordering principle of the universe (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9048773). To them the logos made sense of the order they saw in the universe. John’s application, although it still retained some of the Greek’s inherent meaning, was very personal in nature.
Its also interesting to me that the English word logic is derived from the Greek word “logos”. So in some sense Jesus was logic personified. I think there’s a massive misinterpretation of Christ in some circles, a simple carpenter (actually the Greek word “tekton” can be interpreted to designate a artificer or builder, which is more in keeping with one of His true nature – Hebrews 10:3) or a homeless, itinerant preacher. Obviously these people have never studied the Jesus that the Gospels describe. To me His mastery of logic to confound the Pharisees was astonishing. These highly-cerebral religious professionals continually attempted to trap him in a theological conundrum, but He vapourised their premises with outstanding counterexamples and a fortiori logical arguments (Mt. 22:31f, Mt. 12:1-14/Lk. 6:1-11, Lk 11:18). It’s hard not to be in total awe of the way Jesus made theological pretzels out of them in about 10 seconds flat. What an absolute HERO Jesus is! It’s little wonder their arguments were categorically demolished, they were engaged in a battle of wits with the Creator of the Universe and the very source of LOGIC, the eternal logos!
Anyway, moving on……
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
One of my favorite verses in John 1. We’ve been through the Greek in Col 1:16 David, and if you dispute the translation of this verse too, you will have another impossible task in defending the NWT’s rendering here as well. The original manuscripts very clearly bear out that this verse is accurately translated in the NASB, KJV and NIV. Anyway, you are welcome to try….. your objections will stand or fall on their merit.The statement “3All things were made by him” is an astonishingly high statement to make of the logos, and impossible to apply to a mere creature. Just to emphasise this, and put His causeless-ness beyond all doubt, John then writes “and without [aside from] him was not any thing made that was made”. There was nothing in the created order that was not made through the action of the logos, including angels. John could not have made a stronger distinction between the logos and “things” that He made.
Some additional NT creation verses add detail to His actual role in creation, and it reveals that He is far removed from a mere puppet of the Father, as some believe. The classic parallel verse is, of course Col 1:16.
COLOSSIANS 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for himThe Greek is unambiguous, according to Paul Jesus created all things, an unqualified statement. Therefore He Himself cannot possibly be a thing (i.e. created), as everything seen a
nd unseen (yes, even including Heaven) were created by the hands (a Biblical idiom used to designate work). Moreover, they were made For Him (Jesus). Here’s something interesting, Proverbs 16:4 says that YHWH did it for Himself:PROVERBS 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evilIf the NT reveals that Christ did it for Himself and the OT reveals that YHWH did it for Himself then, so that basis alone, the logical conclusion is that Yahshua IS Creator YHWH, or else we have a problematic contradiction.
I know there is a lot of semantic contention over whether the word “dia” should be interpreted ‘by’ or ‘through’, but to me this is moot. Almost the exact same construction used in John 1:3 and Col 1:16 is also used of the “God” in Romans 11:36 and Heb 2:10.
ROMANS 11
32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. 33O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! 34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? 35Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? 36For of him, and through (di’) him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.HEBREWS 2:10
10For it became him, for whom are all things, and by (di’) whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferingsSo if you are to argue that the construction and usage of the word ‘dia’ infers that Jesus was just an inactive instrument that God used to create the heavens and earth (and all therein) – and the Father is the ultimate power behind it – then, to be consistent, you must also accept that the “all things” referenced in the above 2 scriptures should also not to be applied to the “God” in the active and primary sense. Actually in reading Rom 11:36, Heb 2:10, Joh 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:16 synoptically it becomes clear that God in not just the efficient cause of creation but also the instrument (through) and final cause of it. Jesus is clearly ascribed the role of creator in the active sense.
What cannot be argued is that Jesus had a role in creation; He was involved and actively involved at that. The writer of Hebrews precisely elucidates His involvement by applying
Psalm 102:25 is directly ascribed to Jesus. I’ve cited this passage in the past but I’m doing it again because it’s just such incredibly strong evidence that Christ, the Creator, is YHWH God. Anyway, here is what the writer of Hebrews tells us is said of the logos by The Father Himself:HEBREW 1:10
10And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine handsPsalm 102:25 was written in reference to the Most High God, YHWH, and the writer of Hebrews unequivocally applied it to Jesus. It shows that the pre-incarnate logos was the actual executor of the creation event. According to the writer it is the Father Himself who personally addresses His Son as THE Creator of the cosmos!
These OT applications of YHWH to Jesus are ubiquitous in the NT; e.g. 1 Pet. 2:3 is nearly an exact quotation of Psalm 34:8, where “Lord” is Jehovah. From 1 Pet. 2:4-8 it is also clear that “the Lord” in v. 3 is Jesus. Also. The text in 1 Pet. 3:14-15 are a clear reference to Isa. 8:12-13, where the one who is to be regarded as holy is YHWH.
Lets not also forget that Isa 44:24 explicitly states that YHWH Created alone:
24Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself
Job 9:8 aligns this statement:
Then Job answered and said,
2I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God?
3If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.
4He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered?
5Which removeth the mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his
anger.
6Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.
7Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.
8Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.YHWH God created the heavens and the earth unaided – I don’t think the language of the texts could be clearer on this point. But Jesus is credited for being, at the very least, the agent of creation (The Holy Spirit is also credited in Job 33:4 and Psalm 104:30). So either there is a another huge contradiction between the OT and NT creation narratives – or there is a pluralistic aspect to the Creator both describe .
The first 6 verses of Hebrews 10 are also revealing of Jesus role in creation too, I think:
HEBREWS 10
1Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
2Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.
3For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house [Jesus Christ] hath more honour than the house [Moses].
4For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.
5And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
6But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.Here the glory of Moses and the Jesus are contrasted using the analogy of the builder and the building. In one breath the writer of Hebrews writes that the builder of the house (i.e. Moses in a narrow context and humankind [v6] in a broader one) is Jesus Christ – and in the very next states that He that built all things is God” The clear inference is that Jesus is the God who creates us. This strongly supports the high Christology evident in the first chapter of Hebrews.
To my mind, if the NT writers properly applied the role of the creation’s engineer to Jesus (the heavens are the works of HIS hands)– then we must read all OT scripture, that speaks of this agency, with Jesus in mind. This really opens up and clarifies these scriptures for me. For example:
ISAIAH 40:10-12
10Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him (refer to Rev 22:12), and his work before him.
11He shall feed his flock like a shepherd (refer John 10): he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young.
12Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?.OK, final point on the topic of His role in Creation. According to the OT it is YHWH who not only creates, but continues to uphold all things:
NEHEMIAH 9:6
You alone are the LORD; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve [Heb: chayah] them all. The host of heaven worships You.chayah
khaw-yaw'
A prim root (compare H2331, H2424); to live, whether literally or figuratively; causatively to revive: – keep (lea
ve, make) alive, X certainly, give (promise) life, (let, suffer to) live, nourish up, preserve (alive), quicken, recover, repair, restore (to life), revive, (X God) save (alive, life, lives), X surely, be whole.Colloquially put, without YHWH all creation will cease to exist, He actively maintains His creation by the power of His word. An incredible statement.
But the NT affirms that it is Jesus Who upholds all things:
HEBREWS 1:1-2
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power….)COLOSSIANS 1:17
17And he [Christ] is before all things, and by him all things consist [Gr. sunistao sunistano suniste mi = endure].Christ is unmistakably identified as preserving (bearing) the entire universe! This is incomprehensible power, NO angel or any created being could UPHOLD the entire Universe. Notice also that the writer uses the phrase “His power” – the power to facilitate this belongs to the logos. To me, this dispels the notion that Jesus was merely a puppet, acting only on the power of his Father. If he can uphold ALL THINGS by the power of HIS word (interestingly sub-atomic physicists have no idea how atoms hold together – when by logic they should fly apart, but the Bible tells has the answer) then He can certainly create a universe “by His power”, a fact that is expansively validated by the NT writers.
4In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
An emphatic assertion that Jesus was the very source of life, the life-giver. This verse is not a reference to the fact that He was alive (had life), but that eternal life was intrinsically His to give. John’s uses the Greek word “zoe” (life) 37 times in total, 17 times it occurs with “aionios” (eternal), and in the remaining occurrences outside the Prologue it is contextually apparent that ‘eternal’ life is intended. The two uses in John 1:4, if they do not refer to ‘eternal’ life, would be the only exceptions. Therefore its sensible to assume that eternal life is John’s conveyance. Eternal life is, of course one of the paramount themes of John’s Gospel, and Jesus is unambiguously identified as the “Eternal life” in 1 John 1:21 JOHN 1:2
For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.Only God can give eternal life.
So, I conclude from this cursory examination of the Biblical data in John 1:1-4 that John full intent was to present the Deity of the pre-incarnate Word of God. To me, no other conclusion is acceptable, The Word was “with God” in the beginning (and is therefore timeless) in the and “WAS GOD”. The Word is unequivocally identified as the Creator of “ALL things”, and the giver of [eternal] “life”.This text could IN NO WAY be applied to a created being. The context bears this out. So if we are to let grammer dictate doctrine, and not allow doctrine to dictate grammer, then the only logical conclusion is that the BLB/BGB Bibles rendered John 1:1c correctly.
Hi Is 1.18,
So Jesus was not the Son of God?. He said he was.
God is not his Father? He said He was.Why should he lie?
Why should we prefer your view?Hey Is 1:18. I have to go to sleep now. So I'm just going to look at that last paragraph right now. It's 12:45 and I have to get up early tomorrow.
Quote So, I conclude from this cursory examination of the Biblical data in John 1:1-4 that John full intent was to present the Deity of the pre-incarnate Word of God.
If your conclusion is simply that John's intent was to present the deity (divine status, quality or nature) of Jesus, then I don't disagree.
I think we should let John himself tell us what his intent was in his writings:“But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.” (20:31)
Since he was here stating why he wrote what he wrote, it would have been so easy for him here to use this opportunity to write: 'I wrote these things so you can know that Jesus is God.' Instead, he wrote: “son of God.”
Quote The Word was “with God” in the beginning (and is therefore timeless)
The beginning of what? It has to be the beginning of something. Otherwise the word beginning becomes meaningless. We know Jehovah did not have a beginning. He is the “king of eternity,” and is “from time indefinite to time indefinite.”
Gen 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens….”
It's talking about the beginning of creation here.
Jesus was with God in the beginning. But only Jehovah is described as “King of eternity.”Quote The Word is unequivocally identified as the Creator of “ALL things”, and the giver of [eternal] “life”.This text could IN NO WAY be applied to a created being. The context bears this out. So if we are to let grammer dictate doctrine, and not allow doctrine to dictate grammer, then the only logical conclusion is that the BLB/BGB Bibles rendered John 1:1c correctly. You always seem so well organized.
I'm sorry Is 1:18. I'm very tired. I need sleep. I obviously didn't read most of your post. Most likely, tomorrow I will.david.
Quote (david @ Nov. 15 2005,05:52) Sorry Is 1:18, I’ve been away. First, I commend your zeal, for you seem quite a bit more organized in your thoughts than most people. You have “installments.” Impressive.
It does bother me that you repeatedly are ignoring my very simple question of:
What does your Bible NASB or any Bible you own say at places such as: John 6:70, Acts 28:6, Mark 6:49, etc?
Your closest thing to a response was to mention that there was “a minor textual anomaly” in the NASB Bible. What you must have meant was: ‘They and the vast majority of Bible translators in this world under Satan’s control have chosen to insert the letter “a” before the word “god” or “devil” (slanderer) or “spirit” in these instances, yet for some reason there is an anomaly at John 1:1 where they chose to leave the “a” out.’
Is that what you meant by “textual anomaly”? Why does your Bible NASB choose to insert the indefinite article in places such as John 6:70 where the grammatical structure is the same as John 1:1 and yet do not insert the indefinite article at John 1:1? These questions must be troubling, for why else would you have repeatedly ignored them.david.
Nick, glad to see you're back.
Hi David,
I'm assuming the verses you cited here are intended to be parallel examples of the predicate anarthrous construction that is used in John 1:1. Not true, David, there is an important distinction that needs to be drawn. In John 1:1 the predicate nominative precedes the verb. In your examples it follows the verb, and therefore is not applicable. On this, Bruce Metzger wrote:Quote It must be stated quite frankly that, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists. In view of the additional light which is available during this age of Grace, such a representation is even more reprehensible than were the heathenish, polytheistic errors into which ancient Israel was so prone to fall. As a matter of solid fact, however, such a rendering is a frightful mistranslation. It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, “…and the Word was God.” Some years ago Dr. Ernest Cadman Colwell of the University of Chicago pointed out in a study of the Greek definite article that, “A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” …In a lengthy Appendix in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation, which was added to support the mistranslation of John 1:1, there are quoted thirty-five other passages in John where the predicate noun has the definite article in Greek. These are intended to prove that the absence of the article in John 1:1 requires that OEOS [theos] must be translated “a god.” None of the thirty-five instances is parallel, however, for in every case the predicate noun stands after the verb, and so, according to Colwell’s rule, properly has the article. So far, therefore, from being evidence against the usual translation of John 1:1, these instances add confirmation to the full enunciation of the rule of the Greek definite article. Furthermore, the additional references quoted in the New World Translation from the Greek of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, in order to give further support to the erroneous rendering in the opening verse of John, are exactly in conformity with Colwell’s rule, and therefore are added proof of the accuracy of the rule. The other passages adduced in the Appendix are, for one reason or another, not applicable to the question at issue. (Particularly inappropriate is the reference to Acts 28:6, for no one has ever maintained that the pagan natives of Malta regarded Paul as anything other than “a god.”)
The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ, Theology Today, 1953, pp 75-76.Hi Is 1.18,
A deity is a god who is worshipped.
So in your opinion;Is Jesus Christ a deity?
Is the Holy Spirit a deity?
Is Jesus a separate deity from God?
Is the Holy Spirit a separate deity from God?
Is Jesus the deity we know as God?
Is the Holy Spirit the deity we know as God?
Is Jesus then a deity to be worshipped?
Is the Holy Spirit a deity to be worshipped?The scriptures draw distinctions between Jesus and His Father.
Are those distinctions real?
Is he really the Son of God?
Or are they just titles?
If they are just titles why did Jesus present them as real?Where does scripture say we should worship Jesus?
Where are we told to worship the Spirit?
If we do are we not polytheists?
Whom did Jesus say we should worship?
If he said we should worship the Father then how can Jesus or the Spirit be deities to be worshipped?On whose authority, then, would we do such things?
Quote If your conclusion is simply that John's intent was to present the deity (divine status, quality or nature) of Jesus, then I don't disagree.
David, Deity is intrinsic solely to God. I don't hold that there are degrees of deity or divinity, you either have it or you don't, and if you do, then you are True God. I suspect you would define this word differently though.Quote I think we should let John himself tell us what his intent was in his writings: “But these have been written down that YOU may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, because of believing, YOU may have life by means of his name.” (20:31)
Personally, I think the title “Son of God” has both a broad and a narrow context.broad context
The title “Son of” can mean ‘having the nature of’. For instance,-Jesus was called “Son of man” 88 times in the New Testament. Was He literally the Son of a man? Or was it an allusion to His human nature?
– James and John were called by Jesus “the sons of thunder”, (Mark 3:17). Were they literally the sons of an metereological phenomenon?? Or was it an allusion to their inherent nature?
So, you see David, Biblically speaking, “Son of” can mean something other than progeny.
narrow context
Here is the narrow context (from pg 25, Holy Spirit thread):Quote Jesus is only ever identified as a Son in a post-incarnation context and your statement aligns with the NT writers understanding of the origin of this title: LUKE 1 (KJV)
35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.LUKE 1 (NASB)
35The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.LUKE 1 (NIV)
35The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.Jesus will be called the Son of God as a consequence of the incarnation event. Luke makes a very clear and direct linkage between these two variables here, in this verse.
Paul said he was “declared” (From G3725; that is, [figuratively] to appoint, decree, specify: – declare, determine, limit, ordain.) to be the Son of God:
ROMANS 1:4
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.He also associated the origin of the 'Sonship' of Christ with the Resurrection in Acts 13:33:
ACTS 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.Therefore, to me it is conclusive that, at least in the mind of Paul, that He was not in any way 'birthed' by the Father. This is not how Paul appears to understand the origin of the title “Son”. In fact none of the NT writers use Ps 2:7 in reference to a pre-incarnation begettal.
HEBREWS 1
5For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father (future tense), and he shall be to me a Son?(future tense) 6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world (future tense), he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.Notice, that the Father declares that he pre-incarnate Word will be a Son to Him (The Father) immediately before the firstbegotten is brought into the world (in terms of the passages sequence). Clearly the writer intended to convey the relationship between the titles (Father and Son) and the earthly life of Christ. If this was a reference to the eternal begettal it doesn’t fit contextually.
As far as I know He is never called a Son before his incarnation (except in the case(s) of predictive prophecy). Add to this the biblical data attesting to the eternality of Christ and it appears conclusive that the title Son of God has everything to do with His earthly existence.
Quote The beginning of what? It has to be the beginning of something. Otherwise the word beginning becomes meaningless. We know Jehovah did not have a beginning. He is the “king of eternity,” and is “from time indefinite to time indefinite.”
Gen 1:1: “In the beginning God created the heavens….”
It's talking about the beginning of creation here.
Jesus was with God in the beginning. But only Jehovah is described as “King of eternity.”
You need to read the post. Ive addressed “the beginning” in it, perhaps you missed it. The pre-incarnate Word made ALL things, including TIME David, think that one through.Quote You always seem so well organized.
I'm sorry Is 1:18. I'm very tired. I need sleep. I obviously didn't read most of your post. Most likely, tomorrow I will.david.
Thank you for the complement David. Ive always thought of you as a nice guy, even though you misrepresented yourself to me by frequently plagerising the work of others, passing if off as your own. It surprises me that you would do this as, to me, you appear to operate with a high level of natural intelligence, and like most JWs you have a decent understanding of the Bible. Though, for someone who claims to think deeply and test things, I'm astonished that you don't examine and instantly reject the validity of the NWT. Its errors are so blatantly obvious, surely you know this. In fact, if you want to find the best proof texts for the Deity of Christ you simply have to look for the mistranslations in the NWT. 🙂I won't be around to reply to your comments David, but if you disagree with what I have written then, as i've alluded to previously, your objections will stand or fall on their objective merit.
I hope you find the true Jesus David, there is no salvation in a false Jesus, Jesus Himself drew that line in the sand (John 8:24).
Take care and God bless
Hi david,
It sounds as though we will not be hearing from Is 1.18 for a while. Given his apparent muddying of the water over “Son of man” I can only assume that he does not really believe Jesus is the Son of God but rather this is a title only and does not describe two beings in a family relationship such as he described himself. As a man, the son of Mary, and King David he was truly a son of man. For that reason in fact he was given the role of judge of men[Jn 5.27]. If I am wrong I hope he will correct me on this matter.To contradict the master in his description of himself as Son of God is to deny him.
Dear Nick,
You said, “Who was working through Christ? God was working through Christ”
Of course, God was working through Christ. Jesus is God.
Jesus is both God and man. God came to earth and lived as a man. This is called the incarnation. By doing this, by coming to earth and being born into a woman, as an offspring of David, God was able to reconcile the large gap between Himself and man.
God loved us first. God is first. Through Christ, God has been first in all things.
We could argue this for years. It is not something that can be discovered through debate or logic. It is the great mystery of faith. Faith is blind. If you could prove it and see it, then it would not be faith. You just have to believe in Jesus. You have to believe that Jesus the man born in Bethlehem is Jesus the Christ, the Lord God become flesh. There is no way to prove it.
True faith starts by going to Jesus Christ and asking Him about the truth. If you really want to know truth, goto the source. Goto Jesus. He is the truth. There is no truth apart from Jesus. Whether you believe that Jesus is God or not, it is quite obvious that you believe Jesus Christ is alive in Heaven. Call out to Him and ask Him.
Otherwise, you are just depending on your own understanding. You are not believing in Jesus, you are believing in yourself. You follow your own logical conclusions. You base your faith on your own interpretation of the bible or that of men, rather than asking Jesus it's true meaning.
Trust in Jesus and ask Him what is true. Let Him answer your prayers.
In love,
BlakeDear Nick,
There is something else you should know. Even Christians have difficulty believing that God came to earth, lived as a man, and died on the cross. How could God come die? How could God be both the son and the father?
This is a great mystery. It defies all logic and reasoning. It is absurd to all rational thought. Yet, this is what our faith is based upon. Our faith is based upon Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, our Savior, our King, and our Redeemer. We depend on Him entirely in all things. We know Jesus was a man. There is historical evidence of this. However, who could ever believe that Jesus was God?
It requires faith, a child-like faith. Who but a child could accept such an outlandish notion? And yet, this is what we must believe. We must believe that Jesus is our God, for how else could we be saved?
God did not make it easy for us to believe this. In fact, it has been well hidden. The bible does not make it apparent. Nothing on earth makes it apparent. Truly, to call out to Jesus and ask Him to save us is a leap of faith. We must take that leap and call out to Him. We must ask Jesus, “Please my Lord, save me from my sins.” Only God can do such a thing.
Christians even have difficulty believing in this. That is why the whole doctrine of the Trinity even exists. The doctrine of the Trinity is man's attempt at explaining how God could come to earth as a man and die for all our sins. However, even the doctrine of the Trinity fails at a point to explain this great mystery.
This question has no logical answer. This mystery cannot be solved. It cannot be explained. It is a mystery. God has made it a mystery intentionally. He doesn't want people to find Him through logic and reasoning. He doesn't want people to come to Him through the bible. He doesn't want people to be forced into believing.
God wants people to come to Him through Jesus Christ. He wants people to worship Him in spirit and truth. He wants people to come willingly and to believe in Him with thier heart. God wants people to come to Him in love. This choice is made available through Jesus Christ, whereby God loved us first, and so, we may love Him in return with gratitude.
God has made faith a choice. The choice is simple: will you accept Jesus into your heart? Will you believe in Him?
Do you believe Jesus is God, the one who is greater than you, the one who is Holy and supreme, THE ONE AND ONLY? Do you believe Jesus can forgive your sins? Do you believe Jesus can save you? Do you believe you need to be saved?
The choice is yours. Will you give yourself to Jesus?
In love,
BlakeQuote (beenblake @ Dec. 03 2005,15:37) Dear Nick, You said, “Who was working through Christ? God was working through Christ”
Of course, God was working through Christ. Jesus is God.
Jesus is both God and man. God came to earth and lived as a man. This is called the incarnation. By doing this, by coming to earth and being born into a woman, as an offspring of David, God was able to reconcile the large gap between Himself and man.
God loved us first. God is first. Through Christ, God has been first in all things.
We could argue this for years. It is not something that can be discovered through debate or logic. It is the great mystery of faith. Faith is blind. If you could prove it and see it, then it would not be faith. You just have to believe in Jesus. You have to believe that Jesus the man born in Bethlehem is Jesus the Christ, the Lord God become flesh. There is no way to prove it.
True faith starts by going to Jesus Christ and asking Him about the truth. If you really want to know truth, goto the source. Goto Jesus. He is the truth. There is no truth apart from Jesus. Whether you believe that Jesus is God or not, it is quite obvious that you believe Jesus Christ is alive in Heaven. Call out to Him and ask Him.
Otherwise, you are just depending on your own understanding. You are not believing in Jesus, you are believing in yourself. You follow your own logical conclusions. You base your faith on your own interpretation of the bible or that of men, rather than asking Jesus it's true meaning.
Trust in Jesus and ask Him what is true. Let Him answer your prayers.
In love,
Blake
Hi beenblake,
So was the infant in the manger the God of the Jews? Did God come in the flesh then? If so scripture is broken because it says Jesus Christ came in the flesh.[1Jn4]So what of his early years? Was there evidence of God at work during his infancy and childhood years? Where are these works of power recorded?
Did nothing change then at his baptism? Why then did he suddenly seem to become empowered and start then to do Godly works?
If he was God why did he tell us about the Father who he said was the God of the Jews?[Jn 8.54].
If he was that God why would he lie and tell us he was the Son of that God?
If he was that God why did he tell us to pray to God as “our Father who art in heaven?”
If he was that God why would scripture say “God was with Him”. Can you also be the God you are with?
Mystery in these matters is largely because of man's own making.
He was the Son of God who came in the flesh and lived like us till he was filled with the Spirit of God at his baptism. He was a pure vessel for God, but not also the contents of that vessel.
Thence God was in him reconciling the world to Himself.
Quote (beenblake @ Dec. 03 2005,15:58) Dear Nick, There is something else you should know. Even Christians have difficulty believing that God came to earth, lived as a man, and died on the cross. How could God come die? How could God be both the son and the father?
This is a great mystery. It defies all logic and reasoning. It is absurd to all rational thought. Yet, this is what our faith is based upon. Our faith is based upon Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, our Savior, our King, and our Redeemer. We depend on Him entirely in all things. We know Jesus was a man. There is historical evidence of this. However, who could ever believe that Jesus was God?
It requires faith, a child-like faith. Who but a child could accept such an outlandish notion? And yet, this is what we must believe. We must believe that Jesus is our God, for how else could we be saved?
God did not make it easy for us to believe this. In fact, it has been well hidden. The bible does not make it apparent. Nothing on earth makes it apparent. Truly, to call out to Jesus and ask Him to save us is a leap of faith. We must take that leap and call out to Him. We must ask Jesus, “Please my Lord, save me from my sins.” Only God can do such a thing.
Christians even have difficulty believing in this. That is why the whole doctrine of the Trinity even exists. The doctrine of the Trinity is man's attempt at explaining how God could come to earth as a man and die for all our sins. However, even the doctrine of the Trinity fails at a point to explain this great mystery.
This question has no logical answer. This mystery cannot be solved. It cannot be explained. It is a mystery. God has made it a mystery intentionally. He doesn't want people to find Him through logic and reasoning. He doesn't want people to come to Him through the bible. He doesn't want people to be forced into believing.
God wants people to come to Him through Jesus Christ. He wants people to worship Him in spirit and truth. He wants people to come willingly and to believe in Him with thier heart. God wants people to come to Him in love. This choice is made available through Jesus Christ, whereby God loved us first, and so, we may love Him in return with gratitude.
God has made faith a choice. The choice is simple: will you accept Jesus into your heart? Will you believe in Him?
Do you believe Jesus is God, the one who is greater than you, the one who is Holy and supreme, THE ONE AND ONLY? Do you believe Jesus can forgive your sins? Do you believe Jesus can save you? Do you believe you need to be saved?
The choice is yours. Will you give yourself to Jesus?
In love,
Blake
Hi beenblake,
Faith is necessary but not faith in man's folly. Faith in scripture. Faith in the Saviour. Obedient faith that follows him to repent and be baptised into his death and be raised in the power of the Spirit.“You cannot see the kingdom until you are born again”
Right on Nick,
The scriptures are crystal clear on this issue. It saddens me that we even have to discuss this.
John 14:10, Jesus says that the words he speaks are not on His own authority, but the Father who dwells in him does the works. The Father who is the one true God, Jehovah, Yahweh, He was doing the miracles. Christ was speaking by the authority of the Father.
Christ said that the Father was greater than him.
Christ said that he could do nothing on his own.
Christ referred to the Father as his God.
Matthew 28:18, Jesus said All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him. NOBODY GIVES GOD AUTHORITY.
2 Corinthians 5:19 says that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.
Colossians 2:9 says that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt within Christ bodily. So if Christ is the 2nd person of the Godhead, did he dwell within himself?
Just because we don't believe that Jesus is God doesn't mean that we don't have faith. We understand the importance of faith.
Hebrew 11:6 says that without faith it is impossible to please God. because any man who comes to him must believe that he exist and that he reward those who earnestly seek him.
The Trinitarian doctrine is not only unsound; it is also illogical. I know all things are possible with God, but God uses logic in His creation he sets limits and boundaries in what He created. Therefore two plus two will always be four.
The first post in this forum states “If you do not believe in the deity of Christ you are lost” please show me the scripture that emphatically states this. Scripture states if you do not believe that I am he, who do the combined scripture say he is, Messiah, Son of God, the way, the truth, the life, prophet, servant of God.
They read but they do not perceive. Their minds are so full of, and dominated by creedal theology that scripture make no or little impression. There is confusion about what is hallowed by God, and what is holy according to man.
The trinity doctrine does not go back to the apostles. Paul, Peter, and the rest never believed Jesus to be God. How do I know, because scripture plainly states the fact. The doctrine does not go back to these men but to Athanasius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_AlexandriaIf the orthodox doctrine of the trinity is clearly taught in the Bible, why all the centuries of wrangling with creeds? Decisions of doctrine were made by compromise, and alternative reasoning by men who were not guided by holy spirit but by pride and ego.
The plain fact is that the trinity clearly is not taught in the Bible. It is a human deduction from a few isolated texts.The major one, In the beginning was the word.
All of the reformers except one, John Tyndale, used the Latin vulgate. Tyndale was a scholar in both Hebrew and Creek.In the beginning was that word, and that word was with god: and god was that word. The same was in the beginning with god. All things were made by it, and without it, was made no thing, that made was. In it was life, And life was the light of men, And the light shineth in the darkness, and darkness comprehended it not.
The word does not have a gender. Just as the Holy Spirit does not have a gender. In the Tanakh, the Holy Spirit is always called it, not he. Just as in the New Testament the Greek pronoun auto, was translated he, to keep in line with the trinity doctrine; Auto is not a first person, personal, masculine pronoun, but a third person neuter
I and my Father are one
Jesus was talking about in purpose. Jesus prayed that his followers would be one as he and God were one. When Jesus stated that no one could snatch the children out of his hand, it was because he and the Father were one ( in purpose).
What if you see the son of man ascend to where he was before.
If you read this in context, he is speaking of his resurrection, not returning to heaven.
He that has seen me has seen the Father
Jesus was the complete expression of God. Through him as through no one else God spoke and acted. If God had been a man, he would have been like Jesus for in him was the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Spirit without measure. For God was at work through Christ reconciling the world unto Himself.
People in Jesus time were familiar with the law of agency. Angels, messengers of God were agents, as were the prophets. The agent was regarded as the person himself. When Jacob wrestled with the angel, he said he had seen God face to face. In the book of Hosea 12:4 we are told that he wrestled with an angel and prevailed.Moses was given the law by God, yet Paul tells us that the law was given to Moses by angels.
The angel of the Lord accompanied the Israelites in the dessert. Let me digress for a moment. Trinitarians and others use this and other scripture about the angel of the Lord as proof to Jesus pre earth existence. Again we move out of the realm of reason into mysticism. If Jesus was an angel, he could not have been God. One cannot be the creator and the created.
Jesus was Gods’ ultimate agent. He was unique.
Matthew 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father; an on one knows who the son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son and anyone whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
All things were handed over to Jesus by God. He had all authority. A prime example of this is the biblical story of Joseph.
Joseph was given the signet ring of the Pharaoh. Joseph had authority over all except one, Pharaoh himself.Jesus said repeatedly that the Father was greater, and that he did nothing of his own accord but did only what He heard, and saw the Father doing. He was in perfect harmony with God at
What asked what the greatest commandment was; Jesus quoted the shema.
He did not say you must believe that I am God or you will die in your sins.
The gospel
Romans 10:9 That if you confess Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Acts 2:22
Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was A MAN ACCREDITED BY GOD to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which GOD did among your THROUGH him, as you yourselves know.
Acts 2:24
But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
Jesus was in the grave, literal earth for three days, not the bad side of paradise, which is were he would have gone to if the wages of sin were hell. He would still be there waiting to be caste into the lake of fire with the rest of hell, and death.
Jesus died physically for my sin and your sin. Death could not keep hold on him because the wages of sin is eternal death. Jesus never sinned that is why God could legally resurrect him. He did what no other human ever did or could do.
Corinthians 15
The chapter starts with Paul talking about the gospel. He states Christ died for our sins, was buried, and raised.
He is upset because there as some that are teaching there is no resurrection of the dead. If this is true, then Jesus could not have been raised and is still in the grave. If Jesus is in his grave then their faith is worthless, they are still sinners, will die in their sins, and those that have fallen asleep (died) in Christ have PERISHED.
Paul refutes this telling his readers that he Jesus the Christ has been raised the first fruits of those who are asleep.
Notice Paul uses the present tense. Jesus Christ is the only human to have been resurrected all others are still asleep.
When the end comes, the end of times, eras, eons, earths, etc, spoken of in the bible, when the eternal comes. Then Jesus hands over the kingdom to “the God and Father” Jesus will be in subjection to God. Meaning he will be a subject.
Subject, is a transitive verb meaning to be in submission to one more powerful, to be amenable to one that is superiorRevelation
1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which GOD GAVE HIM to show His bond servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated by His angel to His bond servant John.Jesus had been glorified and sitting at God’s right hand, yet it is the Father who does the revealing to Jesus Christ. The actual messenger is God’s angel, most likely the same angel that was sent in the Old Testament.
Jesus had a God that he prayed to, he also told Mary, tell them I go to my Father, and your Father, my God, and your God.
When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness didn’t he know he was God? He knew he was the son of God. Let us look at this scripture logically, and with sound reasoning.
Not long ago I read an article on this scripture. The author using
Trinitarian logic explained it thus, Jesus could be tempted, but he could not sin, huh? The reason he could not sin is because he was one hundred percent God, and one hundred percent man, an other fallacious teaching so that the trinity doctrine can be upheld. A thing cannot be finite and infinite at the same time. This is not a paradox as some claim. It is impossible. Jesus de
fied the laws of physics when he performed miracles, i.e. turning water into wine, walking on water. However, this is not the same as being human and not human in the same body, and mind. Beyond the physical the psychological implications are staggering.If Jesus could not sin then the whole scenario was a farce. But Jesus could sin, that is why he was tempted in the first place.
He was very hungry. He could have turned the stones into bread. Why didn’t he? Why would it have been sinful for him to do so? God worked miracles through Jesus for a purpose, he was not to use it for personal gain or satisfaction.
Satan offered Jesus “all the Kingdoms of the world” if he would worship him. Jesus would not have to suffer he could have the glory without the suffering. If Jesus was God, could Satan make such an offer?
That would be the same as person that rents a house telling the architect, who both owns, and built the house, pay me for this house and you may have ownership. You cannot offer God something he already owns. Actually you cannot offer God anything; there is nothing that exists that he did not create.By saying that Jesus could not sin you are not elevating him. In my estimation it devalues what he did.
Fact, Jesus was born of a virgin, God was his Father, and he was without sin. He remained sinless because he obeyed God and was in God’s will continually, unlike the first Adam who was also sinless, but sinned willfully.
According to some I am either a heretic, a cult, not a real Christian. I once also believed the fables of men. I was weak in faith. I now know the truth and it has set me free. Free to truly love, and understand the God, and Father of my Savior, my Lord Jesus Christ. Before, I never understood the Father, I thought He was scary, and beyond understanding. Do I pray to Jesus? Sometimes, do I worship Him? Yes, sometimes. Jesus is called God by Almighty God and we have His permission to worship his son. I love my lord Jesus very much. But, he is not nor has he ever been all Mighty God creator of Heaven and Earth.
B.
Hi,
Well written and presented thank you bastion.The only question I have is about Jesus coming from heaven. 1 Cor 15 calls him “the man from heaven”. He said “before Abraham I am”. John the baptist was conceived and born before him and yet he said “he was before me”. He claimed to have come from heaven or from above and spoke about having experience of heavenly matters. He claimed to have been sent into the world.
Dan 7.13
“I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like the Son of Man was coming. And he came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him”
Surely this describes the return of Jesus to his Father in Heaven after his triumphant victory on the cross. If he returned to heven , where God lives, then surely it gives weight to his claim to have come from there.
Just because he came from heaven gives no weight to any claim that he was God Himself. This scripture as with so many others show he was with God in heaven. Likewise we know there are many heavenly angelic beings and they certainly are not God.If there is a co-eternal, co-equal God the Spirit then God must be a trinity Spirit.
God is three co-eternal, co-equal Spirits.
John 4:24 “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.''
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.'' The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
God the Holy Spirit.
I can find any verses that speak of God the co-eternal, co-equal Holy Spirit but who cares has long as it sounds good.
So here is how my new trinity God goes.
Since God is Spirit and eternal and the Holy Spirit is God and is eternal then that imakes two eternal God the Spirits. But now since Jesus is eternal and is a life giving Spirit then that makes three co-eternal, co-equal God the Spirits.
If anyone disagrees with my new doctrine we'll just burn them at the sake, torture them or just throw them in prison. I figure if we burn and torture enough people who disagree there will be no one left to refute my new doctrine. Behold, a new orthodox belief.
Who's up for it…
Nick,
Paul is talking about the resurrection. How do you get Jesus existed before he was born on earth from this passage?
Presently we are in the image of Adam. At the resurrection, we will be in the image of Christ.
The first Adam became a living being. The last Adam, BECAME a life giving spirit (after he was glorified) As with the earthy so are those who are of this earth (that is the whole human race) and as is the man from heaven (where the man Jesus now resides until he returns at the second coming) so WE SHALL BEAR THE LIKENESS OF THE MAN FROM HEAVEN.
Why do you say that when he, the one like the son of man is presented before the Ancient of days, he is returning? The scripture does not bear out what you are saying. The scripture states, that he was presented before him. Not, he returned to him.
Bastian
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
