Home Christian Writings Supporting the Trinity Doctrine? – The Trinity Doctrine John 1:1 Page 1,119

John 1:1

John 1:1 says the Word was God. Does that mean that Jesus is God because he is the Word?
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

a) In the beginning was the Word, (en arch hn o logoV)
b) and the Word was with God, (kai o logoV hn proV ton qeon)
c) and the Word was God. (kai qeoV hn o logoV).

John 1:1b says that the Word was with God and John 1:1c says that the Word was God, so how can the Word be God and be with God at the same time? Well part of the answer to discovering the meaning of this verse is found in 1 John 1:1-2

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life and the life was manifested, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was made manifest to us”.

First when we read 1John 1:2, it suggests to us that the God in John1:1b is the Father himself.

Secondly, we see In John 1:1c, the last word God is missing the definite article, (THE). The definite article is before all other instances of the word ‘God’ and ‘Logos’ in John 1:1. (e.g., the Word, The God.), yet is absent in the last mention of God. Read on because this can be significant as you are about to find out.

Greek sentence construction affirms that if a noun doesn’t have a preceding article, (THE) it can be read as an adjective (a predicate adjective); and if such a noun does have a preceding article it should be considered a noun (a predicate nominative). Understanding this is a game changer. Scholars see the benefit of the rule for affirming the deity of Christ in John 1:1, but haven’t made the difference clear regarding the difference between identity and nature or definite and qualitative. Don’t worry if this makes no sense to you. It will.

Look at the difference between these two sentences.

1) You are an angel
2) You are THE angel.

Notice how the first one is using the word angel in a qualitative way while the second is definite. Hence the term ‘definite article’.

In John 1:1, all instances of the word ‘God” are preceded by the definite article ‘THE’, except the last one.

So it literally says:

John1:1
a) In the beginning was THE God.
b) THE Word was with THE God
c) And THE Word was god.

Why is the last word not capitalised? Where Greek uses the definite article in English we capitalise the word. e.g., the god = God.

So it is grammatically correct to read John 1:1c with a qualitative sense rather reading it as identifying the Word as God himself. It is not only grammatically correct to read it this way, it is also theologically correct because if we read it as THE Theos, then that would be saying that the Logos is exclusively God even to the exclusion of the Father. Now we have two good reasons for reading the last word ‘god/theos’ as qualitative and not as THE God or God.

In rebuttal to this, some say that God in the New Testament doesn’t always have a preceding definite article which is true, however looking at the verse contextually, we understand that there is clearly two being spoken of, i.e., one God and one called the Word with is clearly another who is next to God and is not that God he is with.

Let’s look at Adam and Eve as an example of two beings that were with each other. Before I give an example, it is important for you at this point to understand that the Hebrew word for ‘man’ is ‘adam’. This means that qualitatively, Adam and Eve are both adam. This is similar to the word theos which is translated as the ‘God’ & god. The absence of the definite article can qualify just as the word adam qualifies. As I said before, in English we use capitals to denote when being definite. So the difference between ‘Adam’ and ‘adam’ is that Adam refers to a specific man called Adam while the latter could refer to him as well as Eve and any other member of mankind. This is clearly stated in scripture in Genesis 1:27:

So God created man (adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

The word for man is adam, so it says: God created ‘adam’ male and female. So saying that ‘Eve is adam’ is a true saying.

In English, If I said “John is the man”, then I am identifying John as  a definite and particular person of the human race. But if I omit the definite article and say “John is man,” then I do not identify him, I classify him. I say “John is human; he belongs to the sphere/nature of man.” Can you see the difference now?

To understand how the article can make a big difference to a piece of text, look at this example. Have a guess as to which one is correct.

a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was THE man

a) In the beginning was THE woman
b) and THE woman was with THE man
c) and THE Woman was man

The correct one is the second example because it is saying that the woman belongs to mankind or man. Look at the next example:

a) Tools were used by man.
b) Tools were used by the man.

See how the first example is talking about mankind whereas the second example is talking of a specific man.

In other words the word ‘man’ can be used as an attribute or to describe one’s nature. It is not always used to identify a particular person and it can even refer to more than one person.

Now let’s have a look at the above example, but using Adam and Eve instead. Notice in English that we do not have the definite article preceding Adam or Eve, because capitalising both Adam and Eve leads us to view these words in a definite sense, the same way that Greek requires the definite article. Essentially THE adam/man in Greek is the same as Adam in English.

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was Adam

a) In the beginning was Eve,
b) and Eve was with Adam
c) and Eve was adam

Notice that the second example is still the correct one.

To further understand the important difference between identity and nature, take a look at John 6:70. When speaking of his betrayer Judas Iscariot, Jesus said, “One of you is a devil.” Did Jesus mean that Judas is actually Satan the Devil? No! He merely meant to say that Judas is like (class) a devil, or that he had the qualities or nature of a/the devil. The word “devil” here has no article in the Greek as you have probably guessed, but most translators deem it necessary to add the indefinite article “a” to complete the thought in English even though it is not present in Greek or any Greek. Greek has no indefinite articles, (a,an).

So Judas wasn’t Satan himself, rather he was diabolical, like the Devil. He had the qualities of the Devil. But that doesn’t rule out the fact that Satan is the Devil because it is not actually saying that Judas was the Devil himself. Rather Judas thought as the Devil; and acted as the Devil. He was not the Devil (definite), (Satan is); he was not an actual devil or demon, he was a devil (qualitative). He was one who had the mental disposition, the nature, of the Devil, who is Satan. So it is with John 1:1c.

The Logos was God has no definite article. It is really saying, The Logos was god. This is why the New English Bible and the Revised English Bible translate John 1:1 as “what God was, the Word was.” The TEV (1976) translates it, “the Word was the same as God.” Goodspeed translates this, “the Word was divine.” And Moffatt translates this, “the logos was divine.”

So what kind of being is Jesus then if the Word was theos (without the definite article)? The answer according to John 1:1 is that he must be a divine being if Jesus is the Word of God that was with God. In other words he is a being with God’s nature. A son possessing the nature of his Father. Not just an image, but THE image of God. He is the prototype, the firstborn. He is the mystery that was hidden but has been revealed in our time. He is all these things, but he is not THE God that he is the son of. That God is exclusively the Father and there are many scriptures to prove that which we will look at later in this page.

Many think that the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ always refer to YHWH. They take instances of their choosing to try and prove that Christ is YHWH. In their ignorance they cannot see that there are indeed many god (theos) and many lords, but for true believers there is one God (theos) the Father.

In fact, the word ‘theos’ and ‘elohim’ in scripture are used in reference to God (YHWH), Christ, Man, angels, Satan and idols. So when we see the word ‘theos’ or ‘elohim’, we should ask ourselves what kind of god is being referenced. The god of this age? The Most High God? The Almighty God? The mighty god? A false god? A human? An angel? We must also understand that the word ‘theos’ proceeded by the article (the) is talking of a noun and without the article, it can be an adjective or used to describe or qualify.

Let us now look at some quotes from scholars and writers that understand this. NOTE: this is not an endorsement with all that these authors have written, rather I am appealing to their view regarding John 1:1.

One prominent scholar called Origen is sometimes quoted by Trinitarians who appeal to his wisdom for other purposes. However, they avoid this particular quotation for obvious reasons. Origen wrote in the early 200’s A.D and was a noted expert in Koine Greek.

“We next notice John’s use of the article [“the”] in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue. In some cases he uses the article, and in some he omits it. He adds the article to the Word, but to the name of theos he adds it sometimes only. He uses the article, when the name of theos refers to the uncreated cause of all things, and omits it when the Word is named theos. Does the same difference which we observe between theos with the article and theos without it prevail also between the Word with it and without it? We must enquire into this. As the theos who is over all is theos with the article not without it, so the Word is the source of that reason (Logos) which dwells in every reasonable creature; the reason which is in each creature is not, like the former called par excellence the Word. Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two theos [gods] and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be theos all but the name, or they deny divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other. To such persons we have to say that “the theos” on the one hand is Autotheos [God of himself] and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, “That they may know Thee the only true theos [God]; “but that all beyond the theos [God] is made theos by participation in His deity, and is not to be called simply “theos” but rather “the theos “. And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with the theos , and to attract to Himself deity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other theos [gods] beside Him, of which theos is the theos [God], as it is written, “The theos [God] of theos [gods], the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth.” It was by the offices of the first-born that they became theos [gods], for He drew from the theos [God] in generous measure that they should be made theos [gods], and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true theos [God], then, is “the theos ,” [“the God” as opposed to “god”] and those who are formed after Him are theos [such as the Son of God], images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the word of the theos [God], who was in the beginning, and who by being with the theos [God] is at all times deity, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be theos , if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.”
(Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2)

“Irenaeus [in the second century] could still interpret MK. Xiii, 32 in the following manner: the Son confessed not to know that which only the Father knew; hence ‘ we learn from himself that the Father is over all’, as he who is greater also than the Son. But the Nicene theologians had now suddenly to deny that Jesus could have said such a thing about the Son. In the long-recognized scriptural testimony for the Logos-doctrine provided by Prov. Viii, 22 ff. The exegetes of the second and third centuries had found the creation of the preexistent Logos-Christ set forth without dispute and equivocation. But now, when the Arians also interpreted the passage in this way, the interpretation was suddenly reckoned as false…. A theologian such as Tertullian by virtue of his Subordinationist manner of thinking, could confidently on occasion maintain that, before all creation, God the Father had been originally ‘alone’, and thus there was a time when ‘the Son was not’. When he did so, within the Church of his day such a statement did not inevitably provoke a controversy, and indeed there was none about it. But now, when Arius said the same thing in almost the same words, he raised thereby in the Church a mighty uproar, and such a view was condemned as heresy in the anathemas of Nicaea.” e.a.]
-pp. 155-8. The Formation of Christian Dogma, by Martin Werner, D.D.

When the writers of the New Testament speak of God they mean the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. When they speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of him, nor think of him as God. He is God’s Christ, God’s Son, God’s Wisdom, God’s Word. Even the prologue to St. John {John 1:1-18} which comes nearest to the Nicene Doctrine, must be read in the light of the pronounced subordinationism of the Gospel as a whole; and the Prologue is less explicit in Greek with the anarthrous theos [the word “god” at John 1:1c without the article] than it appears in English… The adoring exclamation of St. Thomas “my Lord and my god” (Joh. xx. 28) is still not quite the same as an address to Christ as being without qualification [limitation] God, and it must be balanced by the words of the risen Christ himself to Mary Magdalene (verse. 17) “Go unto my brethren and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” Jesus Christ is frequently spoken of in the Ignation Epistles as “our God”, “my God”, but probably never as “God” without qualification.
– John Martin Creed in The Divinity of Jesus Christ.

The word for “god” in Greek is QEOS. In John 1:1 the last occurrence of QEOS is called “a predicate noun” or, “a predicate nominative”. Such a noun tells us something about the subject, instead of telling what the subject is doing. This use of QEOS has reference to the subject, the Word, and does not have the article preceding it; it is anarthrous. This indicates that it is not definite. That is to say, it does not tell what position or office or rank the subject (the Word) occupies. The verb HN “was” follows the predicate noun QEOS; this is another factor in identifying QEOS here as qualitative. This discloses the quality or character of the Word. Of course, the gentleman up above disagrees with me, and he has used Moulton and Colwell to buttress his argument. But what have other Grammarians said about this same type of construction? There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite. In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate [noun] is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.
-Philip Harner, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92:1, 1973, pp. 85, 7.

We must, then take Theos, without the article, in the indefinite [“qualitative” would have been a better word choice] sense of a divine nature or a divine being, as distinguished from the definite absolute God [the Father], ho Theos, the authotheos [selfgod] of Origen. Thus the Theos of John [1:1c] answers to “the image of God” of Paul, Col. 1:15.
-G. Lucke, “Dissertation on the Logos”, quoted by John Wilson in, Unitarian Principles Confirmed by Trinitarian Testimonies, p. 428.

As mentioned in the Note on 1c, the Prologue’s “The Word was God” offers a difficulty because there is no article before theos. Does this imply that “god” means less when predicated of the Word than it does when used as a name for the Father? Once again the reader must divest himself of a post-Nicene understanding of the vocabulary involved.
-Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible, p. 25.

The most natural reading of John 1:1 shows that there are two being mentioned (not three): God and a second who was ‘theos’. They are not presented as two coequal persons in a Binity or Trinity. What we really have is one with the character of THEOS who is with TON THEOS (the God), thus he cannot be the God he is with! The LOGOS is unique however. He/it is identified further in the gospel as “a son from a father, begotten, as a visible being verses the unseen God, Now, without redefining the word THEOS we need to explain how we can have two who are both referred to as “theos.” Either there were two equal Gods or persons called God, or it is talking about a godlike one that is with the Almighty God. When we read all the scriptures we see that the scriptures including the Book of John backs up the last view, that the Father is greater than the Son; that the Father is the only God and the Son is the image of The God.

So what conclusion are we to draw from John 1:1 and the Book of John? In John’s own words he explains the conclusion for his Book. This conclusion is not the Trinity Doctrine. Read the verse below to see what the conclusion is.

John 20:30-31.
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. “

So John wrote this gospel so that we may come to the conclusion that Jesus is truly the Christ and the Son of God. In addition to this important truth we are also told that we may receive life through his name. The Trinity Doctrine is not the conclusion that one should draw from this writing. Belief that Jesus is the Christ and the Son is the foundation of true faith and Jesus built his Church on this truth. The Trinity Doctrine is not that foundation, rather it is another foundation.

So why don’t translations of the bible translate John 1:1 as the Word was divine. Well first of all it is not incorrect to say that the Word was god, but Trinitarians translators say the Word was God which makes readers think that Jesus is the God (the person). However, in order to bring out the true meaning, some translations actually use the word ‘divine’. See below:

“In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine.”
An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

“The Logos (word) existed in the very beginning, and the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine”
by Dr. James Moffatt

So the idea that Jesus Christ is God is often and supposedly supported by John 1:1. However the rest of John’s Gospel makes careful distinctions between Jesus and his Father as well as Jesus and God. This same distinction and separation is found throughout the rest of the New Testament too. The New Testament actually goes much further than merely distinguishing and separating the two. In John 17:3 Jesus, in prayer to his Father, refers to him as “the only true God”. In John 20:17 the resurrected Jesus refers to his Father as “my Father, and your Father; and… my God, and your God.” In I Corinthians 8:6 the Apostle Paul says of Christians, “to us there is but one God, the Father.” In I Timothy 2:5 Paul states, “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In Ephesians 1:17 Paul refers to the Father as “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory.” And in Revelation 3:12 the resurrected and glorified Jesus says, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.”

We must also remember that the judges of Israel were called gods/theos. This doesn’t mean that they were part of God or part of the Trinity, it just means that they had authority given to them by God. It is also written that we can partake of divine nature, so that could also make us divine just as partaking in flesh makes us man. It must be noted though, that being divine or partaking in divine nature is different to actually being the Divine himself.

Also see John 10:34-35:
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods” (theos).
35 If he called them gods (theos), to whom the word of God (ho theos) came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,

2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

Also Jesus said that he was one with his Father and he also prayed that we would be one with them. See John 17:21
that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.

We humans were intended to share in the divine nature too, yet we are not the God. John 1:1 shows us that the Word was god (divine), not (the Word was/is the God, Yahweh) which many seem to think it says. The Word came from God, is of God, is like God, and this is consistent with the scriptures we have looked at thus far. 1 Corinthians 11:3 reinforces this statement because the word “head” in the Greek is translated “from”, source or authority. Remember that the woman came from Man and Man came from Christ and Christ came from God. This is the divine order.

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God, Jesus wasn’t created, rather the Word was born from God in eternity and that is why Jesus is called the Only Begotten of the Father. (John 1:14) (John 1:18) (John 3:16 ) (John 3:18 ) (1 John 4:9 ). The word begotten means (only child, single of its kind). Notice that our spirits are born from God, but through his Word, and our spirits will go back to God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7) . But Jesus was not begotten through the Word because he is the Word, this is why Jesus is unique because he is the only one begotten of the Father and therefore he is the image of his Father. That is why he is called the Image of God and the Firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15) and it is also why the Bible says in (Hebrews 1:5) For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father” Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”

Unlike his Father who is the invisible Spirit, Jesus does have a body and is visible. Jesus was born from God. We must remember that although his Father is greater than himself, he is also not just a man like us. Yes he partook of flesh and came as a man like us, but he also existed in the form of God as the Word or Logos. We are told that he resides between God and Man and as a man he is our mediator to God. It was indeed the Word that became flesh. God did not  become flesh, instead God resided in Christ who came in the flesh. So just like us, God can be in us who are made of flesh, but God himself did not become flesh. God is not a man and never will be a man. It was the Word who came to us as a man and it was the Word that all things  were created though. See John 1:3.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

And to compliment the fact that God made all things through his Word, and that Jesus is the Word of God, even ignoring the fact that Jesus wears a title, “The Word of God” as recorded in the Book of Revelation, we are specifically told, that God created everything through Jesus Christ. See :Hebrews 1:2
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 

So Jesus was begotten not created and again, this is why he is called God’s only begotten Son and this is why he is unique. He is seated at the right hand of God and situated between God & Man. This is also why he is the only mediator between God & Man and the only name under heaven whereby Man can be saved. God made creation through him and for him and God redeemed creation through him too. God cannot fellowship with sin that is why he sent his Son into the world, so he could bring us back to himself through his mediator. Jesus came from God and he was in the beginning with God. So what does it mean when it says ‘beginning’? The Greek word for beginning, in John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word” is ‘arche’ and this word means the following:

1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons

Below I will show you a verse where the word “beginning” or ‘arche’ is also mentioned and I think you will agree that it is rather obvious from this verse that it does not mean eternity or eternal. The verse is John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.

Just for good measure, I will also throw in the first verse in the bible, which also uses the word beginning (note that this a Hebrew word). I am sure we can all agree that the earth has not been in existence for all of eternity.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Certainly if we read John 1:1 correctly and in context with all scripture, we see that it is not teaching that God is a Trinity.

← Go back to ‘Supporting the Trinity Doctrine‘.

Discussion

Viewing 20 posts - 22,361 through 22,380 (of 26,009 total)
123…1,1181,1191,120…1,2991,3001,301
  • Author
    Posts
  • May 31, 2021 at 7:32 am#871075
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Mike,

    The funny thing is that no matter what translation I use, they all say that Jesus is identified by the Father as YHVH that laid the foundation of the earth and that the heavens are the work of His hands.

    Btw, when I hope what I post helps, I really do hope it helps. It would be pretty silly for me to spend so much time to hope it doesn’t help. Also, John never translated arche’ as “beginning.” Have you ever wondered how the word could be in the beginning and also the beginning that he was in? Wrestle with that.

    LU

    May 31, 2021 at 7:46 am#871076
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    LU:  Once again Mike represents my views as one without understanding of them. I have spoken of two persons who make  up the fullness of YHVH. One person is God the Father, another person is the one Lord, Jesus the Christ, the only begotten God.

    No, I fully understand your binity theory.  After all, it’s been almost a decade since you refined your old Trinity beliefs into your current Binity, right?  Trust me, we all know exactly what you’re saying.  And because of that, I can still say this…

    Kathi thinks “God” is an entity made up of two different Gods…  the Father and Jesus.  So when scripture says that Jesus is the son, servant, lamb, holy one, messiah, prophet and priest OF “God”, then Jesus can’t possibly BE the very “God” he is all those things OF.

    Think it out, Kathi… If “God” consists of a Father and Son Binity, then Jesus is the son of the Father and Son Binity.  Jesus is the servant of the Father and Son Binity.  Jesus is the messiah, holy one, sacrificial lamb, prophet and priest of the Father and Son Binity.

    Kathi, Jesus told us that his God was also our God, right?  Kathi… who is OUR God?  (Jesus told us, remember?)  Kathi… who is OUR God?  (What did Jesus tell us?)  Kathi… who is OUR God?

    You see?  You can’t say “the YHVH Our Righteousness Binity”, because in your imagination, that includes Jesus, right?  So if OUR God is the YHVH Binity, then Jesus’ own God is also the YHVH Binity… because Jesus clearly told us that our God was also HIS God, right?

    There is no hiding from the truth, girl.  You can run… sometimes for a very long time.  But there is no hiding from it.

     

    LU: YHVH is both God and Lord. Mike thinks that the Father is both our one God and our one Lord. Scripture says otherwise.

    You’re kidding, right?  Our you saying that the Father isn’t our Lord?  Really? 🤔  Hmm…

    Acts 4

    23On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 

    Who was leading this prayer?  Peter and John?  Hmm…  Do you suppose that they know a little more about Jesus and God than we do? Yet when they prayed to… who? GOD… they addressed Him as Sovereign Lord.  Hmm…  But Kathi says God consists of a God (the Father) and a Lord (Jesus).  How then could the Father be addressed as Peter and John’s “Lord”?  Maybe they weren’t praying to the Father.  After all, the one they were praying to made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them – and Kathi thinks that was Jesus.  Let’s continue and find out…

    25You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:

    “ ‘Why do the nations rage

    and the peoples plot in vain?

    26The kings of the earth rise up

    and the rulers band together

    against the Lord

    and against his anointed one. 

    The kings rise up against the Lord and his anointed one?  Who is this “Lord”?  According to Kathi, the “Lord” part of God is Jesus.  But that can’t be, because they mention both the Lord AND his anointed one.  And as far as I know, while Jesus is certainly the anointed one (messiah/christ) of God, he doesn’t have an anointed one of his own.  Is it possible that this “God” whom they are addressing as “Lord” is actually the Father – and his anointed one (messiah/christ) is Jesus, the Christ of God?  Wow… what a profound concept!  Could it be?  Let’s read on…

    27Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 

    Wait, so first they quote OT scripture about kings rising up against “the Lord” and “his anointed one” – and then they link that to their current time period, where Herod and Pilate actually did rise up against “the Lord” and “his anointed one”? And to top it off, they actually identify Jesus as this anointed one?  Huh.  I wonder if that’s why he’s called “Jesus Christ” – because he actually IS the anointed one of this “Lord” they are praying to.  And not only this “Lord’s” anointed one, but also his servant – according to Peter and John.  Now why on earth would Peter and John refer to the Father as “Lord”, when Kathi tells us that Jesus is the “Lord” part of the Binity God?  In fact, didn’t she just say (in a condescending tone nonetheless) that, “Mike thinks that the Father is both our one God and our one Lord. Scripture says otherwise.” ?  First of all, Mike knows (from scripture) that there are indeed MANY gods and MANY lords, so he’d never claim that the Father is our ONE Lord.  But secondly, how did this Bible passage begin again?

    24When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. “Sovereign Lord,” they said, “you made the heavens and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 

    So they are obviously praying to the Father, who is identified as both “God” AND “Sovereign Lord”.  So is the Father both our “God” and our “Lord”, Kathi?  Or does “scripture say otherwise” as you’ve erroneously stated?  Continuing on…

    28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen. 29Now, Lord, consider their threats and enable your servants to speak your word with great boldness. 30Stretch out your hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

    So they end by addressing this “God” to whom they prayed as “Lord” again, and then again identified Jesus – not as the one who created the heavens, the earth, the sea and everything in them – but as the holy servant OF that one.

    So who is the “God” and the “Lord” that created all things?  And who is his holy servant Jesus?  Are they one and the same?  Is Jesus the holy servant of a Binity comprised of himself and his own God?  Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

    LU: Mike also thinks the earth is flat…enough said.

    I’m sorry… what again what your personally observed proof that I’m wrong?  You’re like Tater saying, “Mike believes the world is only about 7000 years old, so enough said.”  As if he would know any different – or as if my beliefs on one subject would diminish anything I had to say on any other subject.

    Listen kiddies…  The Bible says the world is about 7000 years old.  And no amount of “science falsely so called” (1 Timothy 6:20) will undo what the Creator (not “creators) of the world Himself told us about the world He created.

    The Bible also says the earth is flat and stationary.  The following illustration was commissioned by Michael Heiser PhD (with whom Kathi is very familiar).  It was for his lecture on Hebrew cosmology.  Heiser himself believes the nonsense that we live on a spinning water ball orbiting the sun and flying though space at breakneck speeds in 4 different directions at once.  But just like every other Hebrew scholar who believes in the heliocentric model, he will tell you point blank that the BIBLE doesn’t teach any such thing.  The BIBLE teaches a flat and stationary earth fixed on pillars, and with a hard, crystalline firmament over it, in which God placed the lights (sun, moon, and stars) and set them on their appointed trajectories.  Here is Heiser’s commissioned illustrations of what the BIBLE teaches, and what the Hebrews truly believed about our world…

    Ancient-Hebrew-view-of-universe

    Now you can side with “science falsely so called” if you want, but do you really think it’s wise to fault me for believing God’s written word?  After all, didn’t I just quote this scripture in my last post…

    Proverbs 8:27  When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep… 

    Jesus said his and our God drew a circle on the face of the deep.  Um… how does one draw a circle on a ball?  And from Isaiah…

    40:22  He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

    A circle is not a ball.  Nor could God sit “above” a ball.  What would that even mean?  He’s “above” me in Phoenix, but not “above” Tater in New Zealand right now?  And what canopy and tent goes around a ball?  On the other hand…

    AE Map

    I think I see a circle.  I think I see something that a domed canopy or tent could cover.  But what do I and the Bible know?  We are flat earthers after all, so… enough said, right?

     

    Kathi, I can do this all day long.  Your arguments grow weaker as my knowledge increases and mine grow stronger.

     

    May 31, 2021 at 8:01 am#871077
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    LU: Also, John never translated arche’ as “beginning.”

    I never said he did.  Here’s what I said…

    But what if we just translated it as “beginning” – the default #1 definition of the Greek word – and the meaning of the same word by the same author in John 1:1?

    John used “arche” in 1:1.  The clear meaning of the word is “beginning”, “In the beginning…”  Or do you prefer, “In the originator was the Word…” ?

    LU: Have you ever wondered how the word could be in the beginning and also the beginning that he was in? Wrestle with that.

    What?  There are many “beginnings”.  “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…”  Does that mean the earth has been around as long as Jesus or his angel brethren?  No.  But the beginning in John 1:1 is linked to the beginning in Rev 3:14.  God created Jesus as the beginning/first of His works, which means the Word was with God in the beginning… that particular beginning.

    Step 1:  God created Jesus in the beginning.

    Step1a: The Word was therefore with God from this particular beginning, ie: from the moment God created him as the first of His works.

    Step 2:  Later on, God created the heavens and the earth in a different beginning.

    Kathi, I’m over Hebrews 1:10.  I want to hear your thoughts on those Proverbs 8 verses I quoted earlier… the ones where Jesus was continually telling us how he was there when GOD created this and that.  Was Jesus speaking the truth?  Was he lying?  Am I able to accept that Jesus was there shouting for joy as GOD created those things – like the passage actually says?

    May 31, 2021 at 8:41 am#871078
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Mike,

    This is a great article about those believing in a flat earth which can help you:

    https://drmsh.com/christians-who-believe-the-earth-is-really-flat-does-it-get-any-dumber-than-this/

    May 31, 2021 at 8:48 am#871079
    Berean
    Participant

     

    Mike you should read this:

    From ET.J.WAGONNER

    Christ and his righteousness
    Chapter 5
    Is Christ a created being?
    Before moving on to some of the practical lessons to be learned from these truths, we must dwell for a moment on an opinion which is honestly held by many who would not want to dishonor Christ willfully, but who because of this opinion, actually deny his Divinity. It is the idea that Christ is a created being, who, by the good pleasure of God, was raised to his present sublime position. No one with this opinion can really have a correct conception of the high position that Christ really occupies.

    The opinion in question is based on a misinterpretation of the single text of Revelation 3:14: “Write also to the angel of the church of Laodicea: This is what the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God ”. This is misinterpreted as meaning that Christ is the first being that God created; that God’s work of creation began with him. But this view is contrary to the texts of Scripture which state that Christ Himself created all things. To say that God began his work of creation by creating Christ is to leave Christ entirely out of the work of creation.

    The word translated as “beginning” is “ark” which means “head” or “chief”. It appears in the name of the Greek governor Archon, in archbishop, and in the word archangel. Let us see this last word. Christ is the Archangel. See Jude 9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; John 5:28, 29; Daniel 10:21. It does not mean that He is the first of the angels, because He is not an angel, but that He is above them. This means that he is the head or prince of angels, just as an archbishop is the head of bishops. Christ is the “head” of the angels (see Revelation 19: 11-14). He created the angels (Colossians 1:16). Likewise, the assertion that he is the beginning or the head of God’s creation means that in him the creation found its beginning; that as he himself says, he is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last (Revelation 21: 6; 22:13). He is the source where all things originate.

    Neither should we imagine that Christ is a creature, because Paul calls him “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15), for the following verses indicate that he is the creator, and not a creature. “For by him were created all things in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, thrones, dignities, dominions, authorities. All was created by him and for him. He is before all things, and all things subsist in him ”. Now, if he created all the things that were ever created, and if he existed before all created things, it is evident that he is not one of the created things. He is above all creation, and He is not a part of that creation.

    The Scriptures declare that Christ is “the only Son of God.” He is begotten, not created. As to when he was begotten, it is not for us to investigate it, and our mind would not be able to understand it if it were explained to us. The prophet Micah tells us everything we can know on this subject, with these words: “And you, Bethlehem Ephratah, little one among the thousands of Judah, from you will come forth for me the One who will rule over Israel, and whose origin goes back. in ancient times, in the days of eternity ”(Micah 5: 1, 2). There was a time when Christ appeared to come from God out of the bosom of the Father (John 8:42; 1:18), but that time was so far in the past, in the days of eternity, that for an understanding limited, this epoch is practically without beginning.

    But the important thing is that Christ is the only Son of God and not a created subject. He has by inheritance a name more excellent than that of the angels; he is a son in his own house (Hebrews 1: 4; 3: 6). And since he is the only begotten Son of God, he is of the same substance and nature as God, and possesses by birth all the attributes of God; because it pleased the Father that his Son be the exact image of his Person, the shine of his glory, and be filled with all the fullness of the Godhead. Thus, he has “life in himself”; he possesses immortality by virtue of his own right, and can grant it to others. Life is natural in him, therefore it cannot be taken from him; but having voluntarily given his life, he can take it back. He said “this is why the Father loves me: it is because I give my life, so that I can take it back. No one takes it from me, but I give it of myself; I have the power to give it, and I have the power to take it back: I have received this command from my Father ”(John 10:17, 18).

    If anyone brings up the old objection, namely, How could Christ be immortal and yet die ?, we just have to say that we don’t know. We

    do not pretend to understand everything about infinity. We cannot understand how Christ could be God in the beginning, sharing the same glory with the Father before the world was, and yet be born as a baby in Bethlehem. The mystery of the crucifixion and the resurrection is only the mystery of the incarnation. We cannot understand how Christ could be God and become man for our good. We cannot understand how he could create the world out of nothing, nor how he could raise the dead, nor how he can work by his Spirit in our own hearts; however, we believe and know these things. It should be enough for us to accept as truth what God has revealed, without stumbling upon things which the intellect cannot comprehend. Also, we rejoice in the infinite power and glory which the scriptures declare to be Christ’s, without tormenting our limited mind in a vain attempt to explain infinity.

    Finally, we know the divine unity of the Father and the Son because both have the same spirit. Paul, after having said that those who are in the flesh cannot please God, continues: “for you, you do not live according to the flesh, but according to the spirit, if it is true that the spirit of God dwells. In you ; but if any man does not have the spirit of Christ, he is not his ”(Romans 8: 9). Here we find that the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God and the spirit of Christ. Christ “is in the bosom of the Father”; being by nature of the same substance as God, and having life in himself, he is rightly called Jehovah, the only self-existent one, and in Jeremiah 23: 6 it is said of him, that a righteous germ will execute judgment and righteousness on the earth, will be known as Jehovah-tsidekenu “the Lord our righteousness”.

    Let no one therefore, who claims to honor Christ, grant him less honor than he grants to the Father, for that would be dishonoring the Father. May all, along with the angels of heaven, worship the Son, without fear of worshiping and serving the creature instead of the Creator.

    And now, as the truth of Christ’s divinity is clear in our minds, let us stop to consider the wonderful story of his humiliation.

    GOD BLESS

     

    May 31, 2021 at 9:11 am#871080
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Great post Berean!

    May 31, 2021 at 9:18 am#871081
    carmel
    Participant

    1 Corinthians 15:27

    YOU: Now read your passage again with the discernment Paul showed here…

    For he “has put everything under his feet.”Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself,……

    The above scripture Mike has nothing to do with “ALL THINGS JESUS RIGHT NOW POSSESSES” thus it is not referring to

    JESUS CHRIST CURRENT GLORIFIED STATE AS GODMAN, But it is referring to

    everything which Jesus Christ’s ENEMIES ARE STILL REJECTING, PRECISELY that

    JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY MANIFESTED ON EARTH THE TRUE 

    GODMAN MALE AND FEMALE ANDROGYNOUS! 

    NOW READ:

    Hebrews 1:13 ….. Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?

    In the above, it is evidently clear that Jesus Christ is seated on God’s right-hand waiting for the Father to make His/Jesus’ enemies His footstool.

    IT IS GOD’S TASK BY THE HOLY SPIRIT TO ESTABLISH

    JESUS CHRIST OFFICIALLY ON EARTH AS

    THE ONLY TRUE GOD/HUMAN, MALE AND FEMALE, ANDROGYNOUS!

    DISCERN THE TRUTH MIKE:

    MANY THAT ARE FIRST BECOME LAST AND LAST FIRST! Read:

    John16:14 He shall glorify ME;

    The Holy Spirit glorified the Father throughout the OT, but from Jesus’ glorification, He is glorifying JESUS CHRIST, NOT THE FATHER but for the PLEASURE of the Father as well.

    THE FATHER AND I ARE ONE!

    because he shall receive of MINE, and shall show it to you. 

    THE HOLY SPIRIT RECEIVED JESUS’ UNIQUE GLORIFIED HUMAN/DIVINE ATTRIBUTES, WELL CLEAR IN

    Acts 2o:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the HOLY GHOST  hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with HIS OWN BLOOD. 

    ATTENTION MIKE!!!

    15 ALL THINGS whatsoever the Father hath,

    ARE MINE,

    OK MIKE THE ABOVE ARE ALL GOD’S THINGS JESUS POSSESSES, WHILE THE FATHER IS IN HIS LONGEST REST!

    Therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and SHOW IT TO YOU.

     

    John20:17 Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to (the glory of) my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them:

    I ascend to (the UNIQUE glory of) my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God. 

    John17:5And now glorify thou me, O Father, WITH YOURSELF with the glory which I had,

    before the world was, with thee. (THE EMBODIMENT OF GOD, JESUS CHRIST PRE-EXISTENCE) 

    YOU: When Jesus says all of God’s things are also his, he is talking about

    the many things….

    ME:NO MIKE NOT THE MANY THINGS BUT

    ALL THINGS that God, YHVH, has given to HIS Son Jesus. 

    So, this does include the title of Most High God OR ELSE 

    GOD WOULD HAVE FAILED AND IS NOT ALMIGHTY AT ALL!

    GOD IN JESUS CHRIST MIKE, WHETHER YOU ACCEPT IT OR NOT FROM THE CROSS IS EMBODIED IN THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE NO MATTER WHO AND WHAT!

    GOD OF ALL FLESH!!!

    For the sake and pleasure of the Father.Till the last day of the lord, when God would be

    ALL IN ALL!

    Peace and love in Jesus Christ

     

    May 31, 2021 at 9:59 am#871082
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Mike,

    Regarding this passage, think of the “companions” as the other Davidic kings:

    …8But about the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever, and justice is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;therefore God, Your God, has anointed You above Your companions with the oil of joy.”

    That is how I see it. It is speaking of the Son in His Messianic role, according to thee flesh. The “companions” are not the angels. The bulk of the chapter is showing His superiority to the angels, the Son was never one of the angels. The Son actually created the angels in the beginning, way before He became flesh and after He became flesh He was given sole authority over the angels.

    May 31, 2021 at 10:10 am#871083
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Mike,

    A3D8991C-061E-4887-936C-A2B781378609

    From your favorite translation, the NET Bible.

     

    May 31, 2021 at 10:47 am#871084
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Mike,

    Proverbs 8 does not mention the word “God” but instead “YHVH.” Wisdom is “possessed” by YHVH, meaning YHVH had wisdom there before His first work. Therefore, wisdom couldn’t be His first work if He existed before His first work. Wisdom was and is a member of YHVH, the Unity, and it was through that member that The YHVH Unity created all things. That member delighted in the creation of YHVH which He was a member of.

    Also, in the NT, when you see the word “Lord” you should be careful to distinguish that word from Lord and LORD in meaning. For instance, the sovereign “Lord” who created the heavens and the earth through the Son, would be YHVH or LORD. As Prov 8 tells us, Wisdom was the craftsman for YHVH as a possession of YHVH or member of YHVH.

    It is up to the context to help you see if YHVH is who is meant by the term “Lord.”. Heb 1:10 is a perfect example of that where an OT passage is quoted which is about YHVH, and the Father identifies the Son as that YHVH.

    I do hope that helps, LU

     

    May 31, 2021 at 2:59 pm#871085
    gadam123
    Participant

    Hi Sis Kathi, thank you so much for your kindness and concern for me.

    I’m sorry to hear of your struggle in making sense of Jesus Christ. My constant debate with Mike has been very helpful to bring me deeper into my relationship with the Lord Jesus and to really know Him as the only begotten God and YHVH my righteousness in-spite of Mike’s lack to receive that truth. Don’t give up seeking Jesus. He is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father apart from Him. The search has eternal consequences and eternal rewards. If you deny Jesus, poor health will be the least of your concerns. If you believe in Jesus as the Lord of your life, you will learn to find peace that lasts for an eternity as you trust Him and His Father and are filled with their Spirit.

    My friend, our discomfort on this earth is so small compared to the eternal joy that awaits those who believe in Jesus as their Savior.

    Matt 6:25“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Isn’t there more to life than food and more to the body than clothing? 26Look at the birds in the sky: They do not sow, or reap, or gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren’t you more valuable than they are? 27And which of you by worrying can add even one hour to his life? 28Why do you worry about clothing? Think about how the flowers of the field grow; they do not work or spin. 29Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these! 30And if this is how God clothes the wild grass, which is here today and tomorrow is tossed into the fire to heat the oven, won’t he clothe you even more, you people of little faith? 31So then, don’t worry saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ 32For the unconverted pursue these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33But above all pursue his kingdom and righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34So then, do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Today has enough trouble of its own.

    I hope that helps, LU

    In fact I know you and Sis Mandy for quite some time on this Heaven Net but unfortunately Mandy is no more active on this Forum. We used to have very good positive deliberation during the years 2009-11. I left Heaven Net due to my ill health in 2011 and joined back this Forum recently after 10 years. Nice to see you all. I like the approach of you, Sis Mandy, T8 and brother Gene here. We need not go to personal attacks during these unending debates. Thank you so much for your advice to me on not to loose heart. I know I get strength only from God these days as we are in the midst of Pandemic in India.

    Recently I had gone through the thread on “The Most High God?” and read all your posts and others. I think our NT and Christianity created a great confusion on these doctrines on God. When we had only the Hebrew Bible there was no confusion on the Most high God but the NT writers included Jesus the supposed Messiah to be a Godly being along with the only God Yahweh available in the Hebrew Bible. This is where I am struck and started to unlearn every thing I had learned as a Christian. I am now on neutral ground and visualising these concepts in the light of the Hebrew Bible and interpreting the NT writings in the light of its original source the Hebrew Bible.

    I still think I am a true Christian like every one in this Forum as I still pray to God in Jesus name daily. I have not left my beliefs on Jesus as my personal saviour.

    But my quest continues in spite of my personal beliefs with a skeptic approach.

    Thanks and peace to you…..Adam

     

    May 31, 2021 at 3:27 pm#871086
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Hi gadam123,

    I remember you from back then. I’m glad that you can see that the NT teaches Jesus as God. Did you notice that it also teaches that he is the Lord of lords?

    You are right about there being much confusion. That is good that you are seeking to sort it all out. Unity in truth is worth pursuing. In heaven we will see clearly. This side of heaven will be not as clear, thus confusion. I can easily find YouTube videos in agreement of what I believe, also, I can find agreement with the early church father’s beliefs. That is comforting to me that I am on the right path. I would be happy to help you.

    That COVID-19 has really turned the world upside down to some degree. One good thing that I see that it has done is shown us that many jobs can be done from home, as well as school can be done from home. I home schooled my five kids so that wasn’t so new to me. My son got the virus and had a history of asthma. He got through it just fine. I think that the US is getting back to being more normal, thank God. For me, the biggest change was not going to church every week. I really missed that. I am just now starting to go back.

    May God protect you and guide you, LU

    Btw, even John the Baptist doubted, not for long though.

     

    May 31, 2021 at 4:39 pm#871087
    gadam123
    Participant

    Hello Mike, thanks for your posts to me.

    You:

    You see that, gadam?  This is why I’m here.  This is how it is done.  I can’t force the horses to drink, but it is a very light yoke for me to keep leading them to the water.  Eventually, they might just accept the scriptures for what they clearly say, and stop twisting them.  I mean, what if Kathi finally decides to accept that Jesus is the BEGINNING of the creation by God, was CREATED as the first of God’s works, and is the firstborn of every CREATURE God created?  What if she some day comes to accept that Jesus is the son, servant, messiah, holy one, lamb, prophet, and priest OF God – and as such can’t possibly BE the very God he is all those things OF?  When that happens, my efforts will not have been in vain.

    Btw gadam, since you and I are debating about Micah 5:2 (an OT scripture), will you now reject the OT along with the NT?  That was your argument, right?  Since the NT causes debate, we should just pretend like it doesn’t exist, right?  So will you now dump the OT as well?  Just curious.

    Me: The problem with our NT as I repeatedly mention here that it is not in unity on the doctrine of Jesus. I think you are struck with one aspect of this nature of Jesus where you repeatedly quote Rev 3:14 and Col 1:15. I agree there is ambiguity of these verses which were written in the later part of First Century. Christian doctrines developed as the time passed even if you see beyond the NT period. We can’t rely fully on these developed ideas. That is the reason why I am looking towards the original source the Hebrew Bible for critically analysing these ideas.

    Coming to the verses you quoted to support Jesus’ preexistence in the Hebrew Bible Prov 8 and Micah 5;

    The Hebrew Bible or the religion of Hebrews never mention about another godly being along with God Yahweh unless Christianity force these verses you quoted to suit its ideas. We should understand the Hebrew religion from their point of view and not from our Christian biased view.

    Here is the one explanation of a Christian not a Jew on Prov 8:22-30:

    “When you tell Jehovah’s Witnesses that Jesus is uncreated, they are likely to take you directly to Proverbs 8:22–30 in their New World Translation (NWT). They believe this is undeniable proof that Jesus was the first created creature. Before looking specifically at this passage, we should familiarize ourselves with the context. This chapter begins with a personification of wisdom as a woman calling out in the streets. A personification is a figure of speech where human qualities are given to non-human things. For example, telling my wife that opportunity is knocking at her door is a personification of opportunity. It would be foolish for her to go check the door to see if someone is literally there knocking. Opportunity is not an actual person. In the case of Proverbs 8, personal qualities are attributed to the virtue of wisdom so that it sounds like a person (Prov. 8:12), but it’s not really a person.

    Solomon’s primary intent of verses 22–30 is to communicate that God used wisdom when He created the world. God was wise from the beginning. David echoes this idea in the Psalms. He writes, “O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures” (Psa. 104:24). Solomon stresses the same point. He writes, “The Lord possessed me [wisdom] at the beginning of his work” and “I [wisdom] was beside Him, like a master workman…” (Prov. 8:22, 30). The question is, is this passage about more than wisdom?

    Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that this description moves beyond a personification to describing a personality; namely, it describes the person of Christ. Furthermore, their NWT translates verse 22 as “Jehovah produced me as the beginning of His way” (Prov. 8:22). According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, if wisdom was created, and the wisdom of God is Jesus (1 Cor. 1:30), then Solomon must be saying that Jesus was created.

    The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ argument hinges on the meaning of the verb qanah, which they translate as produced, or created. There are two reasons to reject the NWT’s rendering. First, most Bible scholars, think that possess is the best translation of the original language. Therefore, Solomon is saying that Jehovah possessed wisdom, not that He created it. If Jehovah didn’t create wisdom, then their argument that Jesus was created disappears.

    Second, logic demands that the Jehovah’s Witness translation be disregarded. Clearly, Jehovah could not have produced wisdom. Wisdom is one of His essential attributes that Jehovah has possessed from eternity. If the NWT is correct, then Jehovah lacked wisdom until He produced it. Since Jehovah is eternal, this means that He eternally existed without the virtue of wisdom until He produced it a finite time ago.

    If this passage comes up in discussion with your Jehovah’s Witness friends, ask them, “Do you believe that Jehovah lacked wisdom?” This question puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they answer yes, then their view of God is mistaken. The God of the Bible is omniscient, which means all-wise. Therefore, there cannot be a time when He lacked wisdom.

    If they say no, then their translation of verse 22 is mistaken. The NWT clearly says, “Jehovah produced wisdom.” God could not have produced wisdom since He already possessed it.

    Your Jehovah’s Witness friends might object at this point. “This passage isn’t about wisdom; it’s about Jesus,” they might exclaim. However, this response makes a gross exegetical error. Whether or not someone believes this passage applies to Christ, we all recognize that it is at least talking about the virtue of wisdom. It may be about the virtue of wisdom only, or it may be about the virtue of wisdom and Jesus. But the context will not allow this text to be about Jesus alone.

    At this point, I need to employ an important hermeneutical principle. When it comes to Scripture, you always interpret what is unclear in light of what is clear. That is, you start with what is clear and work out to what is less clear. Reinterpreting clear passages to make them fit with less clear passages is bad hermeneutics. Yet, Jehovah’s Witnesses do this all the time.

    For example, I was discussing John 1:3 with a Jehovah’s Witness to establish that Jesus is the uncreated Creator. He responded by citing Proverbs 8:22 and stating, “Jesus is Jehovah’s first creation.” Given what I’ve have already said about John 1:3 and Proverbs 8:22, it should be obvious to any honest person that the former is much more clear than the latter. Consequently, it would be an egregious error to reinterpret a straightforward passage, like John 1:3, to accommodate a debatable reading of Proverbs 8:22.”

    I will reply on Micah 5:2 in my next post.

    May 31, 2021 at 8:03 pm#871088
    gadam123
    Participant

    Hi Mike,

    You:

    Btw gadam, since you and I are debating about Micah 5:2 (an OT scripture), will you now reject the OT along with the NT?  That was your argument, right?  Since the NT causes debate, we should just pretend like it doesn’t exist, right?  So will you now dump the OT as well?  Just curious.

    Me: Here is the explanation on Micah 5:2;

    Micah does not speak or write about Jesus. He fulminates against the the people in high places. The “big” city Jerusalem was not, is not, and will not be the place where Jacob’s children will find peace of mind. He refers to Bethlehem where the legendary David 250 years earlier was born. The text of Micah has had an overhaul after the Babylonian exile to its current form. The text does not refer to Jesus.

    Here are the arguments from Jewish perspectives on Micah 5:

    I’ll note a few things about the Book of Micah, when it is supposed to have been written, and a few more contextual comments on the passage in question;

    1- The Book of Micah: When was Micah active and when were the events in the book supposed to have occurred, and when was the Book written?

    a) When was Micah active and when were the events in the book supposed to have occurred?

    Micah’s very first verse – the superscription – gives an indication of when the book’s events took place: The word of [YHWH] that came to Micah the Morashtite, who prophesied concerning Samaria and Jerusalem in the reigns of King Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah. (Michah 1:1, NJPS)

    Here are the regnal dates for the Judahite kings mentioned (from the Anchor Bible Dictionary):

    Jotham = 759-743 (during the events of Isaiah 1-39)

    Ahaz = 743-727 (also during the events of Isaiah 1-39)

    Hezekiah = 727-698

    So, we have a time period of from 759-698 BCE. The two cites mentioned (Samaria and Jersualem) were the capitals of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms (respectively), though most of the Book deals with Judah specifically, only using the Northern Kingdom and Samaria as an object-lesson of what will also befall Jersualem (Samaria was conqured by the Assyrians prior circa 722 BCE – during the reign of Hezekiah in the Southern Kingdom. This superscription gives us our only information about Micah’s supposed prophetic activity and when it occurred.

    b) When was the book written?

    Problems arise, however. Micah 4:10 and 7:11-13 make pretty precise references (4:10 especially) to the Babylonian Exile and the events following it (c. 586-440 BCE). So we have a gap of over a 100 years between the events recorded in the book – (the prophecies, such as they are when this gap is realized) – and the writing of the book, or at least the final version of the book. So whoever wrote the book was writing long after the fact, supposedly. Some scholars have found what they consider to be the “authentic” material of Micah in the Book. Delbert R. Hillers writes, in the entry on “Micah, Book of” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Ewald (1867) and especially Stade (1881; 1883;1884; 1903) distinguished genuine from inauthentic and late elements in the book, using arguments that have seemed persuasive to most, and have remained decisive for much subsequent study. Only chaps. 1-3 are the genuine words of Micah, and from these 2:12-13 must be subtracted as intrusive in its context. The hopeful material of the rest of the book contradicts chaps. 1-3 and must be discounted, especially in the view of Jeremiah 26:18, which knows Micah only as a prophet of doom…. Micah 4:1-4 is the same as Isaiah 2:2-4, the only substantial difference being the addition in Micah of the line beginning: “But they shall sit every man under his vine.” (Vol. 4, pp. 808-809, Doubleday, 1992)

    2- What is the “hopeful material” that our oft-quoted passage in question is a part of? The Book of Micah is made up of several subsections – prophecies. The Jewish Study Bible lists them as follows:

    a) 1:2-2:13 = concerns mostly divine judgement, exile, and social ethics, but – as expected – also provides hope for the future (2:5, 12-13)

    b) 3:1-12 = explains the fall of Jerusalem in terms of wrongful leadership

    c) 4:1-5:14 = [our area of interest!] raises diverse images of a utopian future and touches on aspects of the relations between Israel and the nations at that time

    d) 6:1-8 = a didactic prophecy

    e) 6:9-16 = another explanation for the judgement that fell upon monarchic Jerusalem

    f) 7:1-7 = an expression of trust in [YHWH] in spite of and as a response to social disintegration

    g) 7:7-20 = finally, a confirmation of [YHWH’s] distinct relationship with Zion and Judah that leads to an upbeat conclusion of the entire book. (Ehud ben Zvi, Introduction to Micah, p. 1205, Oxford) As previously mentioned, the doom-and-gloom chapters of 1-3 now give way to the “inauthentic” material of the book, and the Utopian Vision of the Future. The Anchor Bible Dictionary gives us good information on the passage in question, and it’s context: The Return of the Great Ruler from Bethlehem (5:1-4) is foretold in one of the book’s most famous and influential passages, especially among Christian interpreters (cf. Matt 2:6; John 7:40-43).

    He is to reunite the people and bring peace. Aspects of this promised peace are depicted in the next three oracles: 1) Assyria eliminated (5:4-5) 2) The Irresistible Might of Jacob (5:6-8) 3) The Purified Nation (5:9-14). Alien elements that offend Yahweh – chariots, cities, divination, idols – will be removed, and the people’s triumph over their enemies will follow. (Heller, “Micah, Book of”, p. 808) A few comments are appropriate contextually. First, the initial section regarding the Return of the Great Ruler:

    “And you, O Bethlehem of Ephrath, Least among the clans of Judah, From you one shall come forth To rule Israel for Me – One whose origin is from of old, From ancient times. Truly, He will leave them [helpless] Until she who is to bear has borne; Then the rest of his countrymen Shall return to the children of Israel. He shall stand and shepherd By the might of [YHWH], By the power of the name Of [YHWH] his God, And they shall dwell [secure]. For lo, he shall wax great To the ends of the earth; And that shall afford safety.” (Micah 5:1-4a, NJPS)

    3- The misuse and misunderstanding of Christian exegetes who confused the translation in 5:1 of a clan with a city. Ephrath was the clan to which the Bethlehemites belonged to, so this also gives us a pretty clear reference to David (who came from this clan), his descendants and the promise of another Davidic King to act as a ruler or shepherd (after “she who is to bear has borne” him) to protect and deliver the people from the threat of Assyria. Further prophecies detail this rulers smashing of Assyria, and all other foes of Israel until the Utopian future has arrived. Well – it seems pretty clear that contextually, (like Insane has pointed out) this passage has absolutely nothing to do with the later birth of Jesus of Nazareth (except in the minds of those skilled in taking verses out of context), who did not destroy the Assyrians and Nimrod – by the way. The Assyrians were destroyed eventually, but by Neo-Babylonian hands; not by a Davidic King. The further language of the oracles point to a fiercely military leader, one who destroys and crushes Israel’s foes – hardly in line with later Christian teaching of a “spiritual” victory (since any chance of an earthly military victory over Israel’s enemies was halted by his untimely crucifixion) through death for the sake of all mankind.

    a) Matthew’s exercise in Creative Writing George A. Buttrick, in The Interpreter’s Bible, offers additional comments concerning Ancient Warrior’s comparison of Micah with Matthew’s version: The Targum paraphrases Micah 5:2 thus: “Out of thee shall go before me the Messiah, to exercise lordship over Israel, whose name is known to me since the beginning.” Matthew’s quotation is not from the LXX; apparently it is a fresh translation from the Hebrew, and the wording is changed: Bethlehem once was, but is no longer, least among the rulers of Judah (Godspeed: “leading places of Judah”). Some scholars believe that OT prophecy is the sole source of the tradition that Jesus was born there. (p. 258, Abingdon, New York, 1951). In other words, the attempts by Matthew to place Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem (causing all sorts of problems, since he was known to have come from Nazareth!) are based on his obsession with finding anything remotely twistable in the service of his agenda to absolutely prove to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah – even if he had to rewrite Scripture to do so, and add incidents to the life of Jesus.

    b) A targum, by the way, is an Aramaic translation AND interpretation of the original Hebrew text. They frequently diverge from the literal and originally intended meaning of the Hebrew text. This is easily determined by comparing the two, and the various comments in the Talmud concerning targuming. Alfred Edersheim, in his Jewishly apologetic The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah, notes that when Targuming, the New Testament writers should in preference make use of such a well-known and widely-spread version as the Translation of the Septuagint needs no explanation. That they did not confine themselves to it, but, when it seemed necessary, literally or Targumically rendered a verse, appears from the actual quotations in the New Testament. (p. 144, Hendrickson Vers., 1993, orig. 1883) He mentions in a footnote that “in point of fact, the Talmud expressly lays it down, that ‘whosever targums a verse in its closely literal form [without due regard to its meaning], is a liar.’ ” So I guess the question still remains: was the writer of the Gospel of Matthew engaging in this?

    Your repeated stress on “Ancient times” does not support any thing on your strange ideas on Jesus being created by God in (so called) ancient times. Hope this will help you.

    May 31, 2021 at 9:31 pm#871089
    gadam123
    Participant

    ……Continued from my previous post on Micah 5:2;

    Micah was a prophet in the days of King Hezekiah of Judah. The key moment of his reign was the Assyrian threat on his kingdom when they laid siege to the capital city of Jerusalem. Being a righteous man (according to the biblical writer), Micah apparently comes to the rescue with a “word from the Lord.”

    As a prophet, his job was to offer moral support to a righteous king. After all, there was no way God was not going to support and rescue a devout worshiper so it was expected God would send word of encouragement.

    Micah believed a hero for the moment would come from an ancient family line that went back as far as the early days of Israel’s ascendancy in Canaan. The family name was Bethlehem-Ephrathah, Bethlehem being the great grand descendant of Caleb through is marriage to Ephrathah (See I Chronicles 2:18 and 42-50). Yes, Bethlehem and Ephrathah were actually people and not just the name of Judean towns that apparently came to bear their names. This might come as a surprise to some.

    They appear to have been a small clan (Micah mentions this) but had a distinction of an ancient lineage (from days of old) and legacy coming through a legendary figure – Caleb. That Micah is definitely NOT predicting Jesus or anyone beyond his time is made clear in the fifth verse of the chapter where we are given a time-line for this hero’s appearance. He tells us that this “one,” who would restore the peace would step up ‘When the Assyrian comes into our land.’

    Jesus cannot qualify because the Assyrians had long ceased to be a people 700 years BEFORE the time of Jesus. At no point in Jesus’ life would he have ever met Assyrians nor was there ever an Assyrian Invasion of Judea during his time nor are we told there will ever be.

    Critical view: If we look at the context of the chapter, it speaks of war, notably with the advancing Assyrians. The very first verse calls for troop gathering. To show that Micah himself spouted a prophesy that never came to pass much less prophesying about Jesus, he predicts that this Jewish hero would drive the Assyrians back to their land AND will lay waste to their empire. While Assyria did meet this fate, it was NOT a Jewish hero who led to the demise of that empire. That honour goes to the Babylonians.

    June 1, 2021 at 4:47 am#871090
    gadam123
    Participant

    Hi Sis Kathi, thanks for your encouraging words.

    Hi gadam123,

    I remember you from back then. I’m glad that you can see that the NT teaches Jesus as God. Did you notice that it also teaches that he is the Lord of lords?

    You are right about there being much confusion. That is good that you are seeking to sort it all out. Unity in truth is worth pursuing. In heaven we will see clearly. This side of heaven will be not as clear, thus confusion. I can easily find YouTube videos in agreement of what I believe, also, I can find agreement with the early church father’s beliefs. That is comforting to me that I am on the right path. I would be happy to help you.

    That COVID-19 has really turned the world upside down to some degree. One good thing that I see that it has done is shown us that many jobs can be done from home, as well as school can be done from home. I home schooled my five kids so that wasn’t so new to me. My son got the virus and had a history of asthma. He got through it just fine. I think that the US is getting back to being more normal, thank God. For me, the biggest change was not going to church every week. I really missed that. I am just now starting to go back.

    May God protect you and guide you, LU

    Btw, even John the Baptist doubted, not for long though.

    Yes I am honest in search for truth. I too agree that our NT gave much divinely active role to Jesus like his role in God’s creation, Salvation(Soteriology) and the future role as God’s Judge and Life-giver etc. But I find these godly roles given to Jesus the supposed Messiah is some thing strange when compared to the religion of the Hebrew Bible. This is where I am on my new search for truth behind these changed religious concepts on the Messiah in the light of Hebrew Bible.

    Yes, really the COVID19 has changed every thing in our lives but it has caused much havoc and fear among people. I can understand as a mother it’s very difficult for you to go through such challenging times. But you are a daring lady in spite of your busy life as a mother of 5 kids you are still finding time to answer these unending debates on this Heaven Net. Hats off to you.

    We are slowly showing decline in positive count of COVID cases and even reduction of death count in India.  Our Vaccination process is too slow and it may take up to December 2021 to complete at least for the population above the age of 18 years with this speed. Hoping for good days ahead too like USA and countries.

    Thanks and peace to you……Adam

    June 1, 2021 at 5:38 am#871091
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    LU: Mike,

    This is a great article about those believing in a flat earth which can help you…

    Okay Tater Jr.  (That’s his “defense” of the Satanic ball earth too… just posting articles and videos of other people saying stuff.)  Tell me, Kathi, what particular flat earth argument have I made that this article addresses?  In what way is that particular argument refuted in this article?

    I’ll tell you what… if you can tell me how God could draw a circle on the face of the great deep (which was the spherical earth before it was fully formed in your opinion), then I might read your article.

    If you can tell me how God looks down on the circle of the earth and sees all its inhabitants as grasshoppers (if the earth is a ball with people on opposite sides of it), then I might read your article.

    If you can tell me how God is “above” both me in Arizona and Tater in NZ at the same time, then I might read your article.

    (Of course you can’t tell me those things because they don’t align with your heliocentric fantasy – and therefore you have only ridicule and articles from other people to offer.  So I suggest that YOU read the article first, find the rebuttal to the “circle of the earth” verses, put those arguments into your own words, and scripturally explain how they could be talking about a ball earth.  Otherwise, just stick to “ridicule from a position of utter ignorance”.)

    Like I’ve already mentioned, even the Biblical scholars who “KNOW” that we live on a spinning ball orbiting the sun will tell you that the Hebrew cosmology of the Bible is a flat, stationary earth affixed to pillars, and with a hard dome over the top of it, in which God placed the sun, the moon, and the stars.  Face it… the Bible teaches a flat, stationary  earth with lights in the firmament that run their God-appointed courses above it.  And the only argument you can possibly make against that is Tater’s argument that they were just ignorant sheep herders who didn’t know any better.  He forgets that their knowledge of our world came from God’s own descriptions of the world that He Himself created.

    June 1, 2021 at 7:00 am#871092
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Berean: Mike you should read this: 

    From ET.J.WAGONNER

    Christ and his righteousness
    Chapter 5

    Hi Berean, I did read it, and it is the epitome of every misunderstanding/twisting of scripture that I’ve been trying to clarify for almost 15 years here.  Let me hit just a few highlights and ask you (and Kathi who praised this article) to defend those arguments.

    No one with this opinion can really have a correct conception of the high position that Christ really occupies.

    As Kathi will attest, I’ve been arguing for years that those who want Jesus to be the very God he is the Son of do so because they have a personal desire to place Jesus in a higher position than he placed himself.  Jesus knew and taught that he was a willing servant of his and our God.  It is only the aforementioned personal desire that causes some people to go against what Jesus taught about himself, and try to make him into the very God he told us he serves.  Here’s an example…

    John 3:17  God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.…

    John 3:38  For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.

    So who sent Jesus into the world?  God.  Whose will did Jesus come down from heaven to do?  God’s will.  Was God’s will also Jesus’ will?  Apparently not, since Jesus clearly said he was NOT here to do HIS OWN will, but to do the will of his God.  You believe “God” is some combination of the Father and Jesus, but that would mean that God (“Father & Son Combo”) sent HIS (?) Son into the world.  It would mean that Jesus came, not to do his will, but the will of God (“Father & Son Combo”).  Do you see how we’re already mired in nonsense?

    [Rev 3:14] is misinterpreted as meaning that Christ is the first being that God created; that God’s work of creation began with him. But this view is contrary to the texts of Scripture which state that Christ Himself created all things.

    Ah… but it’s NOT contrary IF there exists no scripture that says Christ created all things, right?  And since there exists no scripture in the entire Bible that says Jesus created anything at all, there is no contradiction. (I refer you again to Acts 4 – where Peter, John, and a bunch of Jesus’ other disciples prayed to the God who created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and EVERYTHING in them… and then identified Jesus as the holy servant OF that one.)  And with no contradiction, the word “arche” in Rev 3:14 has, as its #1 default meaning, “beginning”.  The same meaning of the same word in John 1:1 – which was written by the same author.

    Christ is the Archangel. See Jude 9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; John 5:28, 29; Daniel 10:21.  It does not mean that He is the first of the angels, because He is not an angel…

    The word “angel” is the English translation of Hebrew and Greek words that both literally mean “messenger”.  When the “messenger” in question is thought to be a supernatural being, English translators use “angel”.  So is Jesus a supernatural messenger of his God?

    Rev 1:1  The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.

    Yep.  Jesus, who at this time was a supernatural being back in heaven, was delivering a message that his God gave him to deliver.  So Jesus is a supernatural messenger of God, ie: an angel of God.  And btw, the word “archangel” most definitely DOES mean that the person with that title is one of that group.  Michael cannot be an archangel without also being an angel.  Archangel means a leader among the angels, ie: “lead angel”.  And just as a “lead prosecutor” must BE a prosecutor to be the lead one, an archangel must BE an angel to be a “lead angel”.

    Neither should we imagine that Christ is a creature, because Paul calls him “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15), for the following verses indicate that he is the creator, and not a creature.

    And again – just as with Rev 3:14 – their only argument is that Jesus can’t be a creation if he is the Creator.  But he’s not the Creator.  His and our own God is the Creator.  You see what they’re doing, Berean?  It’s the same thing you and Kathi do.  You try to eliminate the most logical default meaning of the Greek word by saying it would contradict this other thing – when the “other thing” isn’t even scriptural!

    The Scriptures declare that Christ is “the only Son of God.” He is begotten, not created. As to when he was begotten, it is not for us to investigate it, and our mind would not be able to understand it if it were explained to us. 

    If one is “begotten”, then they are a new “creation”… hence the word “procreate“.

    Gen 4:1  Now the man had marital relations with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, “I have created a man just as the LORD did!”

    Btw, that’s the same Hebrew word as in Proverbs 8:22 – where God created wisdom/Jesus as the first of His works.  But the point is that I “created” my son, just as Kathi “created” her children.  Likewise, God “begetting” Jesus is the same as God “bringing Jesus forth into existence” – which is the same as God “creating” Jesus.  It is good that your author does mention that there was a time when the independent entity of Jesus did not exist, and at some point was brought forth into existence. (Of course they go on to cloud this fact with fantasies about Jesus existing inside of his and our God before God expelled him and made him his own entity – but that stuff is not only unscriptural, it’s nonsensical.)

    …will be known as Jehovah-tsidekenu “the Lord our righteousness”.

    Properly translated: Jehovah IS our righteousness.  The city of Jerusalem is given the same, identical title in scripture, but it doesn’t mean Jerusalem is “Jehovah” – or even one of the members of your “Godhead”, right?  This is just another case of people with a pressing desire trying to force the scriptures into teaching something they clearly don’t teach.

    That’s enough for now, but let me leave you with a simple question, Berean…

    According to scripture, is Jesus the holy servant of the one who created the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them?  YES or NO, please?

     

     

    June 1, 2021 at 7:14 am#871093
    mikeboll64
    Blocked

    Mike:  Now read your passage again with the discernment Paul showed here…

    For he “has put everything under his feet.”Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself,……

    Carmel: The above scripture Mike has nothing to do with “ALL THINGS JESUS RIGHT NOW POSSESSES” thus it is not referring to JESUS CHRIST CURRENT GLORIFIED STATE AS GODMAN…

    It has everything to do with it.  You’re trying to make the case that the word “all” absolutely must mean every single thing in every single context.  My verse shows Paul nipping people like you in the bud by explaining things that most people don’t even need explained to them.  For example, when it’s said that God created the heavens and the earth and EVERYTHING in them, it’s clear that this does not include God Himself – who is one of those things in heaven.

    It’s just my way of letting Paul show you that you’re getting a little carried away by saying God gave Jesus EVERYTHING – INCLUDING GODSHIP  or whatever.  You’re taking things to far.  Use discernment. And for Pete’s sake, stop using the unscriptural term “GODMAN”.  There is no such thing.

    June 1, 2021 at 7:23 am#871094
    Lightenup
    Participant

    Mike,

    For one:

    You asked: If you can tell me how God is “above” both me in Arizona and Tater in NZ at the same time, then I might read your article.

    If you put a ball under a ceiling light, the light is above the whole ball.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 20 posts - 22,361 through 22,380 (of 26,009 total)
123…1,1181,1191,120…1,2991,3001,301
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

 

CREATE NEW TOPIC
ACTIVE TOPICS
POPULAR TOPICS
SITE SEARCH
SUPPORT US
REGISTER

Recent Replies

ALL REPLIES →

© 1999 - 2026 Heaven Net

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

Create Account