- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 30 2008,18:44) No the Son was never said anywhere to be equal to his God.
Inference is the weakest form of evidence when the standard is that it is written.
John 1:1
In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was GodThe Word was God. It is written.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 30 2008,18:57) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 30 2008,18:44) No the Son was never said anywhere to be equal to his God.
Inference is the weakest form of evidence when the standard is that it is written.
John 1:1
In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was GodThe Word was God. It is written.
But is the “Word” here in John 1:1 Jesus?If so, where is that specific bit written?
Hey good to hear from you Isaiah!
Love to your family,
MandyHi Is1.18,
He was WITH God.
It is thrice written ;Jn1, Jn1, 1Jn1]
That is a therefore established as a proven fact2Cor 13
1This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.Deuteronomy 19:15
15″A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
Mt18
16″But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 30 2008,19:02) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 30 2008,18:57) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 30 2008,18:44) No the Son was never said anywhere to be equal to his God.
Inference is the weakest form of evidence when the standard is that it is written.
John 1:1
In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was GodThe Word was God. It is written.
But is the “Word” here in John 1:1 Jesus?If so, where is that specific bit written?
Hey good to hear from you Isaiah!
Love to your family,
Mandy
Verse 14 Mandy, Word became flesh. Also the grammar and context clearly show that a person is in view, an eternal one. A concept like a spoken word or thought or plan cannot be said to have always existed, nor can it have intimate fellowship “with God”, nor can it be described as “God” or divine. More info here: https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….;t=1375I'm well thanks, family is great although #3 has chicken pox.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 30 2008,19:11) Hi mandy,
No, a divine challenge.
Easily and often misunderstood.
Explain it to me then. What did john mean by John 1:1c?“…and the Word was God”
The Word became flesh, yes I know, however, God's ways are not like our ways. We do not know exactly how this “Word” became flesh. And so we do not know if the “Word” was the preexistent Jesus.
It is one of many concepts or ideas, it is not absolute.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 30 2008,19:02) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Mar. 30 2008,18:57) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 30 2008,18:44) No the Son was never said anywhere to be equal to his God.
Inference is the weakest form of evidence when the standard is that it is written.
John 1:1
In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was GodThe Word was God. It is written.
But is the “Word” here in John 1:1 Jesus?If so, where is that specific bit written?
Hey good to hear from you Isaiah!
Love to your family,
Mandy
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. (Col 1:15-16)cf.
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (1 Cor 8:6)
cf.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (Joh 1:1-3)
Yes, but scripture doesn't tell us how all things were created through him….
Scripture never says that Jesus created anything by his hand, however it does say that God created everything alone, by his hand.
Paul tells us there is but ONE “God” and that is the Father (and the Father is not Jesus).
OK, really must go to bed now….:)
Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 30 2008,19:41) The Word became flesh, yes I know, however, God's ways are not like our ways. We do not know exactly how this “Word” became flesh. And so we do not know if the “Word” was the preexistent Jesus. It is one of many concepts or ideas, it is not absolute.
According to Phil 2:5-8 the preincarnate Yeshua existed in the form of God, but forsake that (emptied Himself) to take on the form of a bond servant. This passage to me is an amplification of John 1:14. We have discussed this before, I know.Again, we are not told how he existed in the “form of God”.
We can fill in the blanks.
As Nick has said, we can make scripture say anything we want to.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 30 2008,19:45) Yes, but scripture doesn't tell us how all things were created through him…. Scripture never says that Jesus created anything by his hand, however it does say that God created everything alone, by his hand.
Paul tells us there is but ONE “God” and that is the Father (and the Father is not Jesus).
OK, really must go to bed now….:)
Hebrews 1:10 tells us that it was in fact Yeshua's hands that laid the foundations of the Earth.Quote
Hebrews 1
1God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. 5For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, ” I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”? 6And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” 7And of the angels He says,” WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.” 8But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. 9″ YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HASANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.” 10And, “YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS; 11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT, 12AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.” 13But to which of the angels has He ever said, “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”? 14Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?This verse comes from a chapter in Hebrews where the writer’s obvious premise was to demonstrate the absolute supremacy of the Son to his Jewish readers. It’s an apologetic work where the Hebrew OT texts are heavily drawn upon. This NT writer, like others, appeared to have no hesitancy at all applying to Yeshua OT quotations that exclusively reference YHWH. The OT quotations undoubtedly would have shocked the monotheistic Jews to the core, verses 10-12 especially so. It really is a christological tour de force, which reaches its climax in verses 8-12. It’s interesting to annotate the writer’s conveyances leading up to and immediately following verse 10. Here is a quick summary:
- The “world” was made through Him (v 2)
- He is said to be the radiance of the Father’s glory [Gr. doxa] (v 3)
- He is the exact representation of the Father’s “hypostasis” [nature/substance] (v 3)
- He “upholds [sustains] all things by the word of His power” (v 3)
- The angels are commanded to worship Him [a sole prerogative of YHWH] (v 6)
- He is called “God” (with the definite article) by the Father (v 8)
- He is contrasted from false gods (v 11)
- Is said to be immutable [an sole attribute of YHWH – e.g. Malachi 3:6] (v 12)
….and in amongst all these, what must have been startling affirmations (to the intended readers), we read this:
And,”YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
The writer of Hebrews was quoting Psalms 102:25 which was, of course, written about the Most High God, YHWH, as the context of the Psalm unmistakably bears out:
Psalm 102:19-27
19For He looked down from His holy height; From heaven the LORD gazed upon the earth, 20To hear the groaning of the prisoner, To set free those who were doomed to death, 21That men may tell of the name of the LORD in Zion And His praise in Jerusalem, 22When the peoples are gathered together, And the kingdoms, to serve the LORD. 23He has weakened my strength in the way; He has shortened my days. 24I say, “O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days, Your years are throughout all generations. 25″Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26″Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. 27″But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end. 28″The children of Your servants will continue, And their descendants will be established before You.”Psalm 102:25 is a verse quite obviously written about YHWH, but according to the Hebrews’ writer it was, in reality, an utterance spoken by the Father to the Son. The Hebrew's writer affirms that it was the Father Himself Who personally addresses His Son as THE Creator of the Universe! So here we have a clear elucidation of the Son’s exact role in the creation. To me this shows that the descriptive language in the OT dealing with YHWH’s act of Creation is, in the mind of the author, perfectly APPLICABLE TO the Logos.
Q) In what sense was Yeshua the Creator of the Heavens and Earth?
A) In the sense that was attributed to YHWH in Psalms 102:25!
Hebrews 1:10 shows that the pre-incarnate Jesus was the actual executor of all creation.
In anticipation of this objection (which I'll paraphrase):
‘he was ascribed an attribute of YHWH, and therefore a passage outlining that attribute, on account of his role as agent’
…I answer:-
Would this not be a grossly misleading and irresponsible thing for the writer to do? He was no doubt schooled up on the laws governing blasphemy, and applying a verse that spoke of YHWH to a lesser being would certainly cross that line. Lesser beings are to be strongly segregated from the One true God, and no sound-thinking and scripturally-literate NT writer would, in writing an apologetic work about a lesser being, submit an OT verse that (even) ostensibly supports Him being YHWH. Unless of course He was YHWH, then it would be quite understandable. I would also say that IF the law of agency was being invoked here, and the verse simply shows that the Son is credited for having acted in the role of YHWH, then we should have other examples of this occurring with characters other than Yeshua. But can we find one t8? Who else in the Bible is ascribed an OT “YHWH” verse as a function of their agency? Maybe you can show me one…..
So, to legitimately extend this objection you will need to explain the writer’s rationale in applying this verse to Yeshua, even though He would have known He would be overtly misleading His Jewish readers about the identity of Yeshua and YHWH, and why he would risk contravening the laws governing blasphemy. You will also need to produce evidence showing that personages other than Yeshua, who likewise acted in the role of ‘agent’, have also ascribed to them passages from the
OT that exclusively reference YHWH. Otherwise you are using a ‘law by exception’ as the very foundation of your refutation.Just to briefly background the scriptural association between Yeshua and Creation, the fact that the pre-incarnate Logos was involved, in some capacity, in the creation of “all things” is a well established biblical precept. John 1:3, 10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2 clearly bear this out. For example, in John 1:3 we read:
John 1:3
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.The statement “All things were made by him” is an astonishingly high statement to make of the Logos. And just to underscore this sentiment there is a exclusionist reiteration in the second part of the verse. There was nothing in the created order that was not made through Him. John could not have made a stronger distinction between the Creator and the “things” that He “made”
Paul concurs, writing an even more emphatic statement:
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 language here is unambiguous, according to Paul the Logos created all things, this is an unqualified statement that details precisely what the things were:- “things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities”. Moreover, they were made For Him (Yeshua). Here’s something interesting though, 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 evil.If 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 Yeshua IS Creator YHWH, or else we have a blatant contradiction. And here’s another to consider, in Isaiah 44:24 YHWH declares that He did it “alone”. Job reiterated this in Job 9:8. Does the language in these passages leave any room for the possibility of two independent beings creating “all things”? I don’t think it does. It’s yet another logical dilemma for those that propose that Yeshua is not YHWH, but a lesser being.
At this point I anticipate you will likely be making this objection, which I’ll also paraphrase:
'The word “dia” is rightly rendered ‘through’, and this word infers that the Logos was not the first cause of Creation but an agent that His father used to bring it into existence (but the Father is the ultimate power behind it).'
This rationale, of course, relegates the Logos to the status of a puppet, used in an instrumental way to achieve the creation. If this were true, and “dia” does connote that, then Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10 challenge this dogma. The same language used in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 is also used of “God” in Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10.
Romans 11:32-35
32For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. 33Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36For from Him and through (Gr. dia) Him and to Him are all things To Him be the glory forever. Amen.cf.
Hebrews 2:10
For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through (Gr. dia) whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.So to be consistent, you must also accept that “God” in the above two scriptures is not credited for doing the aforementioned things in the active and primary senses (i.e. He was not the ‘efficient cause’), but was rather an intermediary between the real first cause and the recipient, which is clearly ludicrous. So, given this, if this language in Romans 11:36 and Hebrews 2:10 is applicable to “God”, and still denotes that He is the ‘primary cause’ then on what grounds can you apply a different rule to Yeshua when “dia” is used in reference to Him? You can’t have it both ways.
Anyway, moving on. So we have clear scriptural witness attesting, at the very least, to Yeshua’s involvement in bringing about creation, but Hebrews 1:10 elucidates the capacity to which He was involved – according to this verse, and in the opinion of the Father, He was the executor of Creation in the exact sense that YHWH was described as being in Psalms 102:25, “His hands” laid the foundation of the Earth……what would His Jewish readers have made of this? Certainly the writer's conclusion that Yeshua was YHWH is difficult to escape, especially so when all the data in Hebrews Chapter 1 is considered. Verses 10-12 would have left them with no doubt at all.
Okay now for the “fish hook” I alluded to in the beginning of this post.
Hebrews 1:10
And,”YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;Please note the highlighted word. Remembering that the texts from vs 5-12 are, according to the writer of Hebrews, attestations made by the Father to the Son (“But of the Son He says” – vs 8), it’s evident that the Father actually addressed the Son as “Lord.” The Greek word “kurios” is used in most LXX manuscripts to render the Divine Name, YHWH. That’s well known. But also, when used in the NT as an honorific (“lord”) it signifies that the one addressed is superior in rank or station to the addresser. The slave addresses his mater as “lord”, not the other way around. This is principal is exceptionless.
So there are two possible scenarios here:
1) The Father was addressing the Son in a way that denoted His subservience, or inferiority in rank, to Yeshua. Or,
2) He was addressing the Son as YHWH.
I assert that #1 cannot be legitimate in light of the many NT verses where the Father is spoken as being “greater than” (i.e. superior in office) to the Son. So that leave only one possibility – The Father addresses the Son as YHWH. This would align perfectly with the context of Hebrews Ch 1 as a whole, which is about the absolute supremacy of the Son. It also fits precisely within the context of verses 10-12, which are OT quotations that manifestly reference YHWH…..
In summary, Hebrews 1:10 is a verse that cannot be overlooked by you t8. According to the writer of Hebrews this quotation from Psalms 102:25, was uttered by the Father to the Son. Yet when we examine the Psalm carefully it's evident that it speaks exclusively of YHWH. Would a NT writer apply a verse that manifestly references YHWH to the Son if He were not YHWH? I say no. It's inconceivable that he would do this, as it would grossly mislead the recipients of his letter about the identity of the Son, if He were not YHWH. Nor would he risk the consequence of overt blasphemy by audaciously elevating a lesser being to the status of Most High God, if He were not that God. And let's bear in mind the context that this verse was placed into:
- The “world” was made through Him (v 2)
- He is said to be the radiance of the Father’s glory [Gr. doxa] (v 3)
- He is the exact representation of the Father’s “hypostasis” [nature/substance] (v 3)
- He “upholds [sustains] all thing
s by the word of His power” (v 3)- The angels are commanded to worship Him [a sole prerogative of YHWH] (v 6)
- He is called “God” (with the definite article) by the Father (v 8)
- He is contrasted from false gods (v 11)
- Is said to be immutable [an attribute of YHWH – e.g. Malachi 3:6] (v 12)
The writer in writing Hebrews Chapter 1 had a single overarching motive, to apologetically convey the absolute supremacy of the Son, Yeshua, to his Jewish readers. The chapter is a tour de force that climaxes in the declarations in vss 10-12 that establish Yeshua as THE immutable Creator of the Universe. So this verse has not been ripped out of context, it perfectly fits within the context of the Chapter in perfect harmony.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 30 2008,19:47) Again, we are not told how he existed in the “form of God”. We can fill in the blanks.
As Nick has said, we can make scripture say anything we want to.
“Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Phil 2:5-6)I'm hardly twisting scripture here, I'm basically quoting it verbatim.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Mar. 30 2008,19:45) Yes, but scripture doesn't tell us how all things were created through him…. Scripture never says that Jesus created anything by his hand, however it does say that God created everything alone, by his hand.
Paul tells us there is but ONE “God” and that is the Father (and the Father is not Jesus).
OK, really must go to bed now….:)
The point is, you probably have no problem accepting that Yeshua is described in Col 1:16 and 1 Cor 8:6 when it is said that “all things” came to be in existence through/by Him (paraphrasing). When the same phrase is used in the same context (creation) in John 1:3 why should we not accept it is Him described there also?Hi Is 1.18,
Christ is called God.
Many are called god in scripture.But for us there is one God, the Father.
Being called god by scripture does not designate another deity.
If it did would we have to worship each such stone, wood, satanic, human or angelic deity as well?
Of course not.Since there is only one true God, Christ must be a false one then?
What was John's intent is designating the Word “God”?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
