Jesus, the lessor god ?

[JAYMZ]

How do Jehovahs witnesses reconcile these verses ?

Verses like Isaiah 43:10 and Isaiah 46:9 doesnt seem to leave any room for your view that Christ is a " lessor " god. The old testament makes it clear that there is only ONE God. Its called monotheism. The LDS have some confusion with this concept also.

Also...........

In verses like Isaiah 42:8 shows a clear principle that God will not share his glory and honor with anyone or anything. The writer of Psalm 86:12 understood this concept.

Reconcile that with the glory and honor that Christ had in heaven ( John 1:14, John 17:5, John 8:54, John 12:29 ) and received on earth.............and has now.

So Gods NOW going to share his glory with one of his created beings, an angel, then let him be a second god ?

[enedraAT]

I know this is an older thread. But these arguments come on. out of context.

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images."

all those verses are directed to false, idol gods, not whether God would share his glory with his firstborn. Since when is God not allowed to share glory with anything he so pleases?

In any case, as we both agree Jesus is firstborn of the father, in the Bible the firstborn was given rights over and above the rest. In short I beleive your objection is weak.

Another point, we don't say Jesus is an angel in the sense you want to make it. He was known as Michael the Archangel, not that he was *just* an angel

[Billen]

Since when is God not allowed to share glory with anything he so pleases?


If God did that, God would have lied. Then what he said in Isaiah 43:10 be a false statement:


Ye [are] my witnesses,
saith the LORD, and my
servant whom I have
chosen: that ye may know
and believe me, and
understand that I [am] he:
before me there was no God
formed, neither shall there
be after me.

If we read further, The LORD (JHVH, Jahve or Jehovah) is also the only savior

v11
I, [even] I, [am] the
LORD; and beside me
[there is] no saviour.


God did of course remind Israel only to trust him and not be led astray by the babylonian teaching, but if we believe Gods word to be accurate we must also trust the God did not say this in a rash statement, and then later "whoops, I did not mean exactly that."

Jesus is in NT titled both God, Saviour and Redeemer, titles that in GT belongs to JHVH exclusively. That might be a hint...


Concerning the use of "firstborn". Jacob became the firstborn of Israel, although he was not the first to come out of the womb. Esau was.
Firstborn is the title that were bestowed the inheritance of the house, and not refering to the litteral birth. Having the title of "firstborn" is having the rights of inheritance.
A proper title for Jesus to have, as the new covenant was made and Jesus "inherited the house" as God. A new era had begun.

[enedraAT]

This such an eye-roller argument. These statements (diatribes really) are directed to false idol gods, while I don't feel like getting into every jot and tittle of every statement in Isaiah, they need to be interpreted in context.

You cite Isa 43:10 but vs 12 shows what is meant "It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was no strange god among you; So you are My witnesses," declares the LORD, "And I am God. [NASB]

in vs 11 "no other saviour", Jehovah used agents to accomplish whatever he needed (Cyrus for example), he is the ultimate source of salvation, not that anyone whom he appoints must be a 'person' of him.

What I meant by firstborn is that Jesus is on a higher status, so every single thing Jesus does doesn't need have to an explicit precedent by someone else [ie. lesser, non-firstborns] having done it already.

[Billen]

Esau sold his rights as firstborn to Jacob. So what was it, that Esau lost? Was it a "higher status"? No, it was the blessing, the promise of God, that now were to come through Jacob and not Esau. Esau sold his inheritance and Jacob purchased the right of the firstborn.
Having status of firstborn, is having the right of inheritance of the house.

God exclaims in Isa 43:10 that he is THE ONLY God. There is non other, therefore the babylonian gods is not real, they're false.Others may elevate themselves to gods (including israellites themselves), but they are still not real, they're false.
Actually most of the OT explains that there is only one existing God, and all other claims of godhood are false claims. If Jesus were to be a god of lower rank than a supreme God, that relationsship would be very contradictory to the OT explanations of monoteism. If there were any more gods than one, the claims in Isa 43:10 would be false:
"... Before me there was no other gods formed, neither shall there be after me"

The context is that the israellites are explained not to trust the babylonian gods, and THE ARGUMENT is, that there exists only God, THE ONLY God. If there were any other gods other than God, or if there were come to be any new god(s), the argument would be invalid, it would be a lie. And it would be polytheism (Supreme God + lesser gods).

[Billen]

Cyrus may have been a tool, according to OT, but he is never credited as Saviour. God is.

Jesus, on the other hand, is titled Saviour throughout NT.
Acts 4:12 (about Jesus)
"Neither is there Salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be Saved".

Peter, as an example, may be percieved as a tool of God, as Peter did a lot of work spreading the word about Jesus as Saviour. But Peter is never credited as Saviour. Jesus is.

[enedraAT]

Isa 43:11- there is no other yasha (#H3467)

in judges 3:9-Then the people of Israel cried out to the LORD for help. The LORD sent a savior[H3467] to rescue them. It was Othniel, son of Caleb's younger brother Kenaz.

[Billen]

I see what ou try to say with Judges 3:9 but I do not see it counter the essence. The israellites stretched their hands towards God to be saved from their situation, not toward Othniel. God sent Othniel.

With Jesus we are to go directly to him for salvation.

Acts 4:12 (about Jesus)
"Neither is there Salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be Saved".

[Speed Donkey]

Yeah!

[Roy]

I'm so disappointed. I was expecting this post to be about purchasing indulgences.

Roy

[Sparko]

This such an eye-roller argument. These statements (diatribes really) are directed to false idol gods,

So how many TRUE Gods are there?

[Billen]

Jehovahs Witnesses believe that Jesus have recieved the ability to selfsustain his own life, thus being "the only created god". Everyone else are dependent on recieving "lifeforce" from Jehovah. Except those of the "slaveclass", the 144.000, that have died as loyal servants of Jehovah. Those too are said to recieve "selfsustaining life", thus becoming independant of Jehovah to give them lifeforce to life. These 144.000 are to be regarded as Jesus' brothers and will rule side by side with Jesus in the coming 1000 year Kingdom over the entire earth.

Thus Jehovahs Witnesses expect to have Jehovah as Supreme God, and 144.001 lesser gods (kings and priests over the residents of earth)

[Sparko]

I understand their twisting of scripture, but how many true Gods are there?

[Billen]

Perhaps John 17:3 gives a clue:


And this is life eternal, that
they might know thee the only
true God, and Jesus Christ,
whom thou hast sent.

[barnasha]

How many true gods? as many as you want to worship. since each person defines his religion - just like Abraham, Jesus, and Moses each had to do for themselves. the greeks and romans worshiped quite a few. what makes a true god is the introduction of a certain truth/value scale, for which there are at least as many as there are people to conceive of them.

[Billen]

Indeed, through time many concepts have been "concieved". Perhaps when some people wished to focus on some aspects of life they empowered that focus by making it divine in itself.

I guess we are talkin about how many true gods there exists according to Christianity.
"God is spirit" it is written, "through [God] everything has come into existance" and Johannes writes "God is love".

So, according to Christianity, there is only ONE true God. Why is it so?

[tomsawyer25]

Hi there,

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, but we believe that God is one because scripture teaches that. There are probably philosophical arguments as well, but I believe that based on scripture. There is one true God, and He exists eternally in three persons. If we accept scripture as the word of God, then we accept this. "Three persons" does not mean three people, but means there is distinction, will and personality. "One" does not mean an absolute lack of distinction, but a perfect unity.

You quote that God is love, and yes, even in eternity God shares love, because He loves between Father, Son and Spirit. Human love and the family reflect this. We say that God is truth, and His triune nature can be compared with the activity of understanding itself -- the pure knowledge, the knowledge of knowledge and the activity springing forth from their communion. Human reason reflects this.

I believe as we explore the triunity of God, we can see ways in which it is reflected in the revelation of scripture and in ourselves. It is good to think about. To love the triunity is to love God.

Jesus is not the "lesser" God as your post asks. He is the Word of God made flesh. A soul of man united with a soul of God. God lowered His position as it were, but did not lessen His nature. For example, should God descend the stairway, and speak upward -- Father, please throw me that ball -- does He become any less God? Not at all. He may be asking upward, but He descended freely and that ball has always belonged to Him.

This is an awesome revelation that God has given us. I encourage you to study scripture on it.

Shalom,

Tom







Indeed, through time many concepts have been "concieved". Perhaps when some people wished to focus on some aspects of life they empowered that focus by making it divine in itself.

I guess we are talkin about how many true gods there exists according to Christianity.
"God is spirit" it is written, "through [God] everything has come into existance" and Johannes writes "God is love".

So, according to Christianity, there is only ONE true God. Why is it so?

[enedraAT]

"Those too are said to recieve "selfsustaining life", thus becoming independant of Jehovah to give them lifeforce to life."

John 5:26"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; (NASB)

John 6:57"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.

In John 17:3 Jesus puts his father into the category of "only true God", the Jews in the 2nd temple period spoke of the "true god", but at the same time they allowed for angels to be "gods" in a positive, albeit limited sense.

On another point, nowhere has the WT said anything about 144k becoming gods nor 144,001 gods, so cut that misinformation out

[Billen]

On another point, nowhere has the WT said anything about 144k becoming gods nor 144,001 gods, so cut that misinformation out


Well, lets call it "divine nature" then, and to rule as kings alongside Christ over earth, where all those who remains on earth will bow down (gr. proskyneo) to them and Christ.

(JW's "lexicon") "Insight on the scriptures" vol. 2 p. 248 , LIFE

Immortality, incoruption, divine life
The bible speaks of Jehovah as having immortality and incorruption. (1 Ti 1:17) He has granted this first to his Son. At the time of the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, Christ was the only one who had been given immortality. (1 Ti 6:16) But it is promised to others, those who become Christ's spiritual brothers. (Ro 2:7; 1Co 15:53, 54) Also, these become partakers of "divine nature"; they share with Christ in his glory. (2Pe 1:4) Angels are spirit creatures, but they are not immortal, for those who become wicked demons will be destroyed.
-Mt 25:41; Lu 4:33, 34; Re 20:10, 14




the Jews in the 2nd temple period spoke of the "true god", but at the same time they allowed for angels to be "gods" in a positive, albeit limited sense.

Did God allow angels to be "gods in a positive, albeit limited sense."? Really? Where?

[Sparko]

If the Father is the ONLY True God, and Jesus is not the same God as the Father (not same person, same God) then Jesus must be a false God. There cannot be more than ONE True God, Jesus said so.

John 17:3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

All other Gods must be false gods.

Is Jesus a false god?

[apostoli]

Indeed, through time many concepts have been "concieved". Perhaps when some people wished to focus on some aspects of life they empowered that focus by making it divine in itself.

I guess we are talkin about how many true gods there exists according to Christianity.
"God is spirit" it is written, "through [God] everything has come into existance" and Johannes writes "God is love".

So, according to Christianity, there is only ONE true God. Why is it so?
Hello Billen,

The interesting thing about Orthodox Trinitarianism (RCC, EOC, OOC etc) is that it is taught that the Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit, and so, rather than "some people wished to focus on some aspects of life they empowered that focus by making it divine in itself" it is the Father that has made the Son God to us, it is up to us to accept such...

______________

In regards to John 17:3 consider 1 Cor 8:5-6...

For even if there are those called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 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.

This text makes it plain that there are many things called both god or lord that exist, and given A.Paul's qualification "yet to us" it is not a logical necessity for them to be "false" gods or "false" lords. Obviously, there are many who are truely lords, as we are commanded to obey them. Likewise there are things that are truely gods to the people who believe in them. But of these classes have any been able to complete their roles? Imu, this is what John 17:3 is telling us = that the Father of Jesus, the Son of God has proved himself worthy of the title...

Imu, John 3:32-36 fully explains John 17:3...

And what he [Jesus] hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. He that hath received his testimony [Jesus' testimony] hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure [unto him]. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

I find it curious that people fixate on one clause in John 17:3 and ignore verse 2, "as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him". I also find it curious that people fixated on a single phrase in John 17:3 miss the fact that we are never spoken of as being "in the Father", it is not our direction - we are to be "in the Son" and on being so, we are "in the Father" - the Son is suppose to be our devotional focus (John 5:23; 12:26). Consider 1 John 5:20 "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ." Notice we get to know "him who is true", because we are in his Son "who is [also] true". As Hebrews 1:3 declares the Son is a duplicate of his Father's hypostasis (the actual word used), or as John 1:1c puts it "what God was, the Word was" (NEB).

______________

Over the years the WB&TS have advocated that Jesus was created by God with godlike qualities but is not the unbegotten God. Thus they correctly interpreted John 1:1 as qualitative, but incorrectly translated "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" as "and the Word was a god", giving the impression that they hold the son to be a lessor God to his Father. They would have been more correct to have translated "and the Word was as God" or as the New English Bible paraphrases "what God was, the Word was". All authorative modern grammars agree that the expression in the Greek at John 1:1c is qualitative. But apart from Greek grammar, it is obvious that the Logos was not with himself but with another individual - the other individual being identified as "God" (Jn 1:1-2).

Christian orthodoxy agrees with the WB&TS that the Father & Son are two distinct individuals. The main point of disagreement is the WB&TS have taught that the Son was "created" - an idea that has its basis in philosophy and cannot be supported from the scriptures. Scripture says the Son was "begotten", but more particularly that he is "monogenēs", a Greek word most often used when refering to an "only child". The expressions in Christian orthodoxy (RCC, EOC, OOC etc) teach that the Father is the source & cause (origin) of the distinct hypostases (individualities) of the Son and the Spirit. At Hebrews 1:3 we read that the Son is an exact duplicate of his Father's hypostasis (the actual word used). The implication is that in personality, nature, essence and activity these distinct individuals are identical. Observe one, we observe all (cp. John 12:45; 14:9-11; 16:13-15)

In the Greek scriptures we learn it is the Son who created all things whether they be in heaven or on earth (Col 1:16-17; Heb 1:3; Jn 1:1-3,10). In the Hebrew scriptures it attests that God created all things. So is scripture confused? The WB&TS argue that the Father is the architect and the Son is the craftsman, which is a valid humanist analogy but not one supported by scripture - consider Jesus words at John 5:19 "for whatever He [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner." In terms of their doings there is only one activity, they are in such unity of purpose that Jesus says "He that has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9-10). Obviously Jesus wasn't talking about his external appearance. At the Council of Nicea the term homoousia was adopted to express the fuller teaching of scripture. This term is regularly misrepresented by the WB&TS.

To explain the intrinsic unity of the Father & the Son the Greeks used the concept of "ousia". It is difficult to represent this idea in English (essence isn't adequate, substantiality is nearer). Basically ousia is what is left after all externals are ignored, that which gives specification to a thing, that which defines what something truely is eg: what defines Adam & Eve, you and me, as the genus "man" (Gen 1:27). The word "ousia" is not used in the scriptures but its equivalent "physis" does occur (2 Peter 1:4). In ancient times the two words were often used interchangably. In the 4th century CE, there were those (the Arians) that advocated that the Father, Son and Spirit were three distinct Gods, in the 3rd century CE there were those who advocated that there was one individual who manifested himself in three modes of existence (the Sabellianists), both these viewpoints were resoundingly rejected by the greater Church. Unfortunately, the WB&TS regularly misrepresents Sabellianism (one individual, three modes of existence) as being Trinitarianism. Christian orthodoxy's teaching of the Trinity is that there are three individuals with one mode of existence, that single mode is to be God to us. The Hebrew scriptures tell us that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." (Genesis 1:1). Colossian 1:16 tells us that all things were created by the Son...by definition, at least in activity, the Son is God to us...

The New World Translation inserts the word "other" in Colossians 1:16 which is valid considering John 1:1 tells us the Logos who was with God and as God, existed before anything was created, so obviously the "all things" is to the exclusion of both the Father and the Son. In respect to this, I draw your attention to John 1:3, which the New World Translation renders "All things came into existence through him [the Logos], and apart from [without] him not even one thing came into existence" - that would include the heavenly angels, so this demonstrates that the Son is not an angel as the WB&TS regularly speculates...

The scriptural evidence is that the Son has all the attributes and activities of his Father, so if truely Son then he is what his Father is...


So, according to Christianity, there is only ONE true God. Why is it so?In simple terms we only know of God by his activity. For orthodox Christianity there are three individuals, but only one activity = to be God to us...

[JAYMZ]

Another point, we don't say Jesus is an angel in the sense you want to make it. He was known as Michael the Archangel, not that he was *just* an angel

Just because the Watchtower says that Jesus Christ was once " know as Michael the Archangel " doesnt make it so.

Angel, Archangel it doesnt matter. That still implies a created being. According to scripture the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ is not a created being. He created " beings. "

[JAYMZ]

In any case, as we both agree Jesus is firstborn of the father, in the Bible the firstborn was given rights over and above the rest. In short I beleive your objection is weak.



The point is that its clear from scripture that God doesn't share His glory with anyone OR anyTHING. Not a craven image and not a Archangel that he created. He doesnt command that you love Him plus another created, lessor god.

Deuteronomy 6:4-5

4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Ephesians 6:24

24 Grace to all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with an undying love.

Was Paul torn between Jehovah and Jesus Christ about which one he loved more ? No, of course not, because Paul recognized that the same God that commanded Israel was the same one that gave Himself for our sins on the cross.

Christians take into consideration the entire, WHOLE of scripture when coming to the conclusions that the historic Church has always came too.

[mickiel]

Interesting arguement which I have considered much.

I believe that Jesus was " Birthed by God", that he proceeded forth and came from God, John 8:42, which sounds like a birth for sure. Jesus said in John 5:26 that God " Gave him life in himself", which means he didNOT always have life in himself, or he certainly wouldnot have to be " Given it by the Father." I think this was the fist, very first being birthed by God, and then, through Jesus, everythingelse that is alive in heaven was created by Christ, John 1:3. When John 1:1 states that in the beginning the word was " With God", well God has no beginning, so this was refering to Jesus beginning. But Jesus came from inside of God, so in one sense, he was " Always in there", until he proceeded forth and God GAVE him independant self substaining life. Jesus said in John 6:57, " That he lives BECAUSE of the Father."

Now, was Jesus then a God? Well Jesus position since his conception has always been sitting right next to his Father, in Isaiah 44:8 God said there is no God besides him, and Jesus was sitting besides him when he said this. This is repeated in Is. 43:11, 44:6, 45:6, 45:21, 47:8 and 10. In Zeph.2:15, 2Sam. 7:22, 1Chron. 17:20, all repeat that there is no God besides the Father himself.

The bible is VERY clear that God cannot die! Jesus died once, so its academic, according to scripture. And yet in a few places Jesus is refered to as " God', but he never refered to himself as that, nor has the Father ever refered to him as " God", or a God. So again I think its humans who conceive Jesus as a God, never he himself or his Father.

Jesus is " Before all other creations", he is obviously second in command in heaven, and the " King of Kings." God the Father is NOT a King, he is supreme ruler over all Kings. The Father had no beginning, Jesus had one. The Father answers to no one, Jesus answers to the Father. God can never die, Jesus died once. God sits on one throne and he has " Seven Spirits", Jesus only has " One spirit", and has NEVER sat on the Fathers throne.

So there are distinct differences between them. BUT, I suspect there is simply infintely MORE to Jesus than meets the eye! No human can see God and live, Jesus said if you have seen him, you have seen the Father. So they are " Closer" than I think we understand. I think Jesus may well be an " Internal", actual part of the Father Gods " Own Essence", of which he took out of himself and is now " Sharing it with reality." I call it " Protozoan", or what was " Inside of God", is now " outside of him", and living in reality through the personage of Christ.

I don't think Jesus is " A God", but hes as close to it as anything will ever get.

Peace.

[enedraAT]

This thread is going in an interesting direction

apostoli -
"As Hebrews 1:3 declares the Son is a duplicate of his Father's hypostasis (the actual word used)"
the nicene use of 'hypostasis' of hundreds of years later is unlikely what the author had in mind.

the same word is in Heb. 3:14, 11:1 & 2 Cor. 9:4, 11:17. It wasnt until later that hypostasis was different from ousia. Heb 1:3 doesn't just say Jesus is the duplicate, but the 'charakter', or imprint of his nature/being/etc. He could be called a "copy" or "xerox"

which brings us to John 17:3, your missing the point about the 'Only True God' [gr. monos alethinos theos]
one of the meanings for alethinos is "real, in the sense of an archetype, as distinguished from a copy", this makes perfect sense in light of Heb. 1:3


"If the Father is the ONLY True God, and Jesus is not the same God as the Father (not same person, same God) then Jesus must be a false God. There cannot be more than ONE True God, Jesus said so."there was more than one sense of the word "theos" back then.

Which brings me to my next point regarding "god" and "angels":

"The pre-Arian discussion of the Angel-Christology did not turn simply on the question whether Christ was an angel, but on another issue, namely, in what sense could he, as an angel, rank as God. The explanation which was offered by the supporters of the Angel-Christology was that Christ, according to his nature, was a high angel, but that he was named 'God'; for the designation 'God' was ambiguous. The word 'God' did mean, in the first place, the absolute divine omnipotence but it was also used for the beings who served this deus verus [Latin, 'god true'= (the) true God]. That these were designated 'gods' implies reverence and recognition of Him who sent them and whom they thus represented. Consequently in the Scriptures (Exod. xxii, 28), not only angels, but even men could be called 'gods' [cf. Ps. 8:5; Heb. 2:7, 9; Ps. 82:6, 7; John 10:34, 35] without according them the status in the strict sense. Even Latantius [260-330 C.E.] had thought in this way" [Martin Werner, The Formation Of Christian Dogma, Page 140]


Angel, Archangel it doesnt matter. That still implies a created being

So you admit if somone is called an angel the are implicated as created?

It's not the crux of my theology whether one of Jesus' names was Michael or not (some trinitarians beleive Michael is another name for Jesus ie. 7DA's), most beleive Jesus went around in the OT as "the angel of the LORD" (which jewish tradition held to be Michael) so your objection cuts both ways.

Col 1:16 and John 1:3 are more complicated, Jesus isn't presented as the creator but the agent by/in/by means of (gr. en) which this creation took place, with the Father as the source (cf. 1 Cor 8:6) as Col 1:16b makes clear "all things have been created through him". Origen commented on John 1:3 "Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Word, then they were not made by the Word, but by [one] stronger and greater than He."[comm. on the gospel of John]. "The Word" is not necesarily excluded from being created himself


The WB&TS argue that the Father is the architect and the Son is the craftsman, which is a valid humanist analogy but not one supported by scripture

considering Prov. 8:30 "then I was beside him as a master craftsman" (NET), which I and all the early church fathers accept as a reference to the pre-incarnate Christ (tho you might not), I would have to say it is supported by scripture.

[apostoli]

considering Prov. 8:30 "then I was beside him as a master craftsman" (NET), which I and all the early church fathers accept as a reference to the pre-incarnate Christ (tho you might not), I would have to say it is supported by scripture.Was YHWH ever without wisdom? Thus Proverbs 8:22 "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old." Then verses 23-29 says sophia existed before the things made were made. You should notice that vs30 calls wisdom a master worker, an architect (hbr. 'amown).

As I saidThe WB&TS argue that the Father is the architect and the Son is the craftsman, which is a valid humanist analogy but not one supported by scripture

:

[enedraAT]

Was YHWH ever without wisdom?

Jehovah has always been wise, but were not talking about a quality, you can't just switch back and forth between wisdom as reference to Jesus and as a quality as it suits you


Thus Proverbs 8:22 "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old."

You may be able to whip out a lexicon and get this one but it is certainly a mistranslation. 'Possesed' is a state, qanah not used as a state here. you cannot say "The LORD [was holding on to] me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old." considering what follows: "I have been established", "I was brought forth" (x2 - NKJV)

You can take qanah as akin to acquire by creation or acquire from outside (like buying something), those who argue for this beleive that the ancient Israelite religion was copied from the ancient canaanites (ie. Margaret Barker) and that Elyon=the father YHWH=his son, the god of Israel, and Wisdom=Aserah

I think most will reject this, and in any case 'acquire' (from the outside) doesn't make sense in light of the birth imagery following vs. 23-30


Then verses 23-29 says sophia existed before the things made were made.

As first created [in my beliefs] I would expect that Wisdom/Jesus would precede the hills, the mountains, the earth... the universe, given our current understanding of the universe he maybe in some sense of the word 'eternal' (as would the angels - Job 38:7)


You should notice that vs30 calls wisdom a master worker, an architect (hbr. 'amown).

Since when does master worker=architect? 'amown is variously translated as 'master worker', 'craftsman'; ie. the agent by which these things were done (1 Cor. 8:6b), the 'agent' of the 'architect', the Father the source (1 Cor. 8:6a)


As I saidThe WB&TS argue that the Father is the architect and the Son is the craftsman, which is a valid humanist analogy but not one supported by scripture

Jesus isn't the Creator, he is consistently shown to have mediatorial role in creation (thru [gk. dia] him), I dont know a better analogy than architect-craftsman (1 Cor. 8:6), obviously there are no words to describe this fully but I cant think of a better analogy

[apostoli]

Jehovah has always been wise, but were not talking about a quality, you can't just switch back and forth between wisdom as reference to Jesus and as a quality as it suits youProverbs 8 is a poetic account, a personification, of "wisdom". Verses 1-21 make it plain that wisdom spoken of is generalised. It is even said to be a characteristic of kings (vs15). Personally I don't apply the text to the pre-incarnate Logos, that after becoming flesh was named Jesus. Though the attributes of Sophia (Hbr. hokmah) as given in Proverb roughly corresponds to the Greek idea of Logos.



Thus Proverbs 8:22 "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old."You may be able to whip out a lexicon and get this one but it is certainly a mistranslation. 'Possesed' is a state, qanah not used as a state here. you cannot say "The LORD [was holding on to] me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old."See Gen 14:19. Is God "holding onto" the heavens and the earth, or does he own them?


considering what follows: "I have been established", "I was brought forth" (x2 - NKJV)

You can take qanah as akin to acquire by creation or acquire from outside (like buying something)...in any case 'acquire' (from the outside) doesn't make sense in light of the birth imagery following vs. 23-30I agree that the imagery that follows would indicate that "wisdom" is neither acquired nor created...

It is highly improbable that Solomon meant "create" or "acquire", especially when his father, David, had written "in wisdom have you made them all" (Ps 104. cp Prov 3).

The majority of English translations have "possessed", the NIV renders "brought me forth". Gesenius' Lexicon would also allow "erect", "to set upright".

Several Hebrew scholars suggest that the context would allow "qanah" to be rendered "birthed" or "begot" as "chuwl" in vs25 can be translated "born". NIV has "I was given birth". The majority of translations render "brought forth", which imo is the same thing.

Whichever, it couldn't have been brought-forth, erected, birthed etc unless it already existed...


As first created [in my beliefs] I would expect that Wisdom/Jesus would precede the hills, the mountains, the earth... the universe, given our current understanding of the universe he maybe in some sense of the word 'eternal' (as would the angels - Job 38:7)Given Colossians says all things created, whether they be in heaven or on earth, were created by the Son, and that you apply Proverbs 8 to the Son, then he couldn't be the "first created [in your beliefs]" unless he created himself - which, imo, is self contradictory. However, he could have been brought forth...



You should notice that vs30 calls wisdom a master worker, an architect (hbr. 'amown).Since when does master worker=architect? 'amown is variously translated as 'master worker', 'craftsman'; ie. the agent by which these things were done (1 Cor. 8:6b), the 'agent' of the 'architect', the Father the source (1 Cor. 8:6a)craftsman isn't one of the meanings of 'amown. Of course you could translate it "master craftsman". The lexicons give the meaning of 'amown as artificer, architect, master workman, skilled workman.

The KJV renders "one brought up [with him]". The NKJV renders "I was beside Him as a master craftsman" but in a footnote has it that "A Jewish tradition reads one brought up".

Gesenius's notes the Hebrew can be understood to mean son or foster-child.

I take your point concerning 1 Cor 8:6, but there is nothing in it that precludes the Son from being a co-architect, after all Hebrews 1:3 tells us that the Son upholds "all things by the word of his power".


Jesus isn't the Creator, he is consistently shown to have mediatorial role in creation (thru [gk. dia] him), I dont know a better analogy than architect-craftsman (1 Cor. 8:6), obviously there are no words to describe this fully but I cant think of a better analogyWhy not co-worker? After all they are both our saviour (Titus 1:3-4)

[enedraAT]

Verses 1-21 make it plain that wisdom spoken of is generalised. It is even said to be a characteristic of kings (vs15).

In vs 12 Wisdom switches to speaking in first person, In vs 15 it says that "By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just" - RSV, that's different from saying the kings are wise


See Gen 14:19. Is God "holding onto" the heavens and the earth, or does he own them?

According to the NIV God is the creator of heavens and earth, CF Burney showed qanah always carries the sense of of acquire, even when it is used as possess or similar it always something that was acquired in one way or another.


I agree that the imagery that follows would indicate that "wisdom" is neither acquired nor created...

I never said created isnt fitting here, especially considering the LXX's use of it, which is quite similar to what the NT says about Jesus in Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14.

Proverbs 8:22 =Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ
Rev. 3:14 = ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ·
cf. also Sira 1:4 = προτέρα πάντων ἔκτισται σοφία


Whichever, it couldn't have been brought-forth, erected, birthed etc unless it already existed...

Normally being birthed or brought forth signifies coming into existence, I'm not sure what you mean here.


Given Colossians says all things created, whether they be in heaven or on earth, were created by the Son, and that you apply Proverbs 8 to the Son, then he couldn't be the "first created [in your beliefs]" unless he created himself - which, imo, is self contradictory. However, he could have been brought forth...

The text in question:15 ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, 16 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα, τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· 17 καὶ αὐτός ἐστι πρὸ πάντων, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκε,

As I pointed out earlier 'ektisqe' is passive, it denotes agency. Someone else (the father) is creating 'ta panta' 'en' [by/by meansof/ thru the agency of/etc.] 'autw' [prwtotokos]. Some Bibles use "by", others "by means of", the NIV sidesteps the issue and just uses "in".

"ta panta" is frequently hyperbolic a quick example of this is Luke 21:29: Then He told them a parable: "Behold the fig tree and all the trees-NASB, is the fig tree not a tree? I would say it is, Unless Jesus created himself and the Father (he is part of 'ta panta' see 1 Cor 15:27) I would say that is the case here, so borrowing some language: 'But when it says, "for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth..." it is plain excepted is the father and one who he just said was *of creation*'


there is nothing in it that precludes the Son from being a co-architect...Why not co-worker? After all they are both our saviour (Titus 1:3-4)

the Bible calls both Jesus and God saviours because God saved thru Christ (jude 25). While God created thru Christ we aren't told to praise Jesus for creating us. In Revelation God is worthy "to receive glory and honor and power, for thou didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created." (4:11) but Christ is because "for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation", not because he created us. Christ is honored as our saviour because that's what the Bible says, if Christ was to be honored as our creator then the Bible would talk about it, it doesn't

[apostoli]

In vs 12 Wisdom switches to speaking in first person, In vs 15 it says that "By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just" - RSV, that's different from saying the kings are wiseIn Proverbs 1 and elsewhere Solomon uses the same first person technique for wisdom, elsewhere Solomon regularly personifies wisdom. Regularly Solomon equates wisdom (or at least the getting of wisdom) as "the fear of the Lord" (as he does also in Prov 8).

Consider NWT from vs 14 "I have counsel and practical wisdom. I—understanding; I have mightiness. 15 By me kings themselves keep reigning, and high officials themselves keep decreeing righteousness. 16 By me princes themselves keep ruling as princes, and nobles are all judging in righteousness." In my reading, it is something possessed by kings, rulers, princes etc... Consider vs17 "Those loving me I myself love, and those looking for me are the ones that find me."



See Gen 14:19. Is God "holding onto" the heavens and the earth, or does he own them?According to the NIV God is the creator of heavens and earthAccording to Solomon "Jehovah himself in wisdom founded the earth..." (Prov 3:19, NWT)


CF Burney showed qanah always carries the sense of acquire, even when it is used as possess or similar it always something that was acquired in one way or another.Qanah is an interesting study, Burney doesn't disallow "possessed", but notes qanah expresses "the idea of possessing something which has been acquired in one way or another". He even concedes it can refer to a birthing.

Consider Deut 32:6. Here we encounter qanah, `asah & kuwn (LXX=ektesato, epoiese, eplase). Many translations render qanah here as "bought you". Young's literal translation renders "thy possessor" which to me makes more sence and solves the otherwise tautology of the verse (the sequence of acquire, then make and then shape).

I've got nothing invested in Prov 8:22, except that however one chooses to translate the verse, it should be consistent with Solomon's viewpoint about wisdom throughout his book of proverbs.


I never said created isnt fitting here, especially considering the LXX's use of it, which is quite similar to what the NT says about Jesus in Col 1:15 and Rev 3:14.Col 1:15&18 - As you should well know, "prototokos" is a legal term, which does not indicate pedigree (ie: a female could never be prototokos even though she might be the first child sired). In anycase Col 1:16 says that by him all things created, whether they be in heaven or earth, were created by him [the Son] and for him. (NWT has "by means of" and "through" which is OK by me, as the NWT retains the reason that all things were created = "for him" = "for the Son").

Rev 3:14 doesn't mention anything about the origins of the "Amen". It simply attributes the commencement of God's creation activities to him, which is consistent with John 1:1-3,10; Col 1:15-16; Heb 1:3.


Proverbs 8:22 =Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ
Rev. 3:14 = ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ·
cf. also Sira 1:4 = προτέρα πάντων ἔκτισται σοφίαI have no issue with the LXX rendering ektisen. Especially when a little later the LXX says "he begets me", in lieu of the Hebrew passive "I was brought forth" (see Waltke ('http://books.google.com.au/books?id=kboLy_NBxc4C&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=lxx+prov+8:24&source=bl&ots=A12gN5RINy&sig=O-eGeqjHtR60lSpPIqEpvHwNAQ8&hl=en&ei=iJAJTdbQNMfirAeC5PjUDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=lxx%20prov%208%3A24&f=false')).



Whichever, it couldn't have been brought-forth, erected, birthed etc unless it already existed...Normally being birthed or brought forth signifies coming into existence, I'm not sure what you mean here.Basic biology demonstrates that, that which is birthed has existence in its mother's womb prior to being birthed. Things born don't just appear from nothing, there is a conception and period of gestation before they are born.



Given Colossians says all things created, whether they be in heaven or on earth, were created by the Son, and that you apply Proverbs 8 to the Son, then he couldn't be the "first created [in your beliefs]" unless he created himself - which, imo, is self contradictory. However, he could have been brought forth...The text in question:15...As I pointed out earlier 'ektisqe' is passive, it denotes agency. Someone else (the father) is creating 'ta panta' 'en' 'autw' [prwtotokos]. Some Bibles use "by", others "by means of", the NIV sidesteps the issue and just uses "in".The NWT seems to have slipped up here. The Greek has ev=in (NWT=by means of), then dia=through (NWT). dia here makes the Son the concrete reality, he is the one doing the actual creating, and not as agent, because the text says all things created are "for him".


"ta panta" is frequently hyperbolic a quick example of this is Luke 21:29: Then He told them a parable: "Behold the fig tree and all the trees-NASB, is the fig tree not a tree?Your Luke 21:9 idea doesn't work. Jesus is focusing on a particular tree, then alludes its commonality with all tress (vs30). We don't have a corresponding analogy in Colossians 1:16, in fact because all things created are "for him", he is evidently set apart.


I would say it is, Unless Jesus created himself and the FatherHeh, I agree with the NWT insertion of "[other]" even though its not in the Greek. But that "[other]" has to apply to both the Father and the Son, because even if the Father is creating through the Son, it is the Son doing the hands on work...


he is part of 'ta panta' see 1 Cor 15:271 Cor 15:27 makes it plain that the Son is excluded from the "panta", there is no article. In anycase the Son isn't subject to himself, so he is by context excluded from the panta. Just as he is by context excluded from the "ta panta" in Col 1:16.


I would say that is the case here, so borrowing some language: 'But when it says, "for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth..." it is plain excepted is the father and one who he just said was *of creation*'Except there is no mention of the Son being *of creation*. FYI, a prototokos doesn't need to be an offspring or a relative, it just has to be male - it is simply the person that has the right to an inheritence, or more particularly one appointed to have responsibility & charge over a household.



there is nothing in it that precludes the Son from being a co-architect...Why not co-worker? After all they are both our saviour (Titus 1:3-4)the Bible calls both Jesus and God saviours because God saved thru Christ (jude 25). While God created thru Christ we aren't told to praise Jesus for creating us.But we are told that the Father has highly exhalted him "so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth" (Phil 2:9-10)


In Revelation God is worthy "to receive glory and honor and power, for thou didst create all things, and by thy will they existed and were created." (4:11) but Christ is because "for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation", not because he created us.Revelation is talking about "one like the son of man". But notice Rev 22:1-3, there is one throne and both God and the Lamb sit on it.

I do acknowledge your point in regards to Rev 4:11, "The Lord..has created all things...for your pleasure [God's pleasure] you created them". And so I point you to Col 1:19 "For it pleased [the Father] that in him [the Son] should all fulness dwell" and "that in all [things] he might have the preeminence" (vs18). This is what, imo, the WB&TS miss = the Son is, by the will of the Father, to be our focus.

Scripture shouts loudly that the Logos, the pre-existent Son, is said to have created all things made = John 1:1-3, 10, and not only that but it is the Son who upholds all things by the word of his power = Heb 1:1-3. Before you go off on a grammatic tangent I draw your attention to John 1:10 "He was in the world, and [b]the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him." (NWT) Who was in the world, the father or the Son?


Christ is honored as our saviour because that's what the Bible says, if Christ was to be honored as our creator then the Bible would talk about it, it doesn'tBut it does call him our owner = kyrios.

Have a think on John 17:1-2 "Jesus spoke these things, and, raising his eyes to heaven, he said: “Father, the hour has come; glorify your son, that your son may glorify you,you have given him authority over all flesh, that, as regards the whole [number] whom you have given him, he may give them everlasting life."

Notice it is not the Father by whom we gain eternal life, but the Son - to be in the Father, we must be in the Son - to be in the Father is consequential. Thats God's arrangement for you...

Peace

[enedraAT]

Rev 3:14 doesn't mention anything about the origins of the "Amen". It simply attributes the commencement of God's creation activities to him, which is consistent with John 1:1-3, 10; Col 1:15-17; Heb 1:3.

The problem with that is those verses you cite teach the exact opposite of what reading you are proposing for Rev. 3:14. Each of those texts portray the Son as the intermediate agent of creation (more on this below), while you may not agree (also consider ‘ek’ is never used in relation to Jesus and creation, ever), this is against your view of Rev 3:14. Moreover, if we are talking about “the creation of God”, then God is the “commencement” or “originator” (NET) or “first cause” (BDAG) of his own creation.

To quote it fully:

“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God” - NASB

Considering the applications of Wisdom to Christ in the NT, this is quite easily an allusion to “the Lord created me as the Beginning of his ways”


FYI, a prototokos doesn't need to be an offspring or a relative, it just has to be male

I might have bought that for Heb 1:6 where God ‘brings his ‘prototokos’ into the earth…’, but not when he firstborn *of something* (see below). You also do not address the use of firstborn just a few verses later, clearly in the temporal sense.


Except there is no mention of the Son being *of creation*

I’m assuming the “firstborn of all creation” refers to the Son.

The uses of ‘firstborn’ in the LXX and the NT are 1) somebody’s first born (ie. Pharaoh’s firstborn) or 2) the (temporally) first of a particular group. I think we can dismiss #1 (is Jesus All Creation’s firstborn? I rather doubt it). Even granting that firstborn wouldn’t necessarily be temporally first (then who was?) you’re still stuck with the fact that Jesus is a member of creation.


In any case Col 1:16 says that by him all things created, whether they be in heaven or earth, were created by him

You need to re-read the passage:

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. - NASB

It doesn’t say what (I think) you think it does (“all created things were created by him [the Son]”), It really says “For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens… earth… visible… etc.” You earlier recognized the hyperbolic use of ‘ta panta’, as both Father and Son are in heaven, and Jesus did not create himself or the Father. You inadvertently answer your own objection.

Your taking “by him all things were created” to be synonymous with “he created all things”, that’s not what the Greek says, the use of the passive of ‘create’ shows that someone (the Father) is creating by Jesus (more on this below).


is said to have created all things made = John 1:1-3

You seem to be capitalizing on a frequent mistranslation, the last ‘ho gegonen’ belongs in vs. 4 “Connection with John 1:3 reflects fourth-century anti-Arianism” [1]. As regards to ‘apart from him’ compare Heb. 2:8, It is left to the reader to use logic.


The NWT seems to have slipped up here. The Greek has ev=in (NWT=by means of), then dia=through (NWT).

NLT= created through him and for him.
ESV= created through him and for him.
NASB= created through him and for him.
ISV= created through him and for him.
ASV= created through him and for him.
ERV= created through him and for him.
WEB=created through him, and for him.
YLT= through him, and for him, have been created,

The NWT is correct here, you missed the point of my ‘grammatic tangent’. Julius Mantey (!) said of John 1 (which has the same issues as Col. 1) “Here God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the logos as the intermediate agent”. My point before was the Father is creating ‘en’ Christ (hence the passive ‘ektisqe’, compare Heb 1:1 where God spoke to the forefathers ‘en’ the prophets - and Jesus is the Son of the 'God, who spoke thru the prophets', Heb. 1:1 is frequently glossed over), a Greek reader (such as Origen as I referenced earlier) would (and did) recognize this. ‘Ek’ is never used in reference to Christ and creation. You cite John 1:10= “ho kosmos di autou egeneto” ‘dia’ or ‘di’ means thru, showing agency.

BBLE= world was made through him
NASB= world was made through Him
ASV= world was made through him
Darby= had its being through him
YLT= world through him was made


dia here makes the Son the concrete reality, he is the one doing the actual creating, and not as agent, because the text says all things created are "for him".

Once again your eisegeting the text, it doesn’t say: ‘all created things are for him’ it does say: “all things have been created through (‘di’, abbr. form of ‘dia’) Him and for (‘eis’, into) Him.” NASB

It’s already established that ‘all things’ is hyperbole so you have nothing to hang your hat on here.

If you really want to prove Jesus is excluded from creation please explain why the Apologists frequently called Jesus created, even using ‘proto-ktistos’ (the earliest known use of that word is in reference to Jesus)

In short you have provided no reason to not view Col 1:15 as an example of a partitive genitive, making Jesus a member of creation, and the “firstborn” in temporal order, the one God worked thru to create the Universe.


the Son who upholds all things by the word of his power

Just one more association w/ Wisdom and Logos

Sira 43:26= by his [God’s] Word [gk. logwi (logos)] all things hold together
Note that in Heb 1:3 “word of his power” is ‘phmati’(=saying), not ‘logos’ (that's two wisdom allusion's in first couple verses of Heb 1!)
Cf also Wisdom 8:1= Indeed, she reaches from end to end mightily and governs all things well.


But we are told that the Father has highly exalted him "so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth" (Phil 2:9-10)

Jesus is "the lamb that was slaughtered", and is therefore worthy of honor, glory, power, even worship as the Father permits.

Remember that in Hebrews 1:6 God commands the angel’s worship his firstborn Son "Let all God's angels worship him", rather than simply "God's angels worshipped him".

James McGrath [3] demonstrates that the devotion to Jesus in the NT is within the concept of exaltation of divine agents in the period the NT was written without necessitating including Jesus in the “divine identity” or making him “a partaker of the divinity” (Origen)


But notice Rev 22:1-3, there is one throne and both God and the Lamb sit on it.

But notice Rev. 3:21 where ‘he who conquers’ can sit there too? (they do not become part of the Godhead?!? [maybe so John 10:30 cf. John 17:20,21];)


Revelation is talking about "one like the son of man".

"the son of man" in Jewish theology was a created (the first created) lesser divinity, quite like what I believe (ie. a “lessor god”) [2]


Basic biology demonstrates that, that which is birthed has existence in its mother's womb prior to being birthed. Things born don't just appear from nothing, there is a conception and period of gestation before they are born.

I think your reading modern biology into this, in any case 9 months before being birthed (I’m not sure of Wisdom’s gestation period, so give or take a couple months) the embryo did not exist.


And so I point you to Col 1:19 "For it pleased [the Father] that in him [the Son] should all fulness dwell"

The Father ‘has seen good’ (willed – BDAG) ‘that all fullness of deity dwell in Christ’

Keep in mind what this is for: “and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross”


Notice it is not the Father by whom we gain eternal life, but the Son - to be in the Father, we must be in the Son - to be in the Father is consequential. That’s God's arrangement for you...

Yet we forget where this is from:

John 5:26 – “For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself.”

And John 6:57 - “Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me.”

Jesus mediates this “life” to us (cf. 1 Tim 2:5, 1 Cor. 15:22) just as the Father gave it to him.

[1] http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john1.htm#foot3
[2] He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism
Also see: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/the-great-trinity-debate-part-3-dave-burke-on-jesus-christ-continued/
Rob Bowman seriously thrashes a Socinian on pre-existence (#26).
[3] The Only True God – James McGrath

These posts are getting too long :P

Best Regards,
EAT

[apostoli]

Hi enedraAT,

Sorry for the delay in replying. Have had connectivity to the net issues this week...


These posts are getting too longIt is the nature of such discussions. To simplify things for now I'll concentrate on just one of two of the items you've offered and we can get back to the rest as time allows...

Before I begin, just a friendly note. Orthodox Trinitarians (RCC, EOC & OOC etc) teach that the Father is the first principle, the source and cause of all things, including the Son and the Spirit. We also teach that there is true distinction between the three individuals (hypostases, Heb 1:3). Albeit, in physis (2 Peter 1:4) they are indistinquishable (John 12:45; 14:9; 16:15). What do you find objectionable in these scripturally substantiated teachings?



The NWT is correct [at Col 1:16]I didn't say they were wrong! I'm quite happy with the NWT's paraphrase of the Greek word "ev" in the first clause as "by means of". From your earlier questioning of the NIV rendering "in" I understood you as not being aware that "ev" literally means "in" (also see: RSV, ASV, YNG).


you missed the point of my ‘grammatic tangent’... Julius Mantey (!) said of John 1 (which has the same issues as Col. 1) “Here God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creationMantey ('http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/apl/jw/jw-056.txt') wrote to the WB&TS concerning John 1:1c that he disagreed with the NWT translation/s and contrary to their various misrepresentations of him, he agreed with the NEB = "what God was the word was".

The general view is because the Logos was "pros" with God, and according to A.John (1:1c) had all the qualities and attributes ascribable to God, then as source of the Logos, God as first principle was source & cause of all the creative activities of the Logos. However, according to a literal interpretation of A.John it was the Logos that did the actual making - not as agent but as co-worker (cp. John 5:18 = "whatever [the Father] does, the Son also does in like manner").

I see an echo of John 1:1-3 in Colossians 1:16. Of course the Father is the source and cause, as it pleased the Father that in the Son all fulness should dwell (Col 1:19).

I draw your attention to Romans 11:36 "...from him [God] and by him and for him are all things" (NWT). Note the clause "δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν" is applied to the Father and is identical to the clause found in Col 1:16 which is applied to the Son = "δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν". So if you believe that "δι’ αὐτοῦ" (through him) applies to the Son, then likewise it applies to the Father (see below).


...and the logos as the intermediate agent”.Or co-worker. Was the Son an intermediary in our salvation, or the direct source according to scripture? (Of course, according to Jesus, the Father is the primary source and cause, because he sent his only Son to be saviour of the world (Jn 3). Jesus says he was sent and didn't come of his own volitian (Jn 8:42).


My point before was the Father is creating ‘en’ Christ (hence the passive ‘ektisqe’I suspect you think "ektisque" is a compound word, it isn't! Nor is it "passive" in terms of activity. "passive" is merely a reference to grammatical construct. For instance: in English a transitive verb with a direct object can be converted into a "passive" form wherein the direct object of the original clause becomes the subject. Eg: the transitive "the boy eats meat", becomes grammatically passive by saying "meat is eaten by the boy". Greek is similar but uses verb conjugation involving stems and endings. At Col 1:16 while we do not encounter the transitive "the Son created all things", we do encounter the grammatical passive "all things were created by the Son".

"ektisque" root is "ktisqe" which means "set foundation", "create". According to Robertson's Word Studies, "ektisqe" is "constative aorist passive indicative". At the end of the verse A.Paul uses "ektistai" which is "perfect passive indicative" = "remain created."


, compare Heb 1:1 where God spoke to the forefathers ‘en’ the prophets - and Jesus is the Son of the 'God, who spoke thru the prophets'One thing the WT&TS seems to have in common with the Orthodox churches, is the belief that it was the Son, as the messenger of YHWH, who spoke to the prophets, and appeared to Abraham, Jacob & Moses.


Heb. 1:1 is frequently glossed over), a Greek reader (such as Origen as I referenced earlier) would (and did) recognize this.Recognise what? According to the scriptures we are "en" the Son, and only "en" the Father, because he is "en' the Son (cp. Jn 17; Rom 8)


‘Ek’ is never used in reference to Christ and creation.Nor is it used directly of the Father in respect of creation! Scripture such as 1 Cor 8:6 attribute all things to the Father, but we "eis" to him (move toward him). 1 Cor 8:6 also attributes our origination to our Kyrios (owner), the Son. "dia" (see below) is used twice = all things (old creation) are by him, as are we (new creation) by him.


‘dia’ or ‘di’ means thru, showing agency.Have a read of Romans 11:36 of God it says "δι᾽ αὐτοῦ" (see above) just as it does of the Son at Col 1:16 & 1 Cor 8:6. On the basis of your understanding of Greek word/phrase meanings: in what way is God his own agent, and how does he do things through himself? (see Rom 11:36).

Peace

[enedraAT]

Hi enedraAT, Sorry for the delay in replying.

Ill be sporadic at best, have bigger fish to fry currently


I suspect you think "ektisque" is a compound word, it isn't! ... "passive" is merely a reference to grammatical construct.

theta-epsilon ending is used for passive voice (I should have made clearer that I meant voice)


From your earlier questioning of the NIV rendering "in" I understood you as not being aware that "ev" literally means "in"

"en", Like english, has primarily a locational sense ("in the box"), things weren't created literally "in" Christ (unless were panentheists). English has some of this, but it is unusual. "en" has an instrumental sense, which makes sense here (no pun intended)


Nor is it used directly of the Father in respect of creation

"I draw your attention to" 1 Cor 8:6 and Romans 11:36


I draw your attention to Romans 11:36 "...from him [God] and by him and for him are all things" (NWT). Note the clause "δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν" is applied to the Father and is identical to the clause found in Col 1:16 which is applied to the Son = "δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν".

Not quite

Col 1:16=...δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν

Romans 11:36=εξ αυτου και δι αυτου και εις αυτον τα παντα

Col 1:16 lacks ex/ek

Most commentators Ive read say "eis auton" makes the Son the goal of all things, which makes sense if he is the "heir of all things"


So if you believe that "δι’ αὐτοῦ" (through him) applies to the Son, then likewise it applies to the Father

I should have been more precise, Im referring to intermediate agency (Son) and ultimate agency (Father). It is clear in light of 1 Corinthians 8:6 that the Son is the intermediate agent. In light of this and the use of "ex" right before "di", "di" is being used in a causal sense (cf Gal 1:1)


Recognise what?

Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through [dia] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father? Origen - commentary on John

Best Regards,
EAT

[apostoli]

Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through [dia] the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father? Origen - commentary on JohnYou should be careful about parroting WB&TS misquotes. Your quote comes from Book 2, section 6 of Origen's commentary on John. In his response to rhetoric he emphatically says "We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos..."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm

In Orthodox Trinitarian opinion the Father as first principle, is the source and cause of all things, including the Son and the Spirit. However, just as with our salvation, it is the Son by whom all things directly came to be. To some extent I can agree the Son is the intermediary in all things, though to use NT metaphor, he is as groom the intermediary between his Father and his bride - the brides only way to access his Father.

Peace

[enedraAT]

You should be careful about parroting WB&TS misquotes. Your quote comes from Book 2, section 6 of Origen's commentary on John. In his response to rhetoric he emphatically says "We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos..."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm

Before you accuse me, put your own "quote" in context


It appears to me that those who hold the Holy Spirit to be created, and who also admit that “all things were made through Him,” must necessarily assume that the Holy Spirit was made through the Logos, the Logos accordingly being older than He. And he who shrinks from allowing the Holy Spirit to have been made through Christ must, if he admits the truth of the statements of this Gospel, assume the Spirit to be uncreated. There is a third resource besides these two (that of allowing the Spirit to have been made by the Word, and that of regarding it as uncreated), namely, to assert that the Holy Spirit has no essence of His own beyond the Father and the Son. But on further thought one may perhaps see reason to consider that the Son is second beside the Father, He being the same as the Father, while manifestly a distinction is drawn between the Spirit and the Son in the passage, “Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, he shall not have forgiveness, either in this world or in the world to come.” We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to be uncreated but the Father. We therefore, as the more pious and the truer course, admit that all things were made by the Logos, and that the Holy Spirit is the most excellent and the first in order of all that was made by the Father through Christ. And this, perhaps, is the reason why the Spirit is not said to be God's own Son.

More importantly you should have checked the Greek text, instead of the mistranslation (ANF has o' plenty)

"all things were made by the Logos"
"pantwn dia tou logou gegomenon"

Best Regards,
EAT

[apostoli]

Before you accuse me, put your own "quote" in context



More importantly you should have checked the Greek text, instead of the mistranslation (ANF has o' plenty)

"all things were made by the Logos"
"pantwn dia tou logou gegomenon"

Best Regards,
EATUnlike yourself I was honest enough to give direct source and quote reference.

As a bit of trivia the EOC consider Origen as an outright heretic. The RCC are more charitable suggesting his writings have been heavily interpolated by heretical groups. Imu, our main source for Origen is the heavily edited works of the Arian Ulfilas.

But apart from that I point you to the extreme Arian, Eunomoius...
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/eunomius_apology01.htm

Imo, the WB&TS has more in common with Eunomoius philosophical pursuits than anything resembling religiousness...(2 Tim 3:5)

[enedraAT]

Unlike yourself I was honest enough to give direct source and quote reference

Your accusing me of dishonesty?

FYI, this comes from Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Volume 14, 128, towards the bottom of the Greek section.


Imo, the WB&TS has more in common with Eunomoius philosophical pursuits than anything resembling religiousness...(2 Tim 3:5)

You can keep your opinion to yourself. IMO, you have no room to talk about "philosophical pursuits"

I like the NET's translation of 2 Tim. 3:5

"They will maintain the outward appearance of religion but will have repudiated its power. So avoid people like these."

Peace out,
EAT

[apostoli]

Your accusing me of dishonesty?Is your conscience bothering you? I simply said "Unlike yourself I was honest enough to give direct source and quote reference..." The point being I gave you verifiable references, something you neglect to do...


FYI, this comes from Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Volume 14, 128, towards the bottom of the Greek section.Which WB&TS publication did you get your citation from?


You can keep your opinion to yourself. IMO, you have no room to talk about "philosophical pursuits"Heh, this is a public forum! Opinions abound.

The fact remains, imo, the WB&TS ideas are based on the philosophical concept of the self contemplating Monad. Orthodox Trinitarianism is counter intuitive to the philosopher as it assumes the magnanimity of the Father in all things. As Jesus said "All things that the Father has are mine" (cp. John 16:15)



I like the NET's translation of 2 Tim. 3:5

"They will maintain the outward appearance of religion but will have repudiated its power. So avoid people like these."It is good advice. And it leads me to think upon Phil 2:9-11 (particularly verse 10).

[Billen]

The fact remains, imo, the WB&TS ideas are based on the philosophical concept of the self contemplating Monad.


Monad perhaps, but self contemplating?

WTB&S ideas are based on the concept of obedience and willingness to obey. Every human is considered lacking by inheritence and unable to retain ethics by itself. Even though ethics are explained, the lacking of humanity unables it to contain ethics. The unconscious mind will eventully corrupt ethics. The solution offered is to accept this as a present truth and demonstrate WILLINGNESS to be instructed. Thus the witness is required to be WILLING to let the WTB&S litteratures information shape the conscious mind, eliminating all self contemplation.

Further, you can say that the great amount of social challenge the concepts rules creates in the early life of a jw, intends to force the ideas of the child and youth into the subconscious mind. :-) Perhaps, if we get really paranoid, jw's are actually intended to rebel later on......ah, I am babbling now.

[apostoli]

Monad perhaps, but self contemplating?

WTB&S ideas are based on the concept of obedience and willingness to obey. Every human is considered lacking by inheritence and unable to retain ethics by itself. Even though ethics are explained, the lacking of humanity unables it to contain ethics. The unconscious mind will eventully corrupt ethics. The solution offered is to accept this as a present truth and demonstrate WILLINGNESS to be instructed. Thus the witness is required to be WILLING to let the WTB&S litteratures information shape the conscious mind, eliminating all self contemplation.

Further, you can say that the great amount of social challenge the concepts rules creates in the early life of a jw, intends to force the ideas of the child and youth into the subconscious mind. :-) Perhaps, if we get really paranoid, jw's are actually intended to rebel later on......ah, I am babbling now.My ex-wife became a JW. My children were brought up as JWs. My second eldest son became a drug adict and committed suicide because of the JWs (in my encounter, not an uncommon experience). My second youngest son died of Leukemia because of the JWs prohibition against blood transfusions (since revoked). My immediate family is totally disfunctional because of the JWs (my fault because of my support of my wife's zealousness). I have nothing against JWs as people - I know some very good people (even in Bethel) many of which are now dis-fellowshipped as they protested the increeping corruption of the society. The real situation = they have become a non-religious group, playing on people's persecution complex and conspiracy theories (a reaction to the failure of 1975). My ex-wife after 18 years of persecution of myself and children abandoned the sect and is now a non-religous person (as are pretty well every family (especially second generation JWs) I ever knew while she was a JW and since).

As at the time, a young and inquiring person, I studied with the JWs for a lot of years, especially (via referals) with the elders at Bethel. I have no criticism of any of them as people, but they (and many of the elders I have met) don't base their testimony on scripture but dogmatics and philosophy...

The WB&TS = JWs, refuse to accept Jesus as their owner, even though the NT is adament that, that is his Father's will. Every knee is to bow to the Son, in order to honour his Father. If JW's were serious in their worship, they would honour the Son as the Father made manifest instead of demoting him and making him an insignificant angel (neither Rutherford nor Russel would sanction the Jewishness advocated since Knor, Franz and subsequent leaders corrupted the society)...

[Billen]

I was raised in JW.
My little brother committed suicide 4 years after he was disfellowshipped with the words: "I cannot bear to keep apologizing"
My uncle was disfellowshipped after he at his fathers brothers funeral in the lutheran church, chose to support his "worldly" father while he stood up to recieve the priests blessing over the congregation. My father and mother who sat in the back of the church saw this and reported him to the elders. My uncle have tried to commit suicide 3 times since he was disfellowshipped.
My father remains a faithfull JW, who have refused to get surgery for his heartproblem, because, as he claimed, will not be able to bear to go through the whole procedure when he have to refuse bloodtransfussion.
My mother was disfellowshipped many years ago because she asked difficult questions about 1914. She's somewhat ok, but she keeps suffering from frequent depressions.

Generally the WB&TS is just a fraud as religion and I think most JW are aware or become aware. It starts out with the bible, then WB&TS doctrine and finally focus is moved almost entirely on social unity and organisational occupation. Some, like myself, devote themselves to preach fulltime and thus have to make a thourough study of the WB&TS doctrines, as they need to defend them when meeting people (especially devoted christians, who are willing to take up the discussion)

The corruption started the years after the failure of 1914, where it became clear the prophecy was false. All that came after this was only attempts to salvage the remaining network using the Society as the gathering focus. The whole teology after this time is build on attempts to restore the original expectation in the followers and keep the machinery going, searching in the scriptures only to justify current organisational structure.
The JW's are the Organisation where most jw's defend the doctrine mainly to maintain the illusion that their internal society and personal inside status and ambitions are justified by being works for God. It MUST be true, else all breaks down. Either one devotes oneself to examine the litterature to defend WB&TS-doctrine or one simply tries to ignore as much knowledge of things as possible.
So those that get DF'd, are usually not those with loose standards or lousy moral, but those who in whatever way challenge the authority and appearance of the Society.

This is reflected in doctrine, as it slowly changes shape. A study in the litterature reveals doctrine teaching and attempt for practise as being as I discribed.

You typically see it in those things that gets idealized respectively:
Christians idealize Jesus ("I love Jesus", "Jesus is a super guy")
JW's idealize the Organisation. ("Jesus' qualities [as interpretated by the Society] are shown in the way the Organisation functions")

JW's are tought to be loyal to the Society, to stay inside the Organisation. Loyality to the Society equals loyality to God.
JW's are also tought to read the litterature and listen what is said at the meetings. Knowledges obliges, and loyal witnesses will accept the knowledge given to them by the Society and correct their perception, thinking and behaviour accordingly. Individuality is considered to be a worldly value and of Satan. Thus one is required to supress own thoughts and devote oneself to examine and absorb WB&TS litterature.

Those who escapes are usually fed up with this way of life, and shys all elements in society that reminds them of the pressure they where exposed to while being jw's.