Is Christ A Created Being? [Archive]

Sparko

September 5th 2004, 04:07 PM

:lol: Your misconception of this is overwhelmingly embarrassing for you. A wise man once told me 'It is better to remain silent, and thought the fool, then to open your mouth, and remove all doubt.' n0rstar, you should follow your own advice. Instead of responding to the actual verses you go off on a tangent and cant even get that right.

The fact that Jehovah, YHWH, JHVH, Enoch, (wtf ever u want to call him) is alone more then supports the fact that there is no trinity, he did all things on his own, he didn't seek support from other equal entitys. You clearly do not understand the doctrine of the trinity. OK explain how in John 1:3 it says ALL things were made through Jesus and NOTHING was made without him, and yet in Isaiah, it says that Jehovah created everything alone, by himself. Instead of going on a tangent, how about sticking to the subject and explaining how this can be?

To propose the fact that Jesus is God himself is an oxymoron. In other words for you feeble minded dwellers of an aged doctrine that has been proven wrong on more then 3289473289749823 occassions, let me appeal to you again.
Let's remain civil here.

Mat 26:29But I tell YOU, I will by no means drink henceforth any of this product of the vine until that day when I drink it new with YOU in the kingdom of my Father.”

o yea, but we are all equal to our fathers in everything, err I mean, he was just acting in the 3rd person to set an example. Ok. You make absolutley no sense here. Jesus said he would not drink wine again until he drinks it wiith his followers in his Father's kingdom. What does that have to do with creation?

Mat 3:16After being baptized Jesus immediately came up from the water; and, look! the heavens were opened up, and he saw descending like a dove God’s spirit coming upon him. 17Look! Also, there was a voice from the heavens that said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.”

o but I mean, he must have been throwing his voice, cause that would be the proper thing to do. Er, the Father is not Jesus, and Jesus is not the Father, yet Jesus is God and the Father is God. If you can't grasp the basics of the trinity, how can you hope to argue against it?

Mat 3:8Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9and he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.” 10Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” 11Then the Devil left him, and, look! angels came and began to minister to him.

Opps looks like God himself needs to be ministered to by angels. O and whats this? ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” wow, looks like all you catholics who pray to Jesus and to Mary are actually going against the christian laws. Better go back to the drawing board on that faith! actually, just throw it away period, the world and little boys of the earth will be alot better off.
First, the word Jehovah does not appear in that passage, it was added by the translators of the NWT. The word in Greek is Kurios, meaning Lord. And it is in Matthew 4 not 3 that the verses you quote occur. And again, it has nothing to do with the OP. Jesus was not only God, but a man, and yes, the angels ministered to him because he was GOD. Angels were created to be the minsisters and messengers of God. Duh! And what does Mary have to do with anything?

Owait, I almost forgot John 1:1 the ONLY defence for the trinity :lol: poor feeble minded drones of a hollow faith. Again, be civil, please. And I can post an article so long it will make your head spin on all the verses that teach the trinity in the bible. I will probably do so in a later thread, but not here.

In harmony with the Revelation, in which Jesus Christ states that he is “the beginning of the creation by God” (Re 3:14), Do you think you can actually give the correct chaper and verse? Cuz that aint it.

John points out that this One was with God “in the beginning” and that “all things came into existence through him.” (Joh 1:1-3) Throughout the Gospel he stresses the intimacy of this only-begotten Son of God with his Father, and he quotes many of Jesus’ statements revealing that intimacy. Throughout the book we are kept aware of the Father-Son relationship, the subjection of the Son, and the worship of Jehovah as God by his Son. (Joh 20:17) This closeness qualified the Son to reveal the Father as no one else could and as God’s servants of ages past never realized. And John highlights the affectionate love of the Father for the Son and for those who become God’s sons by exercising faith in the Son Again, answer the question I posed above. If Jehovah created everything ALONE, by HIMSELF, and yet it is said that Jesus created everything, then who is Jesus?

I am not Jehovah Witness, I am not of any creed. My mission is to fight for Jehovah Witness in means they cannot. No longer will they be just punching bags through out their kindness. Actually, no one was using them as punching bags. The only one being rude in this thread is YOU. Correcting false doctrine is an act of love not hatred.

John Sparks

n0rstar

September 5th 2004, 04:26 PM

Begging the Question. Trinitarians believe that YHWH is one. And anyone who calls Enoch God is simply asking to be laughed at.

understandably, YHWH is the most accurate translation of gods name. Enoch was just thrown out there cause I know some creeds refer to him AS enoch, not myself. Also

Main Entry: Trin·i·ty
Pronunciation: 'tri-n&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English trinite, from Old French trinité, from Late Latin trinitat-, trinitas state of being threefold, from Latin trinus threefold
1 : the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma
2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or things
3 : the Sunday after Whitsunday observed as a feast in honor of the Trinity

the Definition alone of 'Trinity' implys that it IS 3 persons who act in synergy. :rolleyes: and have equal power. However they don't have equal power. YHWH is the Highest. (rest will come later down since you devided this so elegantly.)

How about the fact that THIS claim has been refute <Insert even large arbitary number> times??? Allow me to show how flawed your thinking really is.

I'm looking, but not seing. perhaps you forgot to type it out? or it is the comments below that this foreshadows.

Fallacy of Ignorance. Trinity supports postit a voluntary subservience of the Son to the Father during his time on Earth. Try again.

u mean a posit? mhmmm, it is very hard disputing with someone who attempts to use vocab out of their league. Please refrain from using words that exceeds your abilitys in order to keep this orginized and easier to respond to. Thanks.

Also, I understand that YHWH lends Jesus with his abilitys to set an example while on earth. THe key word of course is lend. Also the holy spirit wasn't around until after Jesus had retreated back to heaven. On another note the Holy Spirit doesn't have the abilitys of YHWH or Jesus.

More ignorance... Homoouison, my friend.[/qoute]

I beleave you ment, homoousian. Refering to the 4th century Nicene Creed. However ignorance is not mine. Also I agree that Jesus was a mirror image of YHWH's personality.

[quote=Xavier]
Of course Christ being an example couldn't possiblely be the answer... :rofl:

:lol: Yes, Jesus was an example, however straying away from the subject, then laughing at yoruself isn't couth. The subject and point since it seemed to evade you, was that Jesus was not YHWH, I am sure that made great sense for Satan to offer YHWH what is already his. Owait, its another example of what WE shouldn't do in these situations. I see. Ok, now I am the ignorant party, please forgive my imbecilic self.

Would to like to stick your foot any farther down your throat??? THIS is incredabily foolish of you...

www.spellcheck.com

There it is a title of reign, not of chronological dependance. See Philipians 2:9.

I take it you didn't read anything on my post about 'Begotten-Son' I care not to explain it again when it is just above the post you quoted.

as for phil 2:9For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name,

excuse me as I double over in laughter.

Could that be because he IS God??? GASP!!!!

John points out that this One was with God “in the beginning” and that “all things came into existence through him.” (Joh 1:1-3)

ummm yea, once again your rebuttals eludes me, perhaps you need some reading and comprehension courses added to these forums. I beleave it would be a good idea if people understood what they read, and what they say about it.

None of which is in conflict with the Trinitiarian view of God the Father and Christ the Son.

gadzooks man, I feel as if I am correcting a 2nd graders paper on physics. THe lack of comprehension of the material and statements is merely in motion.

You may not be JW, but you sure do argue like one...

Yours,
Xavier

Yea I did study with them for 4 years.

seer

September 5th 2004, 04:40 PM

Acts 20:28Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed YOU overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own [Son].

The Greek word mo·no·ge·nes´ is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.

The Scriptures speak of “the only-begotten son” of a widow who lived in the city of Nain, of Jairus’ “only-begotten daughter,” and of a man’s “only-begotten” son whom Jesus cured of a demon. (Lu 7:11,12; 8:41,42; 9:38) The Greek Septuagint uses mo·no·ge·nes´ when speaking of Jephthah’s daughter, concerning whom it is written: “Now she was absolutely the only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter.”—Jg 11:34.

The apostle John repeatedly describes the Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God. (Joh 1:14; 3:16,18; 1Jo 4:9) This is not in reference to his human birth or to him as just the man Jesus. As the Lo´gos, or Word, “this one was in the beginning with God,” even “before the world was.” (Joh 1:1,2; 17:5,24) At that time while in his prehuman state of existence, he is described as the “only-begotten Son” whom his Father sent “into the world.”—1Jo 4:9.

I'am sorry, you still did not answer the point:

John 1:3

"all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made."

Not ANYTHING that was MADE was MADE apart from Christ,this precludes Christ as being made.

Xavier

September 5th 2004, 04:57 PM

understandably, YHWH is the most accurate translation of gods name. Enoch was just thrown out there cause I know some creeds refer to him AS enoch, not myself.

Hrmn... Haven't heard of such creeds, though I have no reason to doubt their existance. :hrmn:

Anywho...

Also

Main Entry: Trin·i·ty
Pronunciation: 'tri-n&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English trinite, from Old French trinité, from Late Latin trinitat-, trinitas state of being threefold, from Latin trinus threefold
1 : the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead according to Christian dogma
2 not capitalized : a group of three closely related persons or things
3 : the Sunday after Whitsunday observed as a feast in honor of the Trinity

the Definition alone of 'Trinity' implys that it IS 3 persons who act in synergy. :rolleyes: and have equal power. However they don't have equal power. YHWH is the Highest. (rest will come later down since you devided this so elegantly.)

Since we seem to be having trouble with definitions:

u·ni·ty (yn-t) n. pl. u·ni·ties

1. The state or quality of being one; singleness.
2. The state or quality of being in accord; harmony.
3. 1. The combination or arrangement of parts into a whole; unification.
2. A combination or union thus formed.
4. Singleness or constancy of purpose or action; continuity: “In an army you need unity of purpose” (Emmeline Pankhurst).
5. 1. An ordering of all elements in a work of art or literature so that each contributes to a unified aesthetic effect.
2. The effect thus produced.
6. One of the three principles of dramatic structure derived by French neoclassicists from Aristotle's Poetics, stating that a drama should have but one plot, which should take place in a single day and be confined to a single locale.
7. Mathematics.
1. The number 1.
2. See identity element.

Wouldn't you know.... Definition Number One...

You know... Next time, try READING the dictionary you post from... :wink:

Oh, and before you start going, orthodoxy defines which definition of unity is used, not you...

I'm looking, but not seing. perhaps you forgot to type it out? or it is the comments below that this foreshadows.

Foreshadows the rest of the post... But you're smart enough to figure THAT out, Right?

u mean a posit? mhmmm, it is very hard disputing with someone who attempts to use vocab out of their league. Please refrain from using words that exceeds your abilitys in order to keep this orginized and easier to respond to. Thanks.

Typical... Can't discuss the argument, discuss the arguer...

You have absolutely no logical ground to stand on, Do you???

Also, I understand that YHWH lends Jesus with his abilitys to set an example while on earth. THe key word of course is lend. Also the holy spirit wasn't around until after Jesus had retreated back to heaven. On another note the Holy Spirit doesn't have the abilitys of YHWH or Jesus.

Lends... I'd like to see the metaphysics of "lending" primary attributes.

Not sure what the Holy Spirit has to do with the relationship between Christ and God. Seems like you don't have an answer so think another subject is in order.

I beleave you ment, homoousian. Refering to the 4th century Nicene Creed.

No, A homoousian is a person who holds that Christ and God were homoousios.

I was refering to the attribute, and spelling the Greek off the top of my head.

However ignorance is not mine. Also I agree that Jesus was a mirror image of YHWH's personality.

Need I further proof? Anyone, Anyone...

Homoousios is "of one substance" literally. The Council was refering to a concrete form of this, not an abstract that you seem to think it means.

:lol: Yes, Jesus was an example, however straying away from the subject, then laughing at yoruself isn't couth. The subject and point since it seemed to evade you, was that Jesus was not YHWH, I am sure that made great sense for Satan to offer YHWH what is already his. Owait, its another example of what WE shouldn't do in these situations. I see. Ok, now I am the ignorant party, please forgive my imbecilic self.

:ahem: So let's see... You've begged the question and then provide nothing other than lack of the orthodox understanding of the hypostatic union.

www.spellcheck.com

www.howtonotaddressthetopic.com

I take it you didn't read anything on my post about 'Begotten-Son' I care not to explain it again when it is just above the post you quoted.

No I didn't read it... As for as its revelance to my point, you don't bother to mention.

as for phil 2:9For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name,

excuse me as I double over in laughter.

Figure it out... God raised Christ up making him the "firstborn of creation". Christ in his incarnation WAS the "firstborn of creation". This is all in SEVERAL commentaries that are widely avaliable (Wesley, Clarke, etc.).

John points out that this One was with God “in the beginning” and that “all things came into existence through him.” (Joh 1:1-3)

Which is consistant with the Trinitiarn position... THAT was my point the FIRST time around...

ummm yea, once again your rebuttals eludes me, perhaps you need some reading and comprehension courses added to these forums. I beleave it would be a good idea if people understood what they read, and what they say about it.

www.spellcheck.com

Reading Comprehension would be YOUR problem since you can't seem to understand what I'm writing. The correct insult would have been to point to composition courses. If you're going to take the time to insult me, at least have the insults make sense. Or is that beyond your abilities?

gadzooks man, I feel as if I am correcting a 2nd graders paper on physics. THe lack of comprehension of the material and statements is merely in motion.

Gadzooks... The ignorance displayed in your posts is seemingly without end... I feel like I'm debating with a 12 year old JW. The argumentation and style is roughly equivalant.

Yea I did study with them for 4 years.

Figured you would have learned something... Oh well...

Yours,
Xavier

n0rstar

September 5th 2004, 04:59 PM

1. n0rstar, you should follow your own advice. Instead of responding to the actual verses you go off on a tangent and cant even get that right.

2. You clearly do not understand the doctrine of the trinity. OK explain how in John 1:3 it says ALL things were made through Jesus and NOTHING was made without him, and yet in Isaiah, it says that Jehovah created everything alone, by himself. Instead of going on a tangent, how about sticking to the subject and explaining how this can be?

3. Let's remain civil here.

4. You make absolutley no sense here. Jesus said he would not drink wine again until he drinks it wiith his followers in his Father's kingdom. What does that have to do with creation?

5. Er, the Father is not Jesus, and Jesus is not the Father, yet Jesus is God and the Father is God. If you can't grasp the basics of the trinity, how can you hope to argue against it?

6. First, the word Jehovah does not appear in that passage, it was added by the translators of the NWT. The word in Greek is Kurios, meaning Lord. And it is in Matthew 4 not 3 that the verses you quote occur. And again, it has nothing to do with the OP. Jesus was not only God, but a man, and yes, the angels ministered to him because he was GOD. Angels were created to be the minsisters and messengers of God. Duh! And what does Mary have to do with anything?

7. Again, be civil, please. And I can post an article so long it will make your head spin on all the verses that teach the trinity in the bible. I will probably do so in a later thread, but not here.

8. Do you think you can actually give the correct chaper and verse? Cuz that aint it.

9. Again, answer the question I posed above. If Jehovah created everything ALONE, by HIMSELF, and yet it is said that Jesus created everything, then who is Jesus?

Actually, no one was using them as punching bags. The only one being rude in this thread is YOU. Correcting false doctrine is an act of love not hatred.

John Sparks

man o man, can we not break this stuff down like this, its realy annoying =/

ANYWAY

1. Sorry if you can't comprehend or keep up, I will attempt to dumb it down some.

2. Accepting my own faults, you are 100% correct. I did mess that up bad What example I was trying to get through was, YHWH Created everything. (Genesis 1) He did however receive help on naming everything (I guess that counts?) In any event YHWH Created everything. He made the Earth, He made the heavens, He made the waters. I don't see anywhere where Jesus created a tree or the Holy Spirit created an animal.

SHow me the scripture in Isaiah please. Its a rather big book and I don't beleave I have the time to read it again to find this verse you obviously know but can't supply

3. Sorry. I will refrain from malice remarks towards people and their creeds.

4. The point is that he is going to his Fathers house, not his.

5. mmhmmm I do understand what the trinity implies, however I don't understand the logic of the trinity. Perhaps I should watch Dogma again.

6.
yar it is in matthew 4. I have a hard time typen quick and hitting those numbers. Perhaps I should slow down and read over my posts before hitting submit.

As for Kurios, not only Matthew but all the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures quoted verses from the Hebrew text or from the Septuagint where the divine name appears. For example, in Peter’s speech in Ac 3:22 a quotation is made from De 18:15 where the Tetragrammaton appears in a papyrus fragment of the Septuagint dated to the first century B.C.E. As a follower of Christ, Peter used God’s name, YHWH. When Peter’s speech was put on record the Tetragrammaton was here used according to the practice during the first century B.C.E. and the first century C.E.

Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”

I was unaware God would need to be tought by his own creations. :o

As for mary, that was just a low blow towards the topic of 'WHo we pray too' I know in Catholicism they have prayers to Mary and Jesus. I figured while I was quoting the scripture I would add that shot in as well :shrug:

7. If you would like to email it to me, you can. I am always intreasted in more information. n0rstar@n0rstar.net

8. huh?

Rev 3:14“And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce´a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God

Now how about posting a scripture instead of just telling me "The bible says so" I provided scriptures for you, and you can't even show me the same respect?? Come back at me when you can back it up with scriptures.

9. Horse shit I use to come here when I was studing with JW, I was actually invited by dee dee to start posting here. And every comment I made (although then it was MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more civil) I was gang raped and jumped for every statement I made. So now its my turn to let all you know that your faith is wrong, always was always will be.

n0rstar

September 5th 2004, 05:25 PM

wow. ok I am for real getting a headache from this. so I won't bother to be all fancy about a reply here.

First off I thought it was a TRINITY doctrine, not a UNITY doctrine. Perhaps thats where I went wrong all this time :lol: or you just like to change things around to make yourself look correct :shrug:

I am sorry if I can't understand you when you make up words and change the Trinity doctrine to the Unity doctrine. it makes it kinda hard when I can't understand wtf your trying to say.

Since it IS a TRInity, (well I'm not too sure now since I think we are talking about a unity doctrine now, perhaps you will change it to a Biunity doctrine after this post and realy throw me for a loop) ANYWHO Last time I checked the Trinity beleif was that GOD, JESUS and THE HOLY SPIRIT was 1, lets count this... 1 ... 2... 3 ... YUP 3 names holy shit!! I guess that would make it a Trinity.

perhaps lend was a bad choice of words, my first was endowed, but now that I think of it I should have stayed with that. In anyevent. Jesus while in heaven didn't have the ability to raise the dead, heal the blind, deaf etc... so yea, I would say that God Endowed Jesus with his abilitys while on earth to prove who he was. Had he been just any other man claiming to be the son of god I beleave he would have been now referred to as a martyr

ok so whats the greek definition and word now? I don't know it, so if you could enlighten me I would be deeply grateful.

Ok I'm glad since I spelled homoousian correctly for you, you was able to look it up and discover the definition, now show me in the bible where it states that jesus and god was of the same 'substance'

its also ashame that the 12 y/o can spell better then you and use vocabulary properly. :lol:

anyway, since now I have a throbbing headache I will return later to this intreasting palaver.

Xavier

September 5th 2004, 05:40 PM

wow. ok I am for real getting a headache from this. so I won't bother to be all fancy about a reply here.

Yeah... Don't bother replying either.

First off I thought it was a TRINITY doctrine, not a UNITY doctrine. Perhaps thats where I went wrong all this time :lol: or you just like to change things around to make yourself look correct :shrug:

Seems like it would be prudent to figure out what you are arguing against before stating it is incorrect...

I am sorry if I can't understand you when you make up words and change the Trinity doctrine to the Unity doctrine. it makes it kinda hard when I can't understand *** your trying to say.

You would if you bothered to actually learn what the Trinity doctrine is all about.

Since it IS a TRInity, (well I'm not too sure now since I think we are talking about a unity doctrine now, perhaps you will change it to a Biunity doctrine after this post and realy throw me for a loop) ANYWHO Last time I checked the Trinity beleif was that GOD, JESUS and THE HOLY SPIRIT was 1, lets count this... 1 ... 2... 3 ... YUP 3 names holy ****!! I guess that would make it a Trinity.

Your ignorance has no bounds it would seem.

perhaps lend was a bad choice of words, my first was endowed, but now that I think of it I should have stayed with that.

Both have the same metaphysical problem.

In any event. Jesus while in heaven didn't have the ability to raise the dead, heal the blind, deaf etc...

Really... Did he tell you that himself?

so yea, I would say that God Endowed Jesus with his abilitys while on earth to prove who he was. Had he been just any other man claiming to be the son of god I beleave he would have been now referred to as a martyr

You are free to assert an alternate position, but I hope you realize that it doesn't deal with mine.

ok so whats the greek definition and word now? I don't know it, so if you could enlighten me I would be deeply grateful.

Go back and read where I told you.

Ok I'm glad since I spelled homoousian correctly for you, you was able to look it up and discover the definition, now show me in the bible where it states that jesus and god was of the same 'substance'

And watch the point fly RIGHT OVER his head... Anywho, it's implied through the doctrines that are explictedly stated in the Bible. Jesus is God. There is only one God. Hense, the Triune Unity known as the Trinity.

its also ashame that the 12 y/o can spell better then you and use vocabulary properly. :lol:

Yeah... It would appear that I misspell higher end words while you have problems with the word 'believe'. Care to drop this stupid Ad Hom yet?

anyway, since now I have a throbbing headache I will return later to this intreasting palaver.

You mean 'interesting' I assume... :lol:

Yours,
Xavier

Patroclus

September 5th 2004, 06:13 PM

Use of profanity is prohibited strictly, even in abbreviated form

Sparko

September 5th 2004, 06:38 PM

1. Sorry if you can't comprehend or keep up, I will attempt to dumb it down some.
Bwaahahahahahahhaha :lmbo:

2. Accepting my own faults, you are 100% correct. I did mess that up bad What example I was trying to get through was, YHWH Created everything. (Genesis 1) He did however receive help on naming everything (I guess that counts?) In any event YHWH Created everything. He made the Earth, He made the heavens, He made the waters. I don't see anywhere where Jesus created a tree or the Holy Spirit created an animal.
So, do you actually read the posts in the thread you post in? Read Post number one.

SHow me the scripture in Isaiah please. Its a rather big book and I don't beleave I have the time to read it again to find this verse you obviously know but can't supply
Read post number 2

Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”
References please?

I was unaware God would need to be tought by his own creations. :o
Bwahahahahahha!!! :rofl:

You think "minister to" means "teach?" :lmbo:

To minister to means to serve someone. The angels ministered to Jesus and took care of him after his ordeal in the desert. He was also human remember?

Rev 3:14“And to the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce´a write: These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God
The greek word used is Arche, which means Origin. This again, like Xavier pointed out to you regarding "firstborn" is a title not a description. He is the Origin of the Creation.

What confuses you is that in the NT, when speaking of Jesus and the Father, the authors and even Jesus will refer to the Father as God instead of God the Father. This is because Jesus submitted his human self to the Father. It is a matter of voluntary "rank" and not of equality. God in this verse is God the Father.

Now how about posting a scripture instead of just telling me "The bible says so" I provided scriptures for you, and you can't even show me the same respect?? Come back at me when you can back it up with scriptures.
Dude! I did. Read post number two and respond. Quit trying to send this thread off on tangents.

Read the first two posts in this thread and show how they can be reconciled with Jesus not being God.

9. Horse * edited by a moderator * I use to come here when I was studing with JW, I was actually invited by dee dee to start posting here. And every comment I made (although then it was MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH more civil) I was gang raped and jumped for every statement I made. So now its my turn to let all you know that your faith is wrong, always was always will be.
I dont care if you tell me my faith is wrong. Just show some respect, back up your words and don't use profanity.

If you keep acting like a jerk, you will be treated like one. Go figure.

Xavier

September 5th 2004, 06:47 PM

Sometime during the second or third century C.E. the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, “Lord” or The·os´, “God.”

Actually... It would stand to reason that the Tetragrammation was removed by people translating the Hebrew into Greek.

The Tetragrammation occurs only in the Hebrew. There's no exact Greek equivalant, so they went with a general term that meant god.

I'm not sure about your dating of the change to the second century C.E. The LXX would have been done in the 2nd Centery B.C.E. and I don't think they preserved the Tetragrammation in their manuscripts.

Yours,
Xavier

barryrob

September 5th 2004, 07:37 PM

I am not Jehovah Witness, I am not of any creed. My mission is to fight for Jehovah Witness in means they cannot. No longer will they be just punching bags through out their kindness.

Hi n0rstar

I am a Jehovah's Witness and would thankyou for your support.

We also have another support as recorded at:-

2 Chronicles 20:15 ‘Do not YOU be afraid or be terrified because of this large crowd; for the battle is not YOURS, but God’s.

So any help is much welcome as Paul said:-

1 Corinthians 16:14 Let all YOUR affairs take place with love.

And

Colossians 4:6 Let YOUR utterance be always with graciousness, seasoned with salt, so as to know how YOU ought to give an answer to each one.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Barryrob

NonTrinitarian

September 5th 2004, 11:33 PM

John 1:3

"all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made."

Not ANYTHING made was made without Him. Therefore Christ is not a made being.
He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation- Eph 1:22

And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." -Matt 28:18

Care to discuss the exception to these verses? If so, I'll be glad to discuss the exception to your verse.

barryrob

September 6th 2004, 03:45 AM

Actually... It would stand to reason that the Tetragrammation was removed by people translating the Hebrew into Greek.

The Tetragrammation occurs only in the Hebrew. There's no exact Greek equivalant, so they went with a general term that meant god.

I'm not sure about your dating of the change to the second century C.E. The LXX would have been done in the 2nd Centery B.C.E. and I don't think they preserved the Tetragrammation in their manuscripts.

Yours,
XavierThe LXX does have the "Tetragrammation in their manuscripts":-

From N.W.T. Appendix 1C

The Divine Name in Ancient Greek Versions (LXX) of the Bible

LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266, first century B.C.E., retained the divine name in the Greek translation in Deut 32:3, 6.

Codex Alexandrinus (A), fifth century C.E., replaced the divine name with abbreviated forms of Kyrios in the Greek translation in De 32:3, 6.

The Aleppo Codex (Al), tenth century C.E., in Hebrew, preserved the divine name that appeared in the early Hebrew text in Deut 32:3, 6.

Over the past several decades many fragments of ancient Greek versions of the Hebrew Scriptures have been discovered wherein the divine name was found written, usually in Hebrew letters. This indicates that the divine name was used in Greek versions until well into the ninth century C.E. We are presenting ten manuscripts that contain the divine name, along with pertinent information.

(1) LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in square Hebrew characters (+, ) in the following places: Deut 18:5, 5, 7, 15, 16; 19:8, 14; 20:4, 13, 18; 21:1, 8; 23:5; 24:4, 9; 25:15, 16; 26:2, 7, 8, 14; 27:2, 3, 7, 10, 15; 28:1, 1, 7, 8, 9, 13, 61, 62, 64, 65; 29:4, 10, 20, 29; 30:9, 20; 31:3, 26, 27, 29; 32:3, 6, 19. Therefore, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs 49 times in identified places in Deuteronomy. In addition, in this collection the Tetragrammaton occurs three times in unidentified fragments, namely, in fragments 116, 117 and 123. This papyrus, found in Egypt, was dated to the first century B.C.E.

In 1944 a fragment of this papyrus was published by W. G. Waddell in JTS, Vol. 45, pp. 158-161. In 1948, in Cairo, Egypt, two Gilead-trained missionaries of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society obtained photographs of 18 fragments of this papyrus and permission to publish them. Subsequently, 12 of these fragments were published in the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, 1950, pp. 13, 14. Based on the photographs in this publication, the following three studies were produced: (1) A. Vaccari, "Papiro Fuad, Inv. 266. Analisi critica dei Frammenti pubblicati in: 'New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures.' Brooklyn (N. Y.) 1950 p. 13s.," published in Studia Patristica, Vol. I, Part I, edited by Kurt Aland and F. L. Cross, Berlin, 1957, pp. 339-342; (2) W. Baars, "Papyrus Fouad Inv. No. 266," published in the Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, Vol. XIII, Wageningen, 1959, pp. 442-446; (3) George Howard, "The Oldest Greek Text of Deuteronomy," published in the Hebrew Union College Annual, Vol. XLII, Cincinnati, 1971, pp. 125-131.

Commenting on this papyrus, Paul Kahle wrote in Studia Evangelica, edited by Kurt Aland, F. L. Cross, Jean Danielou, Harald Riesenfeld and W. C. van Unnik, Berlin, 1959, p. 614: "Further pieces of the same papyrus were reproduced from a photo of the papyrus by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in the introduction to an English translation of the New Testament, Brooklyn, New York, 1950. A characteristic of the papyrus is the fact that the name of God is rendered by the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew square letters. An examination of the published fragments of the papyrus undertaken at my request by Pater Vaccari resulted in his concluding that the papyrus, which must have been written about 400 years earlier than Codex B, contains perhaps the most perfect Septuagint text of Deuteronomy that has come down to us."

A total of 117 fragments of LXX P. Fouad Inv. 266 were published in Études de Papyrologie, Vol. 9, Cairo, 1971, pp. 81-150, 227, 228. A photographic edition of all the fragments of this papyrus was published by Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen under the title Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy, in the series "Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen," Vol. 27, Bonn, 1980.

(2) LXX VTS 10a renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters ( -. ) in the following places: Jon 4:2; Mic 1:1, 3; 4:4, 5, 7; 5:4, 4; Hab 2:14, 16, 20; 3:9; Zep 1:3, 14; 2:10; Zec 1:3, 3, 4; 3:5, 6, 7. This leather scroll, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Nahal Hever, was dated to the end of the first century C.E. The fragments of this scroll were published in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. X, Leiden, 1963, pp. 170-178.

(3) LXX IEJ 12 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters ( -. ) in Jon 3:3. This shred of parchment, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Nahal Hever, was dated to the end of the first century C.E. It was published in Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 12, 1962, p. 203.

(4) LXX VTS 10b renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters ( /0 ) in the following places: Zec 8:20; 9:1, 1, 4. This parchment scroll, found in the Judean desert in a cave in Nahal Hever, was dated to the middle of the first century C.E. It was published in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. X, 1963, p. 178.

(5) 4Q LXX Lev b renders the divine name in Greek letters 1 (IAO) in Lev 3:12; 4:27. This papyrus manuscript, found in Qumran Cave 4, was dated to the first century B.C.E. A preliminary report of this manuscript was presented in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. IV, 1957, p. 157.

(6) LXX P. Oxy. VII.1007 renders the divine name by abbreviating the Tetragrammaton in the form of a double ( 23 ) Yohdh in Gen 2:8, 18. This vellum leaf, dated to the third century C.E., was published in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part VII, edited with translations and notes by Arthur S. Hunt, London, 1910, pp. 1, 2.

(7) Aq Burkitt renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters ( 45 ) in the following places: 1Ki 20:13, 13, 14; 2Ki 23:12, 16, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27. These fragments of the Greek text of the version of Aquila were published by F. Crawford Burkitt in his work Fragments of the Books of Kings According to the Translation of Aquila, Cambridge, 1898, pp. 3-8. These palimpsest fragments of the books of Kings were found in the synagogue genizah in Cairo, Egypt. They were dated to the end of the fifth century or the beginning of the sixth century C.E.

(8) Aq Taylor renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters ( 67 ) in the following places: Ps 91:2, 9; 92:1, 4, 5, 8, 9; 96:7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13; 97:1, 5, 9, 10, 12; 102:15, 16, 19, 21; 103:1, 2, 6, 8. These fragments of the Greek text of the version of Aquila were published by C. Taylor in his work Hebrew-Greek Cairo Genizah Palimpsests, Cambridge, 1900, pp. 54-65. These fragments were dated after the middle of the fifth century C.E., but not later than the beginning of the sixth century C.E.

(9) Sym P. Vindob. G. 39777 renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in archaic Hebrew characters ( 89 or :; ) in the following places: Ps 69:13, 30, 31. This fragment of a parchment roll with part of Ps 69 in Symmachus (68 in LXX), kept in the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, was dated to the third or fourth century C.E. It was published by Dr. Carl Wessely in Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde, Vol. XI., Leipzig, 1911, p. 171.

Here we reproduce the fragment of this papyrus containing the divine name.

(10) Ambrosian O 39 sup. renders the divine name by the Tetragrammaton written in square Hebrew characters ( <= ) in all five columns in the following places: Ps 18:30, 31, 41, 46; 28:6, 7, 8; 29:1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3; 30:1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 10, 12; 31:1, 5, 6, 9, 21, 23, 23, 24; 32:10, 11; 35:1, 22, 24, 27; 36:Sup, 5; 46:7, 8, 11; 89:49 (in columns 1, 2 and 4), 51, 52. This codex, dated to the end of the ninth century C.E., has five columns. The first column contains a transliteration of the Hebrew text into Greek, the second column has the Greek version of Aquila, the third column has the Greek version of Symmachus, the fourth column contains the LXX and the fifth column contains the Greek version of Quinta. A facsimile edition of this palimpsest, together with a transcript of the text, was published in Rome in 1958 by Giovanni Mercati under the title Psalterii Hexapli Reliquiae ... Pars prima. Codex Rescriptus Bybliothecae Ambrosianae O 39 sup. Phototypice Expressus et Transcriptus.

These ten manuscript fragments indicate that the translators of the Hebrew text into Greek used the divine name where it occurred in the Hebrew text. Moreover, the occurrence of the Tetragrammaton in Zec 9:4 corroborates the claim that the Jewish Sopherim replaced the Tetragrammaton with 'Adhonai (Sovereign Lord) in the Hebrew text in 134 places.-See N.W.T. App 1B.

The following quotation is by Robert B. Gridlestone, born in England in 1836, was head of the translation department of the British and Foreign Bible Society, principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, and minister of St. John's Downshire Hall, Hampstead:-

"It has been urged with some force that the name Jehovah (3068) ought to have been adopted more generally in translations of the Bible, whereas it is confined to a very few. Putting aside the difficulty as to the right spelling of the word, it may be observed that the LXX had set an example before our Lord's time that would not be easy to depart from now. If that version had retained the word, or had used one Greek word for Jehovah (3068) and another for Adonay (113), such usage would doubtless have been retained in the discourses and arguments of the N.T. Thus our Lord, [i]in quoting the 110 th Psalm, instead of saying, "The Lord said unto my Lord," might have said, "Jehovah [3068] said unto Adoniy [113]" how such a course would have affected theological questions it is not easy to surmise; nor is it needful to attempt any conjectures on the subject, as the stubborn fact remains before us that Adonay (136) and Jehovah (3068) are alike rendered in the Septuagint, and that the LXX usage has led to the adoption of the same word in the N.T. It is certainly a misfortune, and cannot easily be rectified without making a gulf between the O.T. and the N.T. How can it be gotten over?"-'Girdlestone's Synonyms of the Old Testament' Their bearing on Christian Doctrine, Third Edition, 1983 p.56 published by Baker Book House.

As we can see that above comment is wrong in view of the texts found that do have God's Name therein of the LXX.

Barryrob

seer

September 6th 2004, 06:30 AM

He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation- Eph 1:22

And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." -Matt 28:18

Care to discuss the exception to these verses? If so, I'll be glad to discuss the exception to your verse.

Sure, what is your point? How does that bear on the fact that ANYTHING that was MADE was MADE through Christ? Precluding of course, Christ being a made creature.

Sparko

September 6th 2004, 11:48 AM

Sure, what is your point? How does that bear on the fact that ANYTHING that was MADE was MADE through Christ? Precluding of course, Christ being a made creature.
Seer,

I see that a common tactic in this thread is to not answer a simple direct question, but instead to try to obfuscate things by changing the subject or play, "well what about this....?" without addressing the OP.

NonTrinitarian

September 6th 2004, 06:35 PM

Sure, what is your point? How does that bear on the fact that ANYTHING that was MADE was MADE through Christ? Precluding of course, Christ being a made creature. Because you highlighted anything as if this meant no exception and applied it to heaven and earth. The verses I provide also say all things have been subjected to Christ and yet this obviously cannot be taken to mean all things as in everything because the Father is not in subjection to Christ.

Furthermore, the word panta at John 1:3 can also be limited to a physical sense. IE, turn to Ps 8:5 where it reads "Thou hast given him [man] dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things [panta, LXX] under his feet."

Clearly panta does not mean "all things" as in everything. It means the physical elements on earth as the angels are certainly not subjected to men. The logic presented from this argument is of the same level as saying Christ existed in the "beginning". But the beginning of what? Gen 1:1? Probably. Only the angels were in existence at Gen 1:1 too because they were applauding God as the witnessed the earth being created.

You have to look at the context of a verse. If John is referencing Genesis 1:1, like most Trinitarians believe, then "beginning" is in reference to the beginnging of the physical earth. And if that is what John is referencing, then the panta that came into existence through Christ is still in reference to the physical earth.

Seer,

I see that a common tactic in this thread is to not answer a simple direct question, but instead to try to obfuscate things by changing the subject or play, "well what about this....?" without addressing the OP. Johnsparks,
Apparently you're not used to having to defend your logic. Too bad if you don't like us rolling over and playing your game of 'because I so it must be true.' Other scriptures I will mention to "obfuscate" this subject are Prov 8:22-30, Col 1:15,16, Heb 1:2 and Rev 3:14.

Sparko

September 6th 2004, 07:12 PM

Because you highlighted anything as if this meant no exception and applied it to heaven and earth.
Actually NT, you act as if "all things" was not clearly defined in the verse and could mean "not really everything created." But that is not the case.

The verse says:

"all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made."

That does not leave you any wiggle room to redefine "anything" or "all things"

We can take other translations as well:

John 1:3

(NWT) All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

(ALT) All [things] came to be through Him, and without Him not even one thing came to be which has come to be.

(ASV) All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.

(EMTV) All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be which has come to be.

(ESV) All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

(GNB) Through him God made all things; not one thing in all creation was made without him.

(GW) Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.

(HNV) All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made.

(ISV) Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made.

(KJVA) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

(LITV) All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

(MKJV) All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

(MSG) Everything was created through him; nothing--not one thing!-- came into being without him.

(Vulgate) omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est

(WEB) All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made.

(Webster) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

(WNT) All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing that exists came into being.

Conclusion? Jesus was not created. And since the verse in Isaiah I quoted in post #2 says that YHWH is the one who created everything ALONE, then Jesus is God.

NonTrinitarian

September 6th 2004, 07:31 PM

Actually NT, you act as if "all things" was not clearly defined in the verse and could mean "not really everything created." But that is not the case.

The verse says:

"all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made."

That does not leave you any wiggle room to redefine "anything" or "all things"

We can take other translations as well:

John 1:3

(NWT) All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.

(ALT) All [things] came to be through Him, and without Him not even one thing came to be which has come to be.

(ASV) All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.

(EMTV) All things came to be through Him, and without Him nothing came to be which has come to be.

(ESV) All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

(GNB) Through him God made all things; not one thing in all creation was made without him.

(GW) Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.

(HNV) All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made.

(ISV) Through him all things were made, and apart from him nothing was made that has been made.

(KJVA) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

(LITV) All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

(MKJV) All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being.

(MSG) Everything was created through him; nothing--not one thing!-- came into being without him.

(Vulgate) omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est

(WEB) All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made.

(Webster) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

(WNT) All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing that exists came into being.

Conclusion? Jesus was not created. And since the verse in Isaiah I quoted in post #2 says that YHWH is the one who created everything ALONE, then Jesus is God. Quoting all those Bible translations was a waste of good electrons. You could have just quoted the NWT because it says the same thing. What part of my post made you think I was arguing translation anyway?

You still haven't answered the fundamental point I made. John 1:1 is obviously refering to Genesis 1:1. So I totally agree that nothing was made apart from Christ. The question is what is being referenced? Thus far you've offered nothing in this regard. I have demonstrated via Ps 8:5 that panta can be limited to a realm, in its case the physical realm. If most theologians are correct in that John 1:1 is in reference to Gen 1:1 then John 1:1-3 is in reference to the physical realm and I agree that "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

So what's your argument?

Furthermore, John 1:3 is not in a vacuum. Christ is called the "firstborn of all creation." If you can find one verse in the Bible where a person is said to be the firstborn of a group and is not part of the group he is firstborn over, then I'll concede Christ is God.

Good luck (and note that what I said applies to both literal firstborns and for those instances where firstborn means made head of or placed over.)

Sparko

September 6th 2004, 09:12 PM

Quoting all those Bible translations was a waste of good electrons. You could have just quoted the NWT because it says the same thing. What part of my post made you think I was arguing translation anyway?

You still haven't answered the fundamental point I made. John 1:1 is obviously refering to Genesis 1:1. So I totally agree that nothing was made apart from Christ. The question is what is being referenced? Thus far you've offered nothing in this regard. I have demonstrated via Ps 8:5 that panta can be limited to a realm, in its case the physical realm. If most theologians are correct in that John 1:1 is in reference to Gen 1:1 then John 1:1-3 is in reference to the physical realm and I agree that "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."
The point is that not one thing came into existance apart from him includes the heavens and everything in it. Are not angels things? is not heaven a thing? Everything means everything. It specifically says NOT ONE thing that was made, was made apart from him. That is pretty clear that it includes anything that was made, even in heaven, and even heaven itself.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

So don't try to say all things only refers to earth.

Furthermore, John 1:3 is not in a vacuum. Christ is called the "firstborn of all creation." If you can find one verse in the Bible where a person is said to be the firstborn of a group and is not part of the group he is firstborn over, then I'll concede Christ is God.
First, it is a title. It means he is the "head of" or "ruler" over all creation and second who said Jesus was not part of creation in the sense that he has a human body? He was spirit before, the second person of the trinity, but he joined the human race when he was born and he gained a human nature and will forever be not only God, but man too.

NonTrinitarian

September 7th 2004, 09:10 PM

The point is that not one thing came into existance apart from him includes
the heavens and everything in it. Are not angels things? is not heaven a
thing? Everything means everything. It specifically says NOT ONE thing that
was made, was made apart from him. That is pretty clear that it includes
anything that was made, even in heaven, and even heaven itself.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or
authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all
things, and in him all things hold together.

So don't try to say all things only refers to earth. 1.) It is pretty clear John 1:1 is referring to Gen 1:1 which is dealing ONLY with the creation of the physical elements. If you have any confussion over that I suggest you read Gen 1:8,9,14,15,17 and 2:1. I believe it's pretty plain, even for those who don't give much thought to this subject, that the "heavens" is not in reference to the spiritual heavens where the angels dwell. Furthermore, the scriptures show that the angels, who were already living in the heavens, were applauding God while Genesis chapter 1 was unfolding. They were also "in the beginning." Thus, since John is referencing the physical creation at John 1:1, try proving that he was NOT referencing the physical things in John 1:3 with any real conviction. There is not one thing from the beginning of human creation that was not made through Jesus. Jesus was in the beginning and everything created in the beginning was made through Jesus. It may be your practice to rip a verse out of context to suit your own theology but I work with higher standards than that.

2.)You said "Everything means everything" and yet I CLEARLY showed you from Ps 8:5 that this is NOT the case. I know you DON'T think "Everything means everything" at Ps 8:5 because of the context of the verse. In the same way, the context of John 1:1-3 and it's reference to Genesis 1:1 should also tell you it is in reference to the creation of the earth, not anything prior to it.

3.) "Everything means everything" is also not true because God is in heaven and obviously he is exempt from this. So no, everything in heaven was NOT created by Christ.

4.) Col 1:15-17 expands on John 1:1, now including the angelic sons of God as well. But again, the context includes Jesus in the group of creation by calling him the firstborn of the group of creation.

First, it is a title. It means he is the "head of" or "ruler" over all
creation and second who said Jesus was not part of creation in the sense
that he has a human body? He was spirit before, the second person of the
trinity, but he joined the human race when he was born and he gained a human
nature and will forever be not only God, but man too. I've never read this explanation in any Trinitarian book or website so I guess I'd start there for an answer to your "who said Jesus was not part of creation in the sense that he has a human body?" question. I've only heard TwoHumble say this. You wouldn't happen to be him posing under another name, would you? This explanation is problematic from the begining and is most likely why there are no known Trinitarian authors (that I'm aware of) that argue as such. If Paul is talking about the physical body of Jesus then he is saying this same physical bodied Jesus created everything else. After all, he argues it is the "firstborn of all creation" that does the creation and under your logic Jesus wasn't the firtborn of all creation until AFTER he came to the earth? Was not Christ the "firstborn of all creation" BEFORE he came to the earth? And if he was, then by definition he was part of creation BEFORE he came to the earth. If you say he was not the "firstborn of all creation" until AFTER he came to the earth you're gonna have a slew of Trinitarians calling you a heretic. Thus, show me one Trinitarian scholar who says Jesus is part of creation at Col 1:15 because of his physical body. Paul is talking about the person of Jesus who is part of creation. The firstborn of creation, the very first thing God created.

Revelation 3:14 says he is the beginning of the creation by God

Prov 8 has Wisdom, whom many scholars see as being Jesus, saying he was created first and then used in the creation of all other things.

Some early Church Fathers also support this point:

Origin, (185-254 C.E.) proclaimed:

'For the Son of God "the First-born of all creation," [Colossians 1:15, NAB, et al.] although He seemed recently to have become incarnate, is not by any means on that account recent. For the holy Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of creation [emphasis added]; for it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of man, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness."'-Against Celsus, book 4, chapter 37. He also states:
"For wisdom says in Solomon: "God created me in the beginning of His ways, for His works..."Thou my Son, this day have I [the Father, Jehovah] begotten Thee, [the Word, the Son] Ps. 2:7 this is spoken to Him [the Son] by God, with whom all time is to-day...The day is to-day with Him in which the Son was begotten, and thus the beginning of His birth is not found, as neither is the day of it...We must not, however, pass over in silence that He is of right the Wisdom of God, and hence is called by that name..."God created me the beginning of His ways, for His works." By this creating act [the birth of the Son in ages past, Micah 5:2] the whole creation was enabled to exist." -Commentary on the Book of John, chapters 21, 32, 39; ANF, Volume X, pp. 307, 314, 317. He also states,
'And therefore we have first to ascertain what the first begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: 'The Lord created me-the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing He formed me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of water...He brought me forth....He is styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: "is the first-born of every creature." The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same. Finally, the Apostle Paul says, that "Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God."' (e.a.)-De Principiis, Book I, chapter II, section I; ibid., Volume IV, p. 246. Tertullian had this to say on it:

'But in proof that the Greek word [ajrchv] means nothing else than beginning, and that beginning admits of no other sense that the initial [first] one, we have that (Being) even acknowledging such a beginning, who says: "The Lord possessed12 me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works....12 Condidit: "created"'-Against Hermogenes, chapter XX (20), ANF, Volume III, p 488.

'The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person under the name of Wisdom: "The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills, did He beget me."'-Against Praxeas, chapter VII, ibid. Volume III, p. 602.
Cyprian had this to say:

"That Christ is the Firstborn, and that He is the Wisdom of God by whom all things were made. In Solomon, in the Proverbs: "Lord established me in the beginning of His ways, into His works: before the world He founded me. In the beginning, before He made the earth...the Lord Begot me..."Also Paul to Colossians: "Who Is the image of the invisible God, and the first-born of every creature..." That He also is both the wisdom and the power of God, Paul proves in his first Epistle to the Corinthians...Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [1 Cor. 1:24]-The Treatises of Cyprian, Second Book, first testimony, § one; ibid., Volume V, pages 515-6.

Sparko

September 7th 2004, 11:45 PM

1.) It is pretty clear John 1:1 is referring to Gen 1:1 which is dealing ONLY with the creation of the physical elements. If you have any confussion over that I suggest you read Gen 1:8,9,14,15,17 and 2:1. I believe it's pretty plain, even for those who don't give much thought to this subject, that the "heavens" is not in reference to the spiritual heavens where the angels dwell.
Wow, you really like to post a lot of red herrings to avoid discussing a clear point don't you?

So God created heaven before "the beginning" ---- in what, the "prologue" of creation? Of course heavens means both heaven, the angels, as well as the universe. Heaven and the angels were created too. They did not exist for eternity.

But lets get back to the topic of this thread.

What does Colossians say?

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

It clearly says all things were created by Jesus. Things in heaven and earth. ALL THINGS. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Therefore when John 1:3 says "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

it means literally ALL things. Everything. There is no weasling out of it. No matter how many other places in the bible you can find where the word for everything is qualified to not mean "everything" -- in this case it really does mean everything. It says so in two places with clear explanation as to what "everything" includes. If you don't buy it in john 1:3, you can't deny it in 1 Col 1:15 -- it says so explicitly.

3.) "Everything means everything" is also not true because God is in heaven and obviously he is exempt from this. So no, everything in heaven was NOT created by Christ.
No, it does not mean God, because God was not created, and he is not a thing. So think about it: If Jesus created EVERYTHING that was created, that obviously did not include himself, so he is UNCREATED. Just like God. Hmmm, geee, He must be God then.

4.) Col 1:15-17 expands on John 1:1, now including the angelic sons of God as well. But again, the context includes Jesus in the group of creation by calling him the firstborn of the group of creation.

So how did Jesus create himself? If he created everything and he is a thing, then he must have created himself? That is idiotic. He is uncreated. He is God.

I've never read this explanation in any Trinitarian book or website so I guess I'd start there for an answer to your "who said Jesus was not part of creation in the sense that he has a human body?" question. I've only heard TwoHumble say this. You wouldn't happen to be him posing under another name, would you?
I never said he wasn't appointed the firstborn until he was born. He could have had that title from eternity, since God is outside of time anyway. I just commented on your absurd objection that he must be a creation since firstborn means he must be part of the "group" - he was part of that group. He was begotten as a man, but that does not preclude his preexistance from eternity as the Son, the second person of the Trinity. Your silly semantics are just that, silly semantics.

NonTrinitarian

September 8th 2004, 12:42 PM

NT said,
1.) It is pretty clear John 1:1 is referring to Gen 1:1 which is dealing
ONLY with the creation of the physical elements. If you have any confussion
over that I suggest you read Gen 1:8,9,14,15,17 and 2:1. I believe it's
pretty plain, even for those who don't give much thought to this subject,
that the "heavens" is not in reference to the spiritual heavens where the
angels dwell.

JS replied,
Wow, you really like to post a lot of red herrings to avoid discussing a
clear point don't you?

So God created heaven before "the beginning" ---- in what, the "prologue" ofcreation? Of course heavens means both heaven, the angels, as well as theuniverse. Heaven and the angels were created too. They did not exist foreternity.

But lets get back to the topic of this thread. Okay folks. We're going around and around in this discussion so let's step back and examine the arguments. JohnSparks apparently doesn't have that ability so he throws out the red herring cry. But let's review, shall we?

JS argues that John 1:3 says Christ created all things. (Never mind for now that it doesn't say Christ "created" all things, it says they came in existence "through" him, and yes, there is a huge difference). He takes the "all things" to refer to every single thing. Apparently the ability to analyze a scripture in context doesn't exist with all persons. It is clear John 1:1 is in reference to Genesis 1:1. And every Trinitarian author I know says as much. (JS, if you know of a Trinitarian scholar that argues otherwise, please share.) So all I asked is that JS go to Genesis 1 and see what creation it is discussing. Was I throwing out a red herring for doing that? Was I asking too much of JS when I simply wanted him to recognize the context of what John was talking about? Apparently I was. JS throws out the red herring cry apparently because he's embarrassed by what he finds at Genesis 1.

In the previous post I demonstrated without refutation from JS that Genesis 1, which is what John 1:1-3 is referring to, is only discussing the creation of the physical elements. I even pointed to the specific verses where "heavens" are mentioned to prove it was not in reference to the spiritual realm. Thus, John's reference to Christ being in the "beginning" is in reference to the beginning of the creation of the physical elements and everything that was created at that time.

Now JS misunderstands me as saying 'Christ wasn't used in the creation of the angels in heaven before Genesis 1:1'. But I said no such thing and if he would have actually read my post rather than knee-jerking his red herring remarks, he would have seen that. What I was doing was analyzing what each verse says and does not say. JS apparently has the ability to read the minds of the authors of the NT. I don't have that ability so I have to stick with what they wrote. John was referring to all things made in the physical creation at Genesis 1:1. JS attempts to transfer Col 1:16 over to John 1:3 but he has no right to do such. So what about Col 1:16?

What does Colossians say?

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or
authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all
things, and in him all things hold together.

It clearly says all things were created by Jesus. Things in heaven and
earth. ALL THINGS. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Therefore when John 1:3 says "All things came into existence through him,
and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

it means literally ALL things. Everything. There is no weasling out of it.
No matter how many other places in the bible you can find where the word for
everything is qualified to not mean "everything" -- in this case it really
does mean everything. It says so in two places with clear explanation as to
what "everything" includes. If you don't buy it in john 1:3, you can't deny
it in 1 Col 1:15 -- it says so explicitly. Thus, as I said, JS attempts to force Col 1:16 onto John 1:3. But do you see the mind-reading JS is doing? He asserts with no proof that John was referring to the spiritual realm as well. Without ever recognizing that John was referring to Genesis 1:1 which discusses only the physical realm.(Or maybe he does recognize this and wants to run from it?) Of course, JS accuses me of trying to 'weasel' out of things but I'm not weaseling, I'm just reading what the author wrote, not what I can read into what the author wrote.

As far as Col 1:16, we now see Jesus had an even greater role in creation, which included the angelic beings in heaven. But does this preclude that Christ was not a created being? No. Because Paul clearly says Christ was part of the created group, calling him the firstborn of the group. JS does some fancy footwork and talks out both sides of his mouth below and I will address this but the point is clear. By calling Jesus 'firstborn of all creation', Paul believed Jesus was part of the creative group. Simply because there are no examples of anyone or anything not being part of the group he is firstborn of.

NT said,
3.) "Everything means everything" is also not true because God is in
heaven and obviously he is exempt from this. So no, everything in heaven was
NOT created by Christ.

JS replied,
No, it does not mean God, because God was not created, and he is not a
thing. So think about it: If Jesus created EVERYTHING that was created, that
obviously did not include himself, so he is UNCREATED. Just like God. Hmmm,
geee, He must be God then. In an effort to debunk the obvious point that "all things" do not mean "all things", JS foolishly states "God...is not a thing." It's an embarrassment to JS and I wonder if he would actually research the scriptures rather than crying 'red herring' and arguing against things I did not say, he might think about what he writes. The scriptures are very clear that God is a thing. I encourage JS to invest in a dictionary as a starting point. Then he also needs to read 1 Cor 15:27,28

"For God subjected all things under his feet. But when he says 'all things have been subjected', it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him."

Now note something that escaped JS' research. Paul says all things have been subjected to Christ but then list a thing not subjected to Christ. If God was not a thing then he would not have been an exception to the things subjected to Christ.

Again, we can see the level of thought and research JS puts into this subject and understand why he wants to divert the arguments by yelling 'red herring'. If he would spend more time reading what the Bible says instead of trying to read into the Bible his own thoughts, he would have not made some of the foolish remarks he has. Calling Jesus the firstborn of creation immediately throws Jesus into the class of created beings. Paul then states that all other things were created through Jesus.

NT said,
4.) Col 1:15-17 expands on John 1:1, now including the angelic sons of
God as well. But again, the context includes Jesus in the group of creation
by calling him the firstborn of the group of creation.

JS replied,
So how did Jesus create himself? If he created everything and he is a thing,
then he must have created himself? That is idiotic. He is uncreated. He is
God. You're right, Jesus creating himself is an idiotic statement and one I didn't make. Maybe if JS would actually deal with my arguments instead of crying 'red herring', arguing against straw man statements like this one and foolishly saying God is not a thing, he might sound like someone who has studied this subject.

JS again basis his argument incorrectly on the phrase "all things", arguing it is all inclusive of everything. But JS only needs to read a few verses later to realize the error of his logic. Step down 5 verses to Col 1:20,

"and through him to reconcile to himself all things by making peace through the blood he shed...whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens."

Now unless JS believes Satan and his demons will also be reconciled to Christ and become a child of God's, he must admit that the phrase 'all things on earth and in heaven' is not without qualification. In fact, Col 1:15 automatically throws Jesus into the exception that all things did not include him, though he is still part of the created group. No, Jesus didn't create himself. I plainly stated from Rev 3:14 that he was "the beginning of the creation by God", not himself. Stick to the arguments on the table rather than creating your own, JS.

NT said,
I've never read this explanation in any Trinitarian book or website so I
guess I'd start there for an answer to your "who said Jesus was not part of
creation in the sense that he has a human body?" question. I've only heard
TwoHumble say this. You wouldn't happen to be him posing under another name,
would you?

JS replied,
I never said he wasn't appointed the firstborn until he was born. He could
have had that title from eternity, since God is outside of time anyway. I
just commented on your absurd objection that he must be a creation since
firstborn means he must be part of the "group" - he was part of that group.
He was begotten as a man, but that does not preclude his preexistance from
eternity as the Son, the second person of the Trinity. Your silly semantics
are just that, silly semantics. Silly semantics are how we understand language, at least for those who actually read the Bible instead of reading into the Bible. I noticed that JS didn't provide any reputable Trinitarian who explained that Jesus was part of the group of creation because he was a man on earth. The only thing silly of me was having some hope that he would.

Nowhere in scripture (or any other literature that I am aware of) is anyone called "firstborn" of something and is not part of that something. IE, the firstborn of a king is included in the offspring of the king. A king can be placed as firstborn over his other brothers (even if he's not literally the firstborn) but he is still part of the brothers. A nation can be placed as firstborn over the other nations but it is still a nation. JS, having no argument for this calls this silly semantics. I agree one of us is looking silly. How foolish of me to attempt to understand language by evaluating the scores of times a phrase is used.

Even in Col 1 we see strong evidence for Jesus not being God. In verse 3 it is clear that God and Jesus are two separate persons, something that can be addressed on AFTER one accepts the Trinity. (and note it says God, not God the Father, just God, period). Vs 13 calls Christ God's Son, that term always including the thought of one being older than the other. It's logical for one who is elsewhere called "God's firstborn" and "God's only-begotten son" to be understood as being younger than God.

When we see that Jesus had a beginning, based on Prov 8:22, Micah 5:2, John 6:57, Col 1:15, Heb 1:6 (and certainly JS is not saying Jesus is the most high or head of God since he is called God's Firstborn, is he?) and Rev 3:14, it is JS who has to dance around the issues. Creating arguments that no respectable Trinitarian author I've heard of states. Arguing against foolish things as if I said Jesus created himself. Saying God is not a thing when the scriptures and any dictionary clearly do. These are the tactics of JS. Basically anything accept actually addressing the arguments head on.

If JS has anything of substance to add to the conversation other then ignoring my arguments, crying red herring, creating straw men arguments and repeating himself like a broken record, I'll be glad to address them. But until JS deals with these verses, I see no reason to engage with him.

Prov 8:22, Micah 5:2, John 6:57, Col 1:15, Heb 1:6, Rev 3:14

Also, for those of you who may wonder what it means when it says creation came through Jesus, think of it this way.

Jesus healed many people on earth. But did Jesus do the healing? No. The Bible says several times that it was God who did these miracles through Jesus. It was God's power, not Jesus', that did these miracles. This is clearly brought out. If you need a few verses to prove this, let me know. Yet we can say these healings were done through Jesus. In the same way, it was God's power who did the creating, not Jesus'. It was through Jesus that it was done just as the healings on earth were done through Jesus. Neither the healings nor creation though, came from Jesus' power. Look no further than Heb 1:1,2

"God...has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a son, whom he [God] appointed heir of all things [except God of course], and through whom he [God, not Jesus] made the world."

The author of Hebrews says it was God, not Jesus, 'who made all things.' He [God, the one who "made the world"] did it through Jesus.

Heb 1:2 is an explicit verse showing it was someone other than Jesus who made the world. You can call him God or God the Father or whatever you want. It's simply clear that whomever this author is saying "made the world", it was not Jesus.

Sparko

September 8th 2004, 01:44 PM

Sparko

September 8th 2004, 02:47 PM

Tertullian had this to say on it:

'But in proof that the Greek word [ajrchv] means nothing else than beginning, and that beginning admits of no other sense that the initial [first] one, we have that (Being) even acknowledging such a beginning, who says: "The Lord possessed12 me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works....12 Condidit: "created"'-Against Hermogenes, chapter XX (20), ANF, Volume III, p 488.
'The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person under the name of Wisdom: "The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills, did He beget me."'-Against Praxeas, chapter VII, ibid. Volume III, p. 602. Such unmitigated gall! To use Tertullian to try to argue against the Trinity?
Aren't you aware that HE was the one who coined the phrase "Trinity" in the first place? The very article you are quoting from is an article in DEFENSE of the trinity.

In Against Praxeas, Chapter 2, he states:
While the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.
If you have no compunction in twisting the writing of an obviously trinitarian author into support of your non-trinitarian views, then your credibility is completely shot.

NonTrinitarian

September 8th 2004, 05:22 PM

Sorry, NT...

I am not sure who you are addressing in your speech above, but you are still avoiding the point.

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities;all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

It clearly says all things were created by Jesus. Things in heaven and earth. ALL THINGS. NO EXCEPTIONS. This is like arguing with a five year. He only knows one argument, repeats it over and over, ignores the points that show his comments were wrong (like saying God ins't a "thing":lol: ), and ignores any counter evidence that clearly shows his error. (Like four verses later in Col 1 where it is so patently obvious that his argument is bogus. I repeat the verse here for emphasis)

"and through him to reconcile to himself all things by making peace through the blood he shed...whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens"

Does JS want to apply his same argument here that he did 5 verses earlier? NO! In this verse 'all things in heaven and earth' don't mean all things, period. But try reasoning with JS about that.

Therefore when John 1:3 says "All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

it means literally ALL things. Everything. and no it does not include God because God did not come into existance, he always was. And since Jesus could not have created himself then he must not be included either so he us uncreated. He is God.Yeah, just keep ignoring the fact that John was referencing Gen 1:1. Just remember, there are a lot of other people here reading these same posts and can see what kind of apologetics you fly.:lol:

And John 1:3 says "through" him, but Col 1 says "BY him" so yes, they are equivalent. I agree. Where did I argue differently? In fact, did I not say that people were healed by Jesus and yet it wasn't Jesus' power that was doing the healing? Do you comprehend anything you read?

You can post a mile of verses you think show that everything means only some things, but these verses CLEARLY define what "ALL THING" include: everything in heaven and earth, all things that were created were created by and through Jesus. If they weren't created by Jesus, then they were already existing for eternity because Jesus created time itself. So Jesus is eternal, and there is only one eternal one, God himself. Jesus IS God. I'd point out that your argument here is circular but you probably wouldn't know what that means. I provided a verse that is only 4 verses away from Col 1:16 that belies your argument.

2 Peter 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Greek Interlinear:

Looking for (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4327) that blessed (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3107) hope, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1680) and (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) the glorious (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1391) appearing (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2015) of the great (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3173) God (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316) and (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) our (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2257) Saviour (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4990) Jesus (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2424) Christ; (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5547) prosdexomenoi (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4327) thn (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) makarian (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3107) elpida (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1680) kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) epifaneian (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2015) thv (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) dochv tou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3588) megalou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3173) qeou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316) kai (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2532) swthrov (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4990) hmwn (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2257) Ihsou (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2424) Xristou, (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5547)

and dont try to say it is saying "the appearing of God and of the savior" as if they are two people, like the JWT translation tries to do. There is only one glorious appearing and only Jesus will be doing it. The Father is invisible spirit, so only Jesus can and wll appear again to us. So who is going to appear? the Great God and our Savior, Jesus. One and the same.

These verses don't belong in this thread. If you want to discuss whether Jesus is God, move them to a new thread. I'll have about 400 verses I need you to answer. But this is what I would expect from someone who is trying to deflect all the verses being thrown his way that belie his arguments.

Does anyone else here want to have an intelligent conversation in which they can engage me on my points rather than run away while repeating the same argument over and over? JS isn't quite ready to engage in a deeper conversation at this point. He's busy reading the definition of "thing" and trying to figure out away to remove 1 Cor 15:27 from his Bible

Sparko

September 8th 2004, 06:38 PM

and yet, you still avoid the verses and sidestep the issues.

:rofl:

:lmbo:

If the verses say "all things" were made by Jesus, and then go on to define that they really do mean everything, by saying that anything that came to exist was made by him, and even go on to give examples like things in heaven and thing on earth, powers, authorities, etc. -- and you go find some other verse that uses the word "all things" in a more selective sense, you think that automatically means that "all things" can't be everything in the first two verses? They explicitly SAY that all things means ALL things.

In the example of psalm 8, after they say all things, they go on to qualify "all things" by specifying earthly things. In John 1:3 and Col 1 they specifically qualify "all things" to mean literally "all things"

So yes, I will continue to sound like a broken record until you get it through your thick head that all things means "all things" in those two verses, whether or not it can mean less than all things in other places.

And yes there are others reading this thread and they do see what is going on and are probably laughing themselves silly at your antics to avoid confronting the truth.

Xavier

September 9th 2004, 01:02 AM

This is just getting silly... NonTrin seems hell-bent and determined to deny the clear interpretation of the passage. I realize its difficult to come to grips with the fact that basically everything you were taught from the time you were born is wrong, but Hey... If the scripture fits....

Anywho... Onto the arguments you've laid forth (repeatedly I might add)

This is like arguing with a five year.

A Five Year what??? Old? Scholar? Apologist? Just wondering...

He only knows one argument, repeats it over and over, ignores the points that show his comments were wrong (like saying God ins't a "thing":lol: ), and ignores any counter evidence that clearly shows his error.

No, that would be YOU in this thread... JS has taken your argument and beaten it down several times. You just keep coming back like a broken record...

Well, duuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhh, All things clearly doesn't mean all things...

(Like four verses later in Col 1 where it is so patently obvious that his argument is bogus. I repeat the verse here for emphasis)

"and through him to reconcile to himself all things by making peace through the blood he shed...whether they are the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens"

Let's have a look shall we:

NonTrin's reasons for "all things" not meaning "all things":
1) Well, look five verses down, Does that mean "all things"???

Now, does NonTrin's point stand: Resounding NO!!!

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

NonTrin, are you suggesting that Christ's work on the cross could not have accomplished such a feat???

Are you ever going to explicate your point here???

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things were created through him and for him.

Well Gorsh... Lookie there... It's even delinated that "for by him (that refers to the HE which refers to CHRIST) ALL things... IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH ... were created through him and for him".

NonTrin's evidence for Christ being created: ZERO!!!

Does JS want to apply his same argument here that he did 5 verses earlier? NO! In this verse 'all things in heaven and earth' don't mean all things, period. But try reasoning with JS about that.

Yeah... "All things" cannot mean "all things" because that would ruin my precious belief structure... :bawl:

NonTrin's proof that "all things" doesn't mean "all things": NOTHING

Yeah, just keep ignoring the fact that John was referencing Gen 1:1.

Careful now... You wouldn't want people to think that Christ had done the creating, since that would debase your point. Since that's rather obviously what John was saying... :ahem:

Just remember, there are a lot of other people here reading these same posts and can see what kind of apologetics you fly.:lol:

:rofl: You should take your own advice... OR Are you going to stick your head in the sand again???

I agree. Where did I argue differently? In fact, did I not say that people were healed by Jesus and yet it wasn't Jesus' power that was doing the healing? Do you comprehend anything you read?

Who taught you English exactly? Jesus's power is implied in the verb phase "through him".

Check the ESV translation again:
For by him all things were created...

What exactly does that imply NonTrin???

I'd point out that your argument here is circular but you probably wouldn't know what that means.

I'm not quite convinced that it is circular... It may be bad, but not necessarily circular. It begs the question more than anything.

I provided a verse that is only 4 verses away from Col 1:16 that belies your argument.

Maybe someday NonTrin will tell us why "all things" cannot mean "all things" in THAT verse... :ahem:

All he's done to this point is assert that its obvious that Christ's sacrifice didn't reconcile everyone to him, but that really dodges the point of the verse in the first place.

Does anyone else here want to have an intelligent conversation in which they can engage me on my points rather than run away while repeating the same argument over and over?

If you had some points that would mean something, yet you arbitrarily support your own reading of scripture without argument. But you seem rather ready and willing to use your own version of scripture as your argument. You don't offer up evidence for your view, but rather assert and assert.

"Firstborn of Creation" does NOT necessarily place Christ in that category. It could very well be a title of respect for Christ.

JS isn't quite ready to engage in a deeper conversation at this point. He's busy reading the definition of "thing" and trying to figure out away to remove 1 Cor 15:27 from his Bible

A JW talking about removing verses from the Bible... :lmbo:

For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.

Hrmn... Trinitarian's problem with this verse... :nsm:

I'm going to assume that NonTrin actually meant 1 Cor. 15:28:

When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

This one is not hard to reconcile from the Trinitarian perspective either: Christ is placed in subjection because of the Incarnation. The Son has volunterly stepped down from his status to assume the form of man. It is known as the Kenosis. At the time of our judgement and repdemption, the Son will have to lower himself as to stand in our place.

Clarke has an interesting view in his commentary:
When the administration of the kingdom of grace is finally closed; when there shall be no longer any state of probation, and consequently no longer need of a distinction between the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory; then the Son, as being man and Messiah, shall cease to exercise any distinct dominion and God be all in all: there remaining no longer any distinction in the persons of the glorious Trinity, as acting any distinct or separate parts in either the kingdom of grace, or the kingdom of glory, and so the one infinite essence shall appear undivided and eternal. And yet, as there appears to be a personality essentially in the infinite Godhead, that personality must exist eternally; but how this shall be we can neither tell nor know till that time comes in which we shall See Him as He Is.

How about John Wesley, my personal fav:
The Son also shall be subject - Shall deliver up the mediatorial kingdom. That the three - one God may be all in all - All things, (consequently all persons,) without any interruption, without the intervention of any creature, without the opposition of any enemy, shall be subordinate to God. All shall say, "My God, and my all." This is the end. Even an inspired apostle can see nothing beyond this.

Maybe Henry offers an insight:
When this is done, and all things are put under his feet, then shall the Son become subject to him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all, 1Co 15:28. The meaning of this I take to be that then the man Christ Jesus, who hath appeared in so much majesty during the whole administration of his kingdom, shall appear upon giving it up to be a subject of the Father. Things are in scripture many times said to be when they are manifested and made to appear; and this delivering up of the kingdom will make it manifest that he who appeared in the majesty of the sovereign king was, during this administration, a subject of God. The glorified humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, with all the dignity and power conferred on it, was no more than a glorious creature. This will appear when the kingdom shall be delivered up; and it will appear to the divine glory, that God may be all in all, that the accomplishment of our salvation may appear altogether divine, and God alone may have the honour of it. Note, Though the human nature must be employed in the work of our redemption, yet God was all in all in it. It was the Lord's doing and should be marvellous in our eyes.

All of them speak of the same thing: Christ lowering himself for our sakes. My that's a powerful statement about God's love for us.

Yours,
Xavier

NonTrinitarian

September 9th 2004, 09:33 AM

Well, JS has found another buddy to bounce his one verse back and forth off of. Xavier didn’t add anything accept repeat the same old rhetoric JS did. Only he added a few more smiley faces. Bravo Xav! I will make one point though. Xavier said JS did answer all of my objections. But where? Where did JS address the point that John 1:1-3 is in reference to Genesis 1:1? Where did JS address the point that Genesis 1 was only dealing with the physical creation? Which means John was only referring with physical creation. Where did JS address the point that the angels were also "in the beginning" of John 1:1? Where did JS EVER provide another scripture that shows someone could be called "Firstborn" of a group and not be part of that group? And by the way Xav, you said ""Firstborn of Creation" does NOT necessarily place Christ in that category." Now demonstrate with just ONE other verse in the Bible that this is true. Am I just supposed to accept that statement because ‘Thus saith Xavier’? Where did JS provide one quote from any Trinitarian author that Jesus was part of creation because of his physical body? Where did JS demonstrate that Jesus was the actual source of the creative power when I showed that it was God who did the creation through Christ? Where did JS explain away Prov 8:22, Micah 5:2, John 6:57, Col 1:15, Heb 1:6 and Rev 3:14?

Come on Xavier! You said he answered these questions. Show us. So far you’re nothing but talk.

Now moving on to another embarrassing moment for JS. I had posted quotes from several Church Fathers showing that they thought Jesus was a created being. Now granted, the ECF are not infallible and I wasn’t put them up as proof Jesus was created. I was just adding some supplemental material. JS, ignoring the others for some reason (probably because he couldn’t come up with what he thought was an answer for their comments) had this to say about my quote of Tertullian.

Such unmitigated gall! To use Tertullian to try to argue against the Trinity?

Aren't you aware that HE was the one who coined the phrase "Trinity" in the first place? The very article you are quoting from is an article in DEFENSE of the trinity.

In Against Praxeas, Chapter 2, he states:

While the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds. If you have no compunction in twisting the writing of an obviously trinitarian author into support of your non-trinitarian views, then your credibility is completely shot.Now I am very used to this type of work by low-level Trinitarian apologetics (I miss AV Metro) but it still gets under my skin. It’s the same type of malarkey JS put into practice with John 1:3. He never answers the questions raised, he just repeats his own argument. And he does it here too! Note that I just quoted Tertullian. I didn’t say it, Tertullian did! Did JS come back and say ‘No, that quote doesn’t say this, that or the other.’ Did he proceed to interpret with some substance Tertullian’s quote, showing me why I had mis-interpreted it? No. He ignored it as if I made it up!

Then he tries to tell me Tertullian was trying to defend the Trinity! HA HA HA. Does JS not know that many Trinitarian scholars actually label Tertullian’s ideas of God and Christ as heretical? Does he not know that Tertullian was a subordinationist? Tertullian did say the F, S & HS were in a unity of three in one but he did NOT think that unity was in co-equality or co-eternalness. They were not equal in power. Allow me to repost my quote from Tertullian:

'But in proof that the Greek word [ajrchv] means nothing else than beginning, and that beginning admits of no other sense that the initial [first] one, we have that (Being) even acknowledging such a beginning, who says: "The Lord possessed12 me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works....12 Condidit: "created"'-Against Hermogenes, chapter XX (20), ANF, Volume III, p 488.

'The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person under the name of Wisdom: "The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills, did He beget me."'-Against Praxeas, chapter VII, ibid. Volume III, p. 602. Note that Tertullian says Jesus has a "beginning" and that he was the "initial one" of God’s creation, "the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works." Now, I didn’t say this. Tertullian did. Where is JS’ explanation? Just like he dodges any contrary arguments for John 1:3, he dodged this as well. I’m just waiting for Xavier to jump in and tell me JS did address this quote from Tertullian!

But let’s see what else Tertullian had to say on this subject, shall we?

"For He [God] could not have been Father previous to the Son nor a judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son."-Against Hermogenes, CHpat 3ANF, Vol III, p. 478

"Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God [Whom Tertullian acknowledges is the Son] is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated…How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten word?…That which [in ref. to God] did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [in ref. to the Son] which had an author to bring it into being."- Chpat XVIII; ANF Vol III, p. 487

"I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone."- Against Praxeas, Chpat V; ANF Vol III, p. 600

"The Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He himself acknowledged, ‘My Father is greater than I’…Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son."-Against Praxeas ANF Vol III p. 603-604"Now, was Tertullian a "Trinitarian"? No. Research most writings on him and you’ll see Trinitarians calling him a heretic on his view of the Son.

"a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son"

"declared to be born and created"

"Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the son of God"

"That which [in ref. to God] did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [in ref. to the Son] which had an author to bring it into being"

"He existed before creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son"

Alas the theology of Tertullian. A subordinast who believed Christ was a created being, the first being God created. A being who at one time did not exist. And as such, Tertullian felt that the Father was "older" than the Son.

JS concludes his post by saying, "If you have no compunction in twisting the writing of an obviously trinitarian author into support of your non-trinitarian views, then your credibility is completely shot."

Well, someone’s credibility is shot but I’m not feeling to foolish right now.

Sparko

September 9th 2004, 11:54 AM

Well, JS has found another buddy to bounce his one verse back and forth off of.
Well, NT that IS the subject of this thread, is it not?

Xavier didn’t add anything accept repeat the same old rhetoric JS did. Only he added a few more smiley faces. Bravo Xav!
What's the matter? getting frustrated because you aren't convincing anyone with your red herrings and strawmen arguments?

I will make one point though. Xavier said JS did answer all of my objections. But where? Where did JS address the point that John 1:1-3 is in reference to Genesis 1:1?
Well, you made that claim. I said that "beginning" means beginning. In the beginning God created the HEAVENS and the earth. and yes the heavens included Heaven and the rest of the universe, and the angels.

Where did JS address the point that Genesis 1 was only dealing with the physical creation? Which means John was only referring with physical creation. Where did JS address the point that the angels were also "in the beginning" of John 1:1?
They weren't. They came into being when God created heaven. Before that, there was only God, if you can speak of that as "before" because God also created time.

Where did JS EVER provide another scripture that shows someone could be called "Firstborn" of a group and not be part of that group? And by the way Xav, you said ""Firstborn of Creation" does NOT necessarily place Christ in that category." Now demonstrate with just ONE other verse in the Bible that this is true. Am I just supposed to accept that statement because ‘Thus saith Xavier’? Where did JS provide one quote from any Trinitarian author that Jesus was part of creation because of his physical body?
So, you will accept the word of a trinitarian author? That's laughable. And my claims have no merit unless they are backed up by some author you will not accept anyway? That's even more ridiculous. Does Jesus have a physical body? Yes. Was that body created? Yes. Therefore Jesus is part of creation. But he is also fully God and therefore eternal. Fully God, fully man. As God he has the power to forgive our sins and be our savior. As Man he has the power to be one of us and stand in our place for sin's punishment. Find me one trinitarian author that doesn't claim that Jesus is fully man and therefore part of his own creation. That is part what trinitarians beleive:

Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Where did JS demonstrate that Jesus was the actual source of the creative power when I showed that it was God who did the creation through Christ? Where did JS explain away Prov 8:22, Micah 5:2, John 6:57, Col 1:15, Heb 1:6 and Rev 3:14?
All three persons of the Trinity were involved in creation NT.

Come on Xavier! You said he answered these questions. Show us. So far you’re nothing but talk.
So far you are nothing but hot air.

Now moving on to another embarrassing moment for JS. I had posted quotes from several Church Fathers showing that they thought Jesus was a created being. Now granted, the ECF are not infallible and I wasn’t put them up as proof Jesus was created. I was just adding some supplemental material. JS, ignoring the others for some reason (probably because he couldn’t come up with what he thought was an answer for their comments) had this to say about my quote of Tertullian.
Actually I didn't bother with them. I am sure you twisted them as you did everything else.

Now I am very used to this type of work by low-level Trinitarian apologetics (I miss AV Metro) but it still gets under my skin. It’s the same type of malarkey JS put into practice with John 1:3. He never answers the questions raised, he just repeats his own argument. And he does it here too! Note that I just quoted Tertullian. I didn’t say it, Tertullian did! Did JS come back and say ‘No, that quote doesn’t say this, that or the other.’ Did he proceed to interpret with some substance Tertullian’s quote, showing me why I had mis-interpreted it? No. He ignored it as if I made it up!
I never said you made it up. I said you take it out of context to try to prove that Jesus was created. Tertullian NEVER believed that.

Then he tries to tell me Tertullian was trying to defend the Trinity! HA HA HA. Does JS not know that many Trinitarian scholars actually label Tertullian’s ideas of God and Christ as heretical? Does he not know that Tertullian was a subordinationist? Tertullian did say the F, S & HS were in a unity of three in one but he did NOT think that unity was in co-equality or co-eternalness. They were not equal in power. Allow me to repost my quote from Tertullian:

Note that Tertullian says Jesus has a "beginning" and that he was the "initial one" of God’s creation, "the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works." Now, I didn’t say this. Tertullian did. Where is JS’ explanation? Just like he dodges any contrary arguments for John 1:3, he dodged this as well. I’m just waiting for Xavier to jump in and tell me JS did address this quote from Tertullian!

Tertullian never believed Jesus was created. Some if his ideas may be considered heretical to what Trinitarians beleive now, but that is because he was a kind of a modalist, not because he thought Jesus was created.

But let’s see what else Tertullian had to say on this subject, shall we?

Now, was Tertullian a "Trinitarian"? No. Research most writings on him and you’ll see Trinitarians calling him a heretic on his view of the Son.

"a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son"

"declared to be born and created"

"Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the son of God"

"That which [in ref. to God] did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [in ref. to the Son] which had an author to bring it into being"

"He existed before creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son"

Alas the theology of Tertullian. A subordinast who believed Christ was a created being, the first being God created. A being who at one time did not exist. And as such, Tertullian felt that the Father was "older" than the Son.

JS concludes his post by saying, "If you have no compunction in twisting the writing of an obviously trinitarian author into support of your non-trinitarian views, then your credibility is completely shot."

Well, someone’s credibility is shot but I’m not feeling to foolish right now.

Nice how you can take quotes out of context again. Watchtower material?

Here are some other quotes from Tertullian.

from: http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

200 AD Tertullian

200 AD Tertullian "Never did any angel descend for the purpose of being crucified, of tasting death, and of rising again from the dead." (The Flesh of Christ, ch 6)
200 AD Tertullian "All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity, and it is from these that our principle is deduced...the distinction of the Trinity is quite clearly displayed." (Against Praxeas, ch 11)
200 AD Tertullian "The origins of both his substances display him asman and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ, 5:6-7).
200 AD Tertullian "[God speaks in the plural ‘Let us make man in our image’] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person, his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit." (Against Praxeas, ch 12)
200 AD Tertullian "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25)
200 AD Tertullian "As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)
200 AD Tertullian "So too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God; and the two are one…. In his birth he is God and man united." (Apology, ch 21)
200 AD Tertullian "There is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her — being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics." (Against Praxeas, ch 2)
200 AD Tertullian "That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as Gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6)
200 AD Tertullian "The Spirit is God, and the Word is God, because proceeding from God, but yet is not actually the very same as He from whom He proceeds.." (Against Praxeas, ch 26)
200 AD Tertullian "He will be God, and the Word - the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person - Jesus, God and Man.." (Against Praxeas, ch 27)
200 AD Tertullian "God alone is without sin. The only man who is without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God" (The Soul 41:3)
200 AD Tertullian "We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . this rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the Gospel, before even the earlier heretics" ... "And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the Three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in Being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one Being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Against Praxeas 2).
200 AD Tertullian "While keeping to this demurrer always, there must, nevertheless, be place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and protection of various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse opinion is not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is especially so in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot believe in the one only God in any way other than by saying that Father, Son, and Spirit are the selfsame person. As if one were not all . . . through the unity of substance" (Against Praxeas 2:3-4)
200 AD Tertullian "Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (Against Praxeas, 9)
200 AD Tertullian "[W]hen God says, 'Let there be light' [Gen. 1:3], this is the perfect nativity of the Word, while he is proceeding from God. . . . Thus, the Father makes him equal to himself, and the Son, by proceeding from him, was made the first-begotten, since he was begotten before all things, and the only-begotten, because he alone was begotten of God, in a manner peculiar to himself, from the womb of his own heart, to which even the Father himself gives witness: 'My heart has poured forth my finest Word' [Ps. 45:1Against Praxeas 7:1).
200 AD Tertullian "… it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the angels." Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)
200 AD Tertullian [Just as JW’s attribute words to Tertullian that he never said. We draw your attention to the fact that the quoted words (from "Should you believe in the trinity", Watchtower booklet), "There was a time when the Son was not" are not Tertullian’s, but those of Bishop Kaye in his appendix section on Tertullian. (Bishop Kaye, Account of the Writings of Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 3, p 1181). Kaye, Tertullian, some Trinitarians and all Modalists teach that Jesus was eternally pre-existent as God, and that the title of "Son" was first applied to Jesus after his incarnation. Just as a man cannot be called a father, until after he has a son, so too Jesus cannot be called a Son until after he was physically born via incarnation. This is the gist of what Kaye is saying Tertullian taught. To support this, notice this comment by Tertullian,] "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin" (Against Hermogones, Ch 3) see next quote:
200 AD Tertullian [Interesting that Tertullian being a modalist, not only says there was a time before the Son became the Son, so too a time before God was the Father] Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; butHe has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, chapter 3)
200 AD Tertullian "For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call , by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God;" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)

NonTrinitarian

September 10th 2004, 03:17 PM

NT:
Well, JS has found another buddy to bounce his one verse back and forth
off of.

JS:
Well, NT that IS the subject of this thread, is it not?I guess subject verses purpose confuse you. The subject is whether Christ was created. The PURPOSE of this thread is to discuss the arguments, something neither of you seem capable of doing. I'll demonstrate this with your latest pathetic attempt at it in a moment.

NT:
Xavier didn't add anything accept repeat the same old rhetoric JS did.
Only he added a few more smiley faces. Bravo Xav!

JS:
What's the matter? getting frustrated because you aren't convincing anyone
with your red herrings and strawmen arguments?Nah. That doesn't bother me. Jesus raised the dead and healed the sick and look how few people he convinced. What bothers me is that I usually get to deal with intelligent people like AV Metro and DDW. I don't agree with them on much but at least they know how to acknowledge arguments and address them. Discussions with you two are on the level of trying to argue with a five year old. They have one argument, repeat it over and over and don't refute any counter-arguments.

For everyone else reading, allow me to demonstrate this with one of many issues I've brought up. Let's see how JS has refuted this:

I argued that Genesis 1:1 is only dealing with the physical creation. JS says it deals with the creation of the heavens (as in spiritual realm) and the angels as well. Thus far, we've both only asserted our position. Neither has proved or even attempted to prove the assertion. I then went and listed every verse in Genesis 1 with the term "heaven" or "heavens" in it. These verses clearly show the heavens is NOT in reference to the spiritual realm. In fact, I can't find anywhere in Genesis 1 even a mention of the creation of a spiritual realm and there is certainly no mention of the creation of the angels. It appears the whole basis of JS' argument is verse one where it says God created the heavens and the earth. But did I not go through and list each subsequent verse showing that the "heavens" that God created was not the spiritual realm?

So step back and examine this one instance (one of many!) of how JS deals with arguments. He asserts his position and never deals with ANY of the verses I gave that show his position is flawed. He doesn't come back with a halfway intelligent response of 'no, verse so and so that you mentioned is actually in reference to the spiritual realm because yada yada yada.' That's what I want. Someone that can actually examine the arguments and deal with them. Even if I disagree with their counter-argument at least I'm getting dialogue. But does JS do this? NO. let's see how he replies.

JS said
I said that "beginning" means beginning. In the beginning God created the HEAVENS and the earth. and yes the heavens included Heaven and the rest of the universe, and the angels.Note what we have here. A child-like response of pure assertion. He even quotes Genesis 1:1 as if I didn't know what it said. (pathetic) Where is the analysis of the many verses I gave that show the heavens is not the spiritual realm. Children accept the 'because I said so' mentality engrained into them from their parents. Adults require a little more proof. Thus far you can see what I get from JS. No proof that "the heavens included Heaven and the rest of the universe, and the angels" other than an attitude of 'thus saith JS, thus it must be true.'

So, you will accept the word of a trinitarian author? That's laughable. And
my claims have no merit unless they are backed up by some author you will
not accept anyway? That's even more ridiculous. Does Jesus have a physical
body? Yes. Was that body created? Yes. Therefore Jesus is part of creation.
But he is also fully God and therefore eternal. Fully God, fully man. As God
he has the power to forgive our sins and be our savior. As Man he has the
power to be one of us and stand in our place for sin's punishment. Find me
one trinitarian author that doesn't claim that Jesus is fully man and
therefore part of his own creation. That is part what trinitarians beleive:And then he quotes the Nicene creed. I just love that. I quote the Bible, JS quotes a creed. How special. Anyway, apparently JS is new around here (though I'm really thinking he is TwoHumble in disguise) because if he read much of anything that I wrote he would know I LOVE to quote Trinitarian authors. Especially when they disagree with each other. And I can tell you right now, no Trinitarian author I have read (and that's saying a lot) argues that Jesus is in ANYWAY part of creation at Col 1:15.

Here's another example of JS poor attempt at a response.

NT:
Where did JS demonstrate that Jesus was the actual source of the
creative power when I showed that it was God who did the creation through
Christ? Where did JS explain away Prov 8:22, Micah 5:2, John 6:57, Col 1:15,
Heb 1:6 and Rev 3:14?

JS:
All three persons of the Trinity were involved in creation NT.Huh? Is this an answer? How did this answer the verses I raised? It should be obvious why this is frustrating. Then i get this reply.

So far you are nothing but hot air.The irony abounds.

In regards to Tertullian, I provided clear passages where he said there was a time when the son did not exist. Where Tertullian called Jesus a created being. Did JS deal with these? No. His only reply was that I 1.) took them out of context (more assertion because he didn't prove I did, just asserted without even reading them in context, I'm sure) 2.) Tertullian was arguing as a modalist. (I think it's clear from Tertullians writings he was anything but a modalist. In fact, the very quotes JS provided demonstrate that!)

Again, no interaction with the arguments. No going through and saying "Well, Tertullian said there was a time when the son did not exist because yada yada yada. And Tertullian called Christ a created being because of such and such. And Tertullian said the Father existed alone up until the generation of the son because of so and so." No, that is just too much to expect from JS. Instead, JS, while totally ignoring the writings of Tertullian that I presented, proceeds to quote more writings. I'm going to demonstrate to JS HOW he SHOULD interact with other persons arguments. If I did to JS what he does to me I would just say, "Well, those writings don't ahve any bearing on the subject" and just leave it at that. But I'm more mature than that. Remember that the subject is whether or not Tertullian thought Jesus was created.

200 AD Tertullian "Never did any angel descend for the purpose of
being crucified, of tasting death, and of rising again from the dead." (The
Flesh of Christ, ch 6)Can someone tell me, please, WHAT this has to do with whether Tertullian thought Jesus was a created being? Did I argue somewhere that Tertullian thought Jesus was an angel? NO! True, I think that. But did I EVER say Tertullian did? No. What I said is that Tertullian believed Jesus was created and this quote doesn't refute such a thought at all.

200 AD Tertullian "All the Scriptures give clear proof of the Trinity,
and it is from these that our principle is deduced...the distinction of the
Trinity is quite clearly displayed." (Against Praxeas, ch 11)Hello, is this mike on? Did someone hear me say that Tertullian didn't use the word Trinity? Did I write that somewhere? No. I said that Tertullian's "trinty" is not the same as today. I said (and showed from numerous quotes) that in Tertullian's trinity, Christ was a created being. Please explain to me how in the world this quote refuted that!

200 AD Tertullian "[God speaks in the plural 'Let us make man in our
image'] because already there was attached to Him his Son, a second person,
his own Word, and a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three
coherent persons. He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit."
(Against Praxeas, ch 12)Again, none of this refutes the fact that Tertullian thought Jesus was not eternal. All this says is that Tertullian thought Jesus was around at the creation of the earth. We all agree with that.

200 AD Tertullian "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and
of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet
distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as
it is said, 'I and my Father are One' [John 10:30], in respect of unity of
Being not singularity of number" (Against Praxeas, 25)What part of this means Christ always existed?

200 AD Tertullian "As if in this way also one were not All, in that
All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the
dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity,
placing in their order the three Persons -the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance,
but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one
condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these
degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)This is the same quote he provided earlier. And just like the first time JS quoted it, it has nothing in it that refutes the obvious fact the Tertullian thought there was a time when the Son was not.

200 AD Tertullian "So too, that which has come forth out of God is at
once God and the Son of God; and the two are one.. In his birth he is God
and man united." (Apology, ch 21)Note here that Tertullian said that as soon as Jesus came out from God he at once was God. I never denied that Tertullian believed Jesus was God. What this quote DOES do (and thanks to JS for unwittingly providing it) is establish that there was a time when the Son came out from the Father and that as soon as he did, (or as Tertullians said, "at once") Tertullian believed Jesus was God.

200 AD Tertullian "There is one only God, but under the following
dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also
a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made,
and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the
Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her - being both Man and
God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name
of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried,
according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the
Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the
Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also
from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost,
the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the
Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has
come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the
older heretics." (Against Praxeas, ch 2)How can a quote so long not say anything on the subject. Would someone please underline in this quote the part where JS thinks this means Tertullian did not mean what he said when he said there was a time when the son did not exist and that during that time the Father was all alone? Note here, that I am not denying that Tertullian Called Jesus God. Shoot, I call Jesus God. But it's clear from the many quotes I provided that Tertullian did not beleive Jesus was around until some point in time when the Father caused him to exist. Now where in this quote is that refuted?

200 AD Tertullian "That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is
a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the
Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God;
but formerly two were spoken of as Gods and two as Lords, so that when
Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord,
because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas
13:6)No evidence here to refute the words of Tertullian when he said the "Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the son of God."

200 AD Tertullian "The Spirit is God, and the Word is God, because
proceeding from God, but yet is not actually the very same as He from whom
He proceeds.." (Against Praxeas, ch 26)Ditto

200 AD Tertullian "He will be God, and the Word - the Son of God. We
see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One
Person - Jesus, God and Man.." (Against Praxeas, ch 27)And this has what to do with the subject of whether Tertullian thought there was a time when the son did not exist?

200 AD Tertullian "God alone is without sin. The only man who is
without sin is Christ; for Christ is also God" (The Soul 41:3)Does anyone get the feeling JS was just going through Tertullian's writings looking for any verse that called Jesus "God"? It would be a good exercise IF I was arguing that Tertullian never called Jesus God! But it has NOTHING to do with whether Tertullian thought Jesus was God only after the Father brought him into existence.

200 AD Tertullian "We do indeed believe that there is only one God,
but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there
is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and
through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . .
We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise,
the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who
believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . this rule
of faith has been present since the beginning of the Gospel, before even the
earlier heretics" ... "And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is
safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the
Three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in
condition, but in degree; not in Being, but in form; not in power, but in
kind; of one Being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is
one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Against Praxeas
2).This is basically the same as three quotes up. And has the same application to the subject at hand. Zilch!

200 AD Tertullian "While keeping to this demurrer always, there must,
nevertheless, be place for reviewing for the sake of the instruction and
protection of various persons. Otherwise it might seem that each perverse
opinion is not examined but simply prejudged and condemned. This is
especially so in the case of the present heresy [Sabellianism], which
considers itself to have the pure truth when it supposes that one cannot
believe in the one only God in any way other than by saying that Father,
Son, and Spirit are the selfsame person. As if one were not all . . .
through the unity of substance" (Against Praxeas 2:3-4)I'm not sure what this quote is doing here. In fact, it's kind of humorous because earlier JS said Tertullian was arguing as a "modalist" and yet in this quote he is obviously arguing against it! But that's the kind of research I've come to expect from JS. And of course, it has nothing to do with whether Tertullian really meant there was a time period where God "existed up to the generation of the Son."

200 AD Tertullian "Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I
profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the
Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is
meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son
is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by
every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity
and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"
(Against Praxeas, 9)No bearing on the subject. Sigh.

200 AD Tertullian "[W]hen God says, 'Let there be light' [Gen. 1:3],
this is the perfect nativity of the Word, while he is proceeding from God. .
. . Thus, the Father makes him equal to himself, and the Son, by proceeding
from him, was made the first-begotten, since he was begotten before all
things, and the only-begotten, because he alone was begotten of God, in a
manner peculiar to himself, from the womb of his own heart, to which even
the Father himself gives witness: 'My heart has poured forth my finest Word'
[Ps. 45:1Against Praxeas 7:1).If anything, this verse harmonizes with Tertullian's other comments about how at some point in time God begot Jesus. In fact, Jesus could not proceed from the Father unless the Father was there first. None of this refutes Tertullians view that at one point in time the Father was not a Father since there was no Son.

200 AD Tertullian ". it is not by division that He is different, but
by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they
differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the
entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as
He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater than I." In the Psalm His
inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the angels." Thus the
Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He
who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is
one, and He who is sent is another" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)And this supports your position that Tertullian did not think Jesus was eternal in what way?

200 AD Tertullian [Just as JW's attribute words to Tertullian that he
never said. We draw your attention to the fact that the quoted words (from
"Should you believe in the trinity", Watchtower booklet), "There was a time
when the Son was not" are not Tertullian's, but those of Bishop Kaye in his
appendix section on Tertullian. (Bishop Kaye, Account of the Writings of
Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 3, p 1181). Kaye, Tertullian, some
Trinitarians and all Modalists teach that Jesus was eternally pre-existent
as God, and that the title of "Son" was first applied to Jesus after his
incarnation. Just as a man cannot be called a father, until after he has a
son, so too Jesus cannot be called a Son until after he was physically born
via incarnation. This is the gist of what Kaye is saying Tertullian taught.
To support this, notice this comment by Tertullian,] "For He could not have
been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin" (Against
Hermogones, Ch 3) see next quote:Hey, I almost fell out of my seat when I saw this one! We actually have interaction here! Bravo JS!
Now, what about the first part where he attacks the JW brochure for saying that Tertullian said there was a time when the Son was not. It is true that the sentence "There was a time when the Son was not" was a summary of Bishop Kaye on Tertullian. But Tertullian most certainly DID say there was a time when the Son was not. Tertullian said, "There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son" That Tertullian was NOT saying that the Son did not exist until the incarnation is obvious from his other quotes where he says the Son made all things and that before the rest of creation occured God had begotten a Son. Just go up and read YOUR OWN citations of Tertullian, JS, and you'll see quotes like this: "God speaks in the plural 'Let us make man in our image' because already there was attached to Him his Son," Geesh. You can't even keep your own arguments straight! But to support your assertion that Tertullian did beleive Jesus existed before his 'sonship' at the incarnation, you say this: "To support this, notice this comment by Tertullian, "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin"

Now tell me WHERE in that sentence did you demonstrate that Tertullian beleived Jesus became God's "Son" at the incarnation and so that's why he could say there was a time when the Son didn't exist. I want you to underline the part that says that because it's plain several times in the other quotes you so graciously provided that Tertullian believed Jesus was the Son before the creation of the earth.

200 AD Tertullian [Interesting that Tertullian being a modalist, not
only says there was a time before the Son became the Son, so too a time
before God was the Father] Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is
also a Judge; butHe has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the
ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father
previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time
when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to
constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not
Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was
only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the
Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things
which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. (Tertullian, Against
Hermogenes, chapter 3)

Do you even know what a modalist is? Tertullian is arguing against modalism (including sabellianism), he was not trying to support it. And of course, this quote only shows that Tertullian did believe there was a time when the Son did not sin and his other quotes show he was not meaning the time period up to the incarnation.
200 AD Tertullian "For before all things God was alone - being in
Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He
was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even
not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in
Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was
first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own
Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call , by which term we also
designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people,
owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word
was in the beginning with God;" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. It's obvious that Tertullian did not think that there were two or three persons of God at this point in time because it was later that he brought forth the Son. Now if Tertullian is saying the Son existed inside the Father since he was His offspring, I could buy that. After all, the apostle Paul used the same argument in Hebrews when he said that Levi paid a tithe to Melchizedeck because he was inside Abraham when Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek. But I'm willing to bet you don't think Levi was as old as Abraham or that he was "existing" when Abraham was alive! (see Heb 7:9,10)

Now, there is an example of how you deal with peoples arguments. I didn't just say "Oh JS, you just ripped those comments out of text and they don't support anything you say." I went through and discussed each one and what bearing thet had on the subject. And of course we still have those versus where Tertullian said this:

"a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son"

"declared to be born and created"

"Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the
son of God"

"That which did not require a Maker to give it
existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [in ref. to the Son]
which had an author to bring it into being"

"He existed before creation of the world, up to the generation of the
Son"

And as the book [i]An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, pages 19, 20" says, "Tertullian must be considered heterodox [believing unorthodox doctrines] on the doctrine of our Lord’s eternal generation."

Personally, I think Tertullian is right on the money when it comes to the doctrine of the Lord's eternal generation, that being that it is not true.

Sparko

September 11th 2004, 05:09 PM

In regards to Tertullian, I provided clear passages where he said there was a time when the son did not exist.
0nly in title. Tertullian asserts that only the title of "son" was given at a certain time, and that before that the three persons of the trinity were less distinct than now. There was no "Father" before Jesus became the "Son" either. So was the Father created according to Tertullian?

but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin.

But I'm more mature than that. :lmbo:

Remember that the subject is whether or not Tertullian thought Jesus was created.
No actually, the subject is whether Christ is a created being and you are the one who brought Tertullian into the mix, although it makes no sense, since Tertullian clearly considered Jesus the SAME God as the Father and therefore could not be "created" - If Jesus were a created God then we would have two Gods and Tertullian specifically refuted that.

200 AD Tertullian "That there are two Gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as Gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6)

Don't the JW's believe the Jesus was Michael the Archangel? As such what does Tertullian have to say about Jesus being an angel?

200 AD Tertullian "Never did any angel descend for the purpose of being crucified, of tasting death, and of rising again from the dead." (The Flesh of Christ, ch 6)

So Tertullian believes Jesus is God and is one with the substance of God and is not an angel. And is not another God. Therefore in what way does he think Jesus is created? It is clear he thinks only that the title Son came about at one time, not that Jesus was created.

I am not denying that Tertullian Called Jesus God. Shoot, I call Jesus God.
So, you call Jesus "God?" but you don't mean that Jesus is the one TRUE God, the same God as the Father. But Tertullian does. So your quoting him in support of your beliefs is dishonest.

Now tell me WHERE in that sentence did you demonstrate that Tertullian beleived Jesus became God's "Son" at the incarnation and so that's why he could say there was a time when the Son didn't exist.
First, nowhere does Tertullian claim the the Son came into being when Jesus was incarnated. He claims that God gave the title Son to the second person of the trinity before the creation of the world. So I am not sure what strawman you are attacking here. I never claimed that Tertullian was right in his views on the trinity, only that he defended the trinity and claimed that Jesus was God, and never claimed he was CREATED. Something that is Created cannot be God and God cannot be CREATED, so Jesus was not considered to be CREATED by Tertullian. For all your bluster, have you shown a clear passage of Tertullian that says "God created Jesus?" -- No.

I want you to underline the part that says that because it's plain several times in the other quotes you so graciously provided that Tertullian believed Jesus was the Son before the creation of the earth.

Yes. and your point?

By the way, this whole Tertullian thing is another huge red herring. Exactly how does what Tertullian believed or not believed have anything to do with whether Jesus was a created being?

And would you mind stop talking to some invisible audience and address me personally? And stop with the jabs, insults and ad hominems?

You still havent answered the claim of Jesus creating everything, in heaven and earth as claimed in Colossians 1.

NonTrinitarian

September 11th 2004, 06:22 PM

0nly in title. Tertullian asserts that only the title of "son" was given at a certain time, and that before that the three persons of the trinity were less distinct than now. There was no "Father" before Jesus became the "Son" either. So was the Father created according to Tertullian?

but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin.

Whoa, be careful there JS! You back peddle too fast and you might trip over something. (Like something you said earlier!) Is it true that Tertullian believed it was only the “title” of “Son” that was created at some point in time? Well, we could take JS’ word for it or go and see what Tertullian said:

'But in proof that the Greek word [ajrchv] means nothing else than beginning, and that beginning admits of no other sense that the initial [first] one, we have that (Being) even acknowledging such a beginning, who says: "The Lord possessed12 me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works....12 Condidit: "created"'-Against Hermogenes, chapter XX (20), ANF, Volume III, p 488.

'The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person under the name of Wisdom: "The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills, did He beget me."'-Against Praxeas, chapter VII, ibid. Volume III, p. 60

Note from these two quotes that Tertullian calls Jesus the “initial one” and believes Jesus “acknowledges such a beginning” where he says he [Jesus] is “the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works.” IE. Jesus is the “initial one” of God’s creative works. From Against Praxeas he again believes Jesus was “formed” as the “beginning of His ways”. This isn’t a description of God giving the “Title” of “Son” to one-third of the Trinity. This is a creation of Jesus.

"Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God [Whom Tertullian acknowledges is the Son] is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated…How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten word?…That which [in ref. to God] did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [in ref. to the Son] which had an author to bring it into being."- Chpat XVIII; ANF Vol III, p. 487

"I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone."- Against Praxeas, Chpat V; ANF Vol III, p. 600

Note here that Tertullian said Jesus was “born and created” and differentiates Jesus who was “born and created” with the “God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated…”

Now, here is a key verse that blows JS malarkey out of the water.

How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten word.

Now keep in mind JS’ argument is that the Father and Son are the same age and that Tertullian was only referring to a time period where the Son was given the “title” son. Thus, at the same instance in time the Father became the Father and the Son became the Son. Before that time neither was called the Father or Son. But if that’s the case, then how did Tertullian think that “the Father, should be older” than the Son? If Tertullian was ONLY talking about their titles then wouldn’t the Father have had the title the same length as the Son? So in what sense was the Father older than the Son if Tertullian was only referring to titles? ( I predict JS will ignore this in his next post)

No actually, the subject is whether Christ is a created being and you are the one who brought Tertullian into the mix, although it makes no sense, since Tertullian clearly considered Jesus the SAME God as the Father and therefore could not be "created" - If Jesus were a created God then we would have two Gods and Tertullian specifically refuted that.

JS is reading his own arguments into Tertullians. Did I not already address this in the last post? I know Tertullian thinks they are “one God” but in what sense? I provided an example where in the apostle Paul implied in some sense that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek since he was the offspring of Abraham. Tertullian believes Jesus is God by being of his birth. It’s obvious Tertullian believes Christ was created at some point in time and was then part of God, though Tertullian speaks heretically of Christ’s subordination.

Don't the JW's believe the Jesus was Michael the Archangel? As such what does Tertullian have to say about Jesus being an angel?

200 AD Tertullian "Never did any angel descend for the purpose of being crucified, of tasting death, and of rising again from the dead." (The Flesh of Christ, ch 6)

So Tertullian believes Jesus is God and is one with the substance of God and is not an angel. And is not another God. Therefore in what way does he think Jesus is created? It is clear he thinks only that the title Son came about at one time, not that Jesus was created.

Ahh. Now I know why JS doesn’t respond to my arguments. He doesn’t read them! HA HA HA. Did I not say this?

“Can someone tell me, please, WHAT this has to do with whether Tertullian thought Jesus was a created being? Did I argue somewhere that Tertullian thought Jesus was an angel? NO! True, I think that. But did I EVER say Tertullian did? No. What I said is that Tertullian believed Jesus was created and this quote doesn't refute such a thought at all.”

And JS still hasn’t refuted it. His argument that Tertullian was only discussing the person of the Son receiving his title is belied by Tertulian saying the “Father is older” than the Son!

So, you call Jesus "God?" but you don't mean that Jesus is the one TRUE God, the same God as the Father. But Tertullian does. So your quoting him in support of your beliefs is dishonest.

I’m sorry but can anyone be this thick-headed? Whether Tertullian believes everything I believe is irrelivent. I am quoting the one thing we do have in common and that is that we both recognize that the “Father is older” than the Son.

First, nowhere does Tertullian claim the the Son came into being when Jesus was incarnated. He claims that God gave the title Son to the second person of the trinity before the creation of the world. So I am not sure what strawman you are attacking here.

Hey, I warned you about back peddling and bumping into a stupid statement you said earlier. Here is what you said bud…

Kaye, Tertullian, some Trinitarians and all Modalists teach that Jesus was eternally pre-existent as God, and that the title of "Son" was first applied to Jesus after his incarnation.

Yep, that’s what you said. Doesn’t look like a straw man argument to me. And just as a side note, allow me to point out that I had already said that nowhere did Tertullian say the title “son” was given at the incarnation. Then I provided scriptures to prove it. I guess that’s what caused you to back peddle so fast.

I never claimed that Tertullian was right in his views on the trinity, only that he defended the trinity and claimed that Jesus was God, and never claimed he was CREATED. Something that is Created cannot be God and God cannot be CREATED, so Jesus was not considered to be CREATED by Tertullian. For all your bluster, have you shown a clear passage of Tertullian that says "God created Jesus?" -- No.

Oohh. Now you are dictating exactly HOW you would want Tertullian to say Jesus was created huh? Well, let’s see what we can find, shall we?

Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God [Whom Tertullian acknowledges is the Son] is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated…How can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten word?…That which [in ref. to God] did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that [in ref. to the Son] which had an author to bring it into being."- Chpat XVIII; ANF Vol III, p. 487

Let’s see your word-by-word detailed summary of this and how you wiggle out of it. Tertullian repeatedly refers to the “wisdom of God” as being Jesus. So no, I can’t provide you a quote that says “God created Jesus” but I can provide you one that says “the very Wisdom of God is declared to be …CREATED.” Which is then contrasted with the one who is “uncreated”. One who “did not require a Maker to give it existence” versus one “which had an author to bring it into being.” I’m looking forward to your summary on this!

NT said: I want you to underline the part that says that because it's plain several times in the other quotes you so graciously provided that Tertullian believed Jesus was the Son before the creation of the earth

JS replied:
Yes. and your point?

My point was that you had just said “Kaye, Tertullian, some Trinitarians and all Modalists teach that Jesus was eternally pre-existent as God, and that the title of "Son" was first applied to Jesus after his incarnation” But you changed your mind on that one I guess, after I provided all the quotes from Tertullian showing you were wrong.

And would you mind stop talking to some invisible audience and address me personally? And stop with the jabs, insults and ad hominems?

There’s no invisible audience. A lot of people are reading this. You started with the jabs, insults, etc. And since you were not addressing my points (still aren’t for the most part), I had to talk to everyone else.

You still havent answered the claim of Jesus creating everything, in heaven and earth as claimed in Colossians 1.

I’ve answered it so many times it’s become a nuisance. The title firstborn immediately throws Jesus into the group of creation. Thus, he is part of creation and was instrumental in the creation of the rest of the group he was firstborn over.

By the way, this whole Tertullian thing is another huge red herring. Exactly how does what Tertullian believed or not believed have anything to do with whether Jesus was a created being

You’re right, Tertullian isn’t gospel. I just put out a quote showing he thought Jesus was created, which is pretty obvious from above, and you attacked me and called into question my credibility. I have since then displayed a “flip-flop” example where you said something, then took it back after I showed you wrong. Which is okay. Everyone makes mistakes. But you denied it and tried to make it look like I was arguing a straw man when I was clearly addressing something you did say. And after seeing Tertullian say Jesus was “declared to be born and created” and “had an author to bring it into being” and how he said the “Father is older” than the Son (which blows your little “title” theory out of the water, I can understand why you wouldn’t want to discuss him anymore.

Sparko

September 12th 2004, 03:10 PM

NonTrinitarian

September 13th 2004, 08:02 PM

Nontrin,

1. the flip flop you say I did, was not my original satement. It was part of
the Tertullian quotes I inserted into my post. It was the comment of the
author who assembled the quotes. If I did not give the reference, I
apologize.

2. If you want to believe that Tertullian says Jesus was created, then fine.
I will concede to you to get off this red herring and get back to the
thread. Tertullian was a heretic that somehow thought Jesus was created and
yet was one with God and not another God. How, I don't know. I don't see it
in his writings, but you do. If you believe it then you believe it.

3. Colossians 1 says that Jesus created all things. If he was a created
being he would be included in all things. If that were the case (that he
were created), then the author would surely have said that he created all
OTHER things (as the NWT likes to insert into the verse). But the word OTHER
is not in the original greek. Paul meant what he wrote. Jesus created ALL
THINGS. everything in heave and earth. He even goes to the trouble to define
what he means by everything so as to leave no doubt or wiggle room for
people such as you. Firstborn is just a title, like "Preeminant" - you make
too much of this one word, while ignoring the plain wording of the rest of
the verse. We can drop Tertullian. As far as point #3. Are you SURE the author would have included the word "other" in the sentence if he meant Jesus created all other things? (You have to know I'm fixing to pile on scriptures that prove such a thought wrong.) I don't make too much of one word. I'm just using the definition of the word. (Interesting that you should say this right after making an issue about another one word, "other".) IF Christ IS the firstborn of creation (as in the first thing created) and IF he was used in creating all OTHER things then Col 1:15,16 is in perfect harmony with that belief. Assuming those are true (but granting that you do not agree), then the ONLY problem Col 1:16 could ever raise for non-Trinitarians is the missing "other". But we have a slew of examples where the "other" is also missing though it is obviously implied. Since Paul had just said Christ was the firstborn of creation, it is obvious that he implied that all "other" things came through him.

And don't forget
Isaiah 44:24
"This is what the LORD says- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD , who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,

God says that he created all things ALONE and did not create by or through
ANYONE else. So if he created Jesus and then Jesus created everything else (as you say Colossians says in your interpretation) then Isaiah 44:24 is
wrong. You have caught God in a lie, or Colossians is a lie. They contradict
one another if we go with the JW interpretation. The only way they can be
reconciled is if Jesus is YHWH and is the one speaking in Isaiah 44:24
No, there's another way these two verses can be reconcilled. Don't use your interpretation of them! God is the one alone whom made everything. ALL of the power was HIS, not Jesus' nor anyone elses. I'm here to tell you right now that it was God alone who healed the people on earth. The verses are very clear that Jesus only had the ability to heal people because God gave him that power. Thus, God alone has the ability to heal and He alone had the power to create.

As 1 Corinthians 8:8 says, "There is actually to us One God, the Father, out of whom all things are...and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are."

We came out of God, just as Jesus did. It was His power that brought us and Jesus into existence. Jesus was then instrumental in using God's power in the rest of creation but never forget this. Jesus can no more say he is the Creator of the universe than Peter can say he is the healer of the paralygic (SP?) man on the street. Both Jesus and Peter were granted the privilege of using God's power but it was and is God alone who does all things.

Think of it like this: "Every house is contructed by someone but he that constructs ALL THINGS is God."- The Apostle Paul in the book of Hebrews.

Sparko

September 13th 2004, 09:30 PM

We can drop Tertullian. As far as point #3. Are you SURE the author would have included the word "other" in the sentence if he meant Jesus created all other things? (You have to know I'm fixing to pile on scriptures that prove such a thought wrong.) I don't make too much of one word. I'm just using the definition of the word. (Interesting that you should say this right after making an issue about another one word, "other".) IF Christ IS the firstborn of creation (as in the first thing created) and IF he was used in creating all OTHER things then Col 1:15,16 is in perfect harmony with that belief. Assuming those are true (but granting that you do not agree), then the ONLY problem Col 1:16 could ever raise for non-Trinitarians is the missing "other". But we have a slew of examples where the "other" is also missing though it is obviously implied. Since Paul had just said Christ was the firstborn of creation, it is obvious that he implied that all "other" things came through him. No I am not saying there could not be an instance where the word other might have been left out in greek but might need to be inserted into english. But in this instance, it seems that Paul would want to be very clear and not give a false impression. But that point was really an aside, not a "proof"

No, there's another way these two verses can be reconcilled. Don't use your interpretation of them! God is the one alone whom made everything. ALL of the power was HIS, not Jesus' nor anyone elses. I'm here to tell you right now that it was God alone who healed the people on earth. The verses are very clear that Jesus only had the ability to heal people because God gave him that power. Thus, God alone has the ability to heal and He alone had the power to create.
But the problem with that is:

1. Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

It clearly says that everything was created BY him, and not merely "through" him as if he were some conduit. And not only that, he sustains all things (holds together).

2. Isaiah 44:24 is very clear that not only did YHWH create all things, including the earth, he did it alone, by himself, there was none with him. He is saying he did not create through another creature, but laid out the earth BY HIMSELF with no help. The whole point of this verse is that no one helped God in any way, that only he created everything alone, by himself. It is very clear on this point.

Isaiah 44:24 I am the LORD ,
who has made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself,

and earlier:
Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.

And in Hebrews 1 it says [quoting God the father speaking]:

8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."[6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=HEB+1&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_690230324_6)] 10He also says,
"In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.

God calls the son, "God" and says that the son laid the foundations of the earth and the heaves are the works of his hands. [not merely creating through the Son, the Son created directly by his own power]

As 1 Corinthians 8:8 says, "There is actually to us One God, the Father, out of whom all things are...and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are." This verse does not negate the earlier verses and problems they present. All verses must reconcile. This verse can be reconciled by allowing that the Father is God and so is Jesus (if they are the same God) as we both believe that the Father is our Lord also, don't we? So if Jesus is Lord and the Father is Lord, then by the same logic, the Father is God and so is the Son.

We came out of God, just as Jesus did. It was His power that brought us and Jesus into existence. Jesus was then instrumental in using God's power in the rest of creation but never forget this. Jesus can no more say he is the Creator of the universe than Peter can say he is the healer of the paralygic (SP?) man on the street. Both Jesus and Peter were granted the privilege of using God's power but it was and is God alone who does all things. But the bible DOES say Jesus was the one who healed and brought the dead to life. And it does say Jesus is the creator of the universe. As a matter of fact it was your own argument that John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 was that Jesus only created the universe (but not the heavens).
And when others healed they did it in JESUS' NAME. They did not take credit for themselves but gave credit to Jesus. They healed by the power of Jesus.

NonTrinitarian

September 14th 2004, 09:07 PM

NT said:
We can drop Tertullian. As far as point #3. Are you SURE the author
would have included the word "other" in the sentence if he meant Jesus
created all other things? (You have to know I'm fixing to pile on scriptures
that prove such a thought wrong.) I don't make too much of one word. I'm
just using the definition of the word. (Interesting that you should say this
right after making an issue about another one word, "other".) IF Christ IS
the firstborn of creation (as in the first thing created) and IF he was used
in creating all OTHER things then Col 1:15,16 is in perfect harmony with
that belief. Assuming those are true (but granting that you do not agree),
then the ONLY problem Col 1:16 could ever raise for non-Trinitarians is the
missing "other". But we have a slew of examples where the "other" is also
missing though it is obviously implied. Since Paul had just said Christ was
the firstborn of creation, it is obvious that he implied that all "other"
things came through him.

JS replied:
No I am not saying there could not be an instance where the word other might
have been left out in greek but might need to be inserted into english. But
in this instance, it seems that Paul would want to be very clear and not
give a false impression. But that point was really an aside, not a "proof" And as I said last time, it is very clear assuming you don't already beleive in the Trinity when you get to this verse. In Col 1:3 Paul clearly differentiates Jesus from God. In verse 14 he calls Jesus God's Son. Both of these would cause an unbiased person who did not already believe Jesus was God to think Jesus is not God. Then Paul calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, immediately telling all that Jesus is a created being (assuming we stick to the meaning of the word). Then he tells them Jesus created all things. It was very clear to someone who doesn't already beleive in the Trinity that Paul meant all "other" created things. Col 1:15 is exactly in harmony with JW beliefs IF we insert the "other" in the text like we do scores of other times.

NT said:
No, there's another way these two verses can be reconcilled. Don't use
your interpretation of them! God is the one alone whom made everything. ALL
of the power was HIS, not Jesus' nor anyone elses. I'm here to tell you
right now that it was God alone who healed the people on earth. The verses
are very clear that Jesus only had the ability to heal people because God
gave him that power. Thus, God alone has the ability to heal and He alone
had the power to create.

JS replied:
But the problem with that is:

1. Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and
on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or
authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all
things, and in him all things hold together.

It clearly says that everything was created BY him, and not merely "through"
him as if he were some conduit. And not only that, he sustains all things
(holds together). And by Jesus God healed many people on earth. Who did the healing? I mean in the fullest sense.

2. Isaiah 44:24 is very clear that not only did YHWH create all things,
including the earth, he did it alone, by himself, there was none with him.
He is saying he did not create through another creature, but laid out the
earth BY HIMSELF with no help. The whole point of this verse is that no one
helped God in any way, that only he created everything alone, by himself. It
is very clear on this point.

Isaiah 44:24 I am the LORD ,
who has made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself,

and earlier:
Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says-
Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God. The phrase "He is saying he did not create through another creature" is your reading into the text what is not there. I don't think Jesus "helped" God. God doesn't need "help". It was all God's power and it wasn't like Jesus was doing God a favor in "helping" him create anthing. It was God who was kind enough to let Jesus participate but it was God alone who was the Creator as Jesus had no power in himself to create anything. God did create everything alone as it was all His power. If Jesus had any power of his own then he would have been "helping" God but Jesus didn't have any power so he couldn't "help" God create. He simply participated in it. In the same way, it wasn't Jesus' power that healed people. Jesus didn't have any power to heal people.

And in Hebrews 1 it says [quoting God the father speaking]:

8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."[6] 10He also says,
"In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.

God calls the son, "God" and says that the son laid the foundations of the
earth and the heaves are the works of his hands. [not merely creating
through the Son, the Son created directly by his own power] Stop putting your words in the text. Where did that verse say the Son created via his own power? It doesn't. (ALso, we discussed Heb 1:8 on another thread, I think in Christology. I'm not rewriting what I already wrote on that verse but note what verse Paul was quoting and who it originally applied to).

NT said:
As 1 Corinthians 8:8 says, "There is actually to us One God, the Father,
out of whom all things are...and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all
things are."

JS replied:
This verse does not negate the earlier verses and problems they present. All
verses must reconcile. This verse can be reconciled by allowing that the
Father is God and so is Jesus (if they are the same God) as we both believe
that the Father is our Lord also, don't we? So if Jesus is Lord and the
Father is Lord, then by the same logic, the Father is God and so is the Son. I agree all verses need to reconcile. Which is why Ihave about 400 verses I'd like Trinitarians to answer some time. But that's another story. And no, the Father is not the Lord of the congregation. He gave that authority to Jesus. You have to understand the context and sphere of the title. The Jews said their father was Abraham and then two verses later said they only had one Father, God. Want to apply your proposed logic here? I didn't think so. Why?

NT said:
We came out of God, just as Jesus did. It was His power that brought us
and Jesus into existence. Jesus was then instrumental in using God's power
in the rest of creation but never forget this. Jesus can no more say he is
the Creator of the universe than Peter can say he is the healer of the
paralygic (SP?) man on the street. Both Jesus and Peter were granted the
privilege of using God's power but it was and is God alone who does all
things.

JS replied:
But the bible DOES say Jesus was the one who healed and brought the dead to
life. And it does say Jesus is the creator of the universe. As a matter of
fact it was your own argument that John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 was that
Jesus only created the universe (but not the heavens). JS, I'm trying to be nicer to you but you're not making it easy. I am not sure if you have a reading comprehension problem or just a very bad memory. Please tell me WHERE I EVER said Jesus did not create the heavens. Go back and read my posts and point me to that comment. And before you take a quote oout of context in our discussion on John 1:3 (because I can see this coming from a mile away), stop and ask yourself if I was saying that Jesus did not create the heavens. Think on it before you reply.

And when others healed they did it in JESUS' NAME. They did not take credit
for themselves but gave credit to Jesus. They healed by the power of Jesus. Jesus has power but it's not his. It was given him by God. Same as when Jesus was on earth. Did you know that Jesus didn't have any power on his own to heal anyone when he was on earth?

"Namely Jesus, who was from Nazareth, how God annointed him with his holy spirit and power, and he went through the land...healing all those oppressed by the Devil, because God was with him."-Acts 10:38

"One day as he (Jesus) teaching...and the power of the Lordwas present for him to heal the sick."-Luke 5:15

"Men in Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Naxarene, a man publicly shown to you by God to you through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in your midst."-Acts 2:22

Note that all of these verses say it was God's power that healed people. It's okay if we say Jesus healed these people but we have to recognize that it was "the power of the Lord" that he was able to do this and that it was God who did it "through him". Jesus did these healings, not because he was God but "because God was with him."

Just as it wasn't Jesus who healed these people, it was God doing it "through him", it wasn't Jesus who created anything, it was God who did it "through him".

Captain Ochre

October 20th 2004, 01:27 AM

My participation was invited. Well, okay, it was merely suggested that I read the thread material.
MOL the same thing.
:smile:

And as I said last time, it is very clear assuming you don't already beleive in the Trinity when you get to this verse. In Col 1:3 Paul clearly differentiates Jesus from God.

The verse identifies “God” (the god) as “The Father”.
More than a coincidence?
:smile:

In verse 14 he calls Jesus God's Son.

Contextually this is in keeping with verse 3, where “God” is understood as the Father. It’s implicit in verse 14, obviously (through the reference to a “Son”).
There’s nothing here so far that contradicts the Trinitarian model.

Both of these would cause an unbiased person who did not already believe Jesus was God to think Jesus is not God.

We know unequivocally that Jesus is god from John’s gospel. What we learn from the above is that the father and the son are apparently not the same person. Clearly, however, the Father is god and the Son is god—and there is but one god.

This is what the Lord, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, says:
I am the first and I am the last.
There is no God but Me. 7 Who, like Me, can announce [the future]?
Let him say so and make a case before Me,
since I have established an ancient people.
Let these gods declare the coming things,
and what will take place. 8 Do not be startled or afraid.
Have I not told you and declared it long ago?
You are my witnesses!
Is there any God but Me?
There is no [other] Rock; I do not know any.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=isaiah+44&section=0&version=csb&language=en
Isaiah 44:6-8
Holman Christian Standard Bible

Then Paul calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, immediately telling all that Jesus is a created being (assuming we stick to the meaning of the word).

Nonsense. The typical understanding of “firstborn” in the Bible is the idea of heirship, and that idea is overwhelmingly supported in the context of Colossians:

’15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 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.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=colossians+1&section=0&version=nas&new=1&oq=colossians
Bold emphasis assuredly added by CO.
The surrounding text gives us no support for the notion that Jesus was first-created. God Himself could create all things while creating the Son first of all, so having created all things does not contribute to the idea of having been created first (though of course we know from scripture that there is nothing that was created without the Word). OTOH, “for Him” gives us the strongest possible support for the idea of heirship. Heirs inherit, and if all of creation is for the Son, then the Son obviously receives ownership of creation.
Finally, as pointed out elsewhere, Paul could have nipped Trinitarianism in the bud by proclaiming Jesus protoktistos instead of prototokos (“first-created” instead of “firstborn”).

Then he tells them Jesus created all things. It was very clear to someone who doesn't already beleive in the Trinity that Paul meant all "other" created things. Col 1:15 is exactly in harmony with JW beliefs IF we insert the "other" in the text like we do scores of other times.

Good job using all caps for “if”, since it is indeed a big “if”. As I noted elsewhere, the Watchtower makes doctrine the primary rationale for translating the passage with “other” placed helpfully in brackets. Taking the verse at face value, it is in harmony with the Gospel of John, which emphatically assures us that that nothing at all was created without the Word.
NT MOL expressly admits that “other” is added in order to harmonize the passage with JW doctrine.

The phrase "He is saying he did not create through another creature" is your reading into the text what is not there. I don't think Jesus "helped" God. God doesn't need "help". It was all God's power and it wasn't like Jesus was doing God a favor in "helping" him create anthing. It was God who was kind enough to let Jesus participate but it was God alone who was the Creator as Jesus had no power in himself to create anything. God did create everything alone as it was all His power. If Jesus had any power of his own then he would have been "helping" God but Jesus didn't have any power so he couldn't "help" God create. He simply participated in it.

Using your own technique, NT, the reader of the passage is likely to conclude that Yahweh did all of the work personally. John Sparks has nailed you very effectively with these references, and your reply is as weak as we should expect.
Aside from the Yahweh, there is no god. So, who is this god Jesus who supposedly acts as Yahweh’s superfluous puppet (oh how it hurts me to say that!) in the process of creation?

In the same way, it wasn't Jesus' power that healed people. Jesus didn't have any power to heal people.

The incarnation is obviously not comparable to the pre-existent state, as the incarnation was subsequent to Jesus emptying himself and taking on the lowest form. Orthodox doctrine actually relies on Jesus forsaking use of his own divine power during the incarnation to ensure that his experience was not a mere counterfeit of the human experience.

Stop putting your words in the text. Where did that verse say the Son created via his own power? It doesn't. (ALso, we discussed Heb 1:8 on another thread, I think in Christology. I'm not rewriting what I already wrote on that verse but note what verse Paul was quoting and who it originally applied to).

The verse does not explicitly state that the Son created via his own power, nor does it explicitly state that the Son created via borrowed power—but this we do know: Jesus emptied himself of something for purposes of the incarnation (the very nature of god, as I understand it, which we may surmise might have included the power of god).
There is no warrant for the assumption that the power was not Jesus own, unless it is the prior acceptance of the Watchtower doctrine on this issue.

I agree all verses need to reconcile. Which is why Ihave about 400 verses I'd like Trinitarians to answer some time. But that's another story. And no, the Father is not the Lord of the congregation. He gave that authority to Jesus. You have to understand the context and sphere of the title. The Jews said their father was Abraham and then two verses later said they only had one Father, God. Want to apply your proposed logic here? I didn't think so. Why?

It’s absolutely stunning the way you accuse others of interpreting the Scriptures according to preconceived doctrines while being apparently blind to your own tendency to do the same thing.
Again, context is always the key, and the likely intent of the author in conjunction with the consistency of the text should always trump doctrinal considerations, be they henotheistic or Trinitarian.

There’s a reason why JW’s have historically discouraged Bible reading apart from the guidance of the Society.

Jesus has power but it's not his. It was given him by God. Same as when Jesus was on earth. Did you know that Jesus didn't have any power on his own to heal anyone when he was on earth?

Philippians 2:6-8 (HCSB)
4 Everyone should look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, 6 who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be used for His own advantage. 7 Instead He emptied Himself by assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men. And when He had come as a man in His external form, 8 He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death--even to death on a cross.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=Philippians+1&section=0&version=csb&new=1&oq=&NavBook=php&NavGo=1&NavNextChapter=%3E%3E&NavCurrentChapter=1

Throughout the incarnation, Jesus possessed his full godly power, but he did not avail himself of that power during the incarnation.

Note that all of these verses say it was God's power that healed people.

That’s exactly as we should expect in accord with orthodox doctrine. Prior to the incarnation, there would be no reason for Jesus to limit his exercise of creative power.

Revelation 22:9-16 (HCSB)
9 But he said to me, "Don't do that! I am a fellow slave with you, your brothers the prophets, and those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." 10 He also said to me, "Don't seal the prophetic words of this book, because the time is near. 11 Let the unrighteous go on in unrighteousness; let the filthy go on being made filthy; let the righteous go on in righteousness; and let the holy go on being made holy." 12 "Look! I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me to repay each person according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. 14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. 16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to attest these things to you for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright Morning Star."
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=re+22:13&version=csb&context=1&showtools=1

Your inclination will be to interpret the above passage to accommodate your doctrine, NT.
Try interpreting it without any doctrinal considerations.

Sparko

October 20th 2004, 01:24 PM

Then he tells them Jesus created all things. It was very clear to someone who doesn't already beleive in the Trinity that Paul meant all "other" created things. Col 1:15 is exactly in harmony with JW beliefs IF we insert the "other" in the text like we do scores of other times. :rofl:

That was the clearest admission to scripture tampering I ever heard a JW give.

Of course it fits with your doctrinal beliefs if you change the scripture to fit your doctrines. :ahem:

And by Jesus God healed many people on earth. Who did the healing? I mean in the fullest sense. Apparently JESUS did. And when others healed, they did it in who's name? They did it in Jesus' name.

Jesus didn't have any power to heal people. He made a pretty good show of it IMHO.

Stop putting your words in the text. :lmbo: :lmbo:
After you admit above that the WTBTS added words to scripture to make it fit your doctrine, you accuse ME of putting my words in the text? :rofl:

JS, I'm trying to be nicer to you but you're not making it easy. I am not sure if you have a reading comprehension problem or just a very bad memory. Please tell me WHERE I EVER said Jesus did not create the heavens. Go back and read my posts and point me to that comment. And before you take a quote oout of context in our discussion on John 1:3 (because I can see this coming from a mile away), stop and ask yourself if I was saying that Jesus did not create the heavens. Think on it before you reply. OK, if I mistook what you were saying, let me know. But this is what I was referring to. When I said that "not one thing came into existance without him" meant that Jesus could not be created because Angels were things, and even heaven was created by Jesus because heaven was a thing,

you said:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=699596&postcount=25
You have to look at the context of a verse. If John is referencing Genesis 1:1, like most Trinitarians believe, then "beginning" is in reference to the beginnging of the physical earth. And if that is what John is referencing, then the panta that came into existence through Christ is still in reference to the physical earth. and..

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=699596&postcount=25

1.) It is pretty clear John 1:1 is referring to Gen 1:1 which is dealing ONLY with the creation of the physical elements.

2.)... should also tell you it is in reference to the creation of the earth, not anything prior to it.

3.) "Everything means everything" is also not true because God is in heaven and obviously he is exempt from this. So no, everything in heaven was NOT created by Christ.

"One day as he (Jesus) teaching...and the power of the Lordwas present for him to heal the sick."-Luke 5:15

"Men in Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Naxarene, a man publicly shown to you by God to you through powerful works and portents and signs that God did through him in your midst."-Acts 2:22

Note that all of these verses say it was God's power that healed people. It's okay if we say Jesus healed these people but we have to recognize that it was "the power of the Lord" that he was able to do this and that it was God who did it "through him". Jesus did these healings, not because he was God but "because God was with him." Not a problem if Jesus IS God.

Acts 3:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+3:6&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk."

Luke 10:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=LUKE+10:17&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
The seventytwo returned with joy and said, "Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name."

John 17:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=JOHN+17:11&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name–the name you gave me–so that they may be one as we are one.

(The Father gave Jesus HIS name. They have the same name! They are the same God)

NonTrinitarian

October 20th 2004, 06:47 PM

The verse identifies “God” (the god) as “The Father”.
More than a coincidence? (referring to COl 1:3) I'm going to reply to the rest of CO's post tomorrow (along with JS' post) but I have to speak up about the idiodic arguments that you all are throwing at that are obviously a waste of time and purely brainless.

I had said in an earlier post that God is differentiated from Jesus in Col 1:3. The brilliant CO replies as above. Here is the verse in question.

We always give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ..."-NAB Now the point I made is that "God", not "God the Father", is separated from Jesus. Einstein here replies that God is called the Father. Now why did he do this? Because he wants me to think that Paul is contrasting the person of "God the Father" with "God the Son" and thus Jesus is not really differentiated from God. But look at the verse people. Can anyone, including honest Trinitarians (which I'm not putting CO and JS in at the moment due to stupid arguments like this), think that when Paul wrote "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" he was using the whole phrase "God the Father" in reference to the first person of the Trinity with the title "God the Father"? I hope not or it's back to basic English for you!

In other words, the verse isn't saying :

"We give thanks to the 'God the Father, the first persn of the Trinty' of the Lord Jesus Christ" with the noun being 'God the Father, the first person of the Trinity'.

It wouldn't even make sense! It is obvious the noun is NOT "God the Father", it is simply "God" with the adjectival clause of 'the Father' tying the noun (God) to the object, That's why the preposition "of" is in front of Jesus in the Greek.

If 'God the Father' were a title and not a noun (God) with an adjectival clause then Paul would have wrote this:

"We give thanks to THE "God the Father" of our Lord Jesus Christ."-
(Shoot, even that doesn't make sense but it makes a little more sense than what CO is arguing. At least it has two definite articles with one pointing out the noun.)

In otherwords, he would have had TWO "the"s in it instead of one. Look at everytime the expression 'The God of Jesus' appears in the Greek. They all have the definite article "the" in front of the noun. The GreeK has the definite article in front of the noun but there's no second "the" to make the title "God the Father". (And note in CO' reply that he included TWO the's in it by saying (the God) The Father. He's rewriting Greek to now support his argument!)

But again, even if there was, the sentence makes no sense. It is obvious Paul was not saying this:
"We give thanks to "God the Father, the first person of the Trinity" of our Lord Jesus Christ."

And he wasn't saying this either though this is how Trinitarians who know a little more about language than CO read it:
"We give thanks to "God the Father, the first person of the Trinity", the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Of course, Trinitarians have to replace "God" with "God the Father, the first person of the Trinity" in order escape Jesus not being God and they can only do that AFTER they came up with the Trinity. The problem is how people explained all these verses away that clearly show Jesus is not God (Note God, not "God the Father") before they knew there was "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit".

Sparko

October 20th 2004, 08:03 PM

Captain Ochre

October 20th 2004, 08:50 PM

I'm going to reply to the rest of CO's post tomorrow (along with JS' post) but I have to speak up about the idiodic arguments that you all are throwing at that are obviously a waste of time and purely brainless.

I had said in an earlier post that God is differentiated from Jesus in Col 1:3.

And I've pointed out (more than once, iirc) that Trinitarian doctrine differentiates between God (the Father) and Jesus, while providing evidence that God is used of a particular person via the use of the definite article (the).

The brilliant CO replies as above. Here is the verse in question.

Now the point I made is that "God", not "God the Father", is separated from Jesus.

Except that your point has no force when the verse itself calls "God" "the Father".
Though NT seems intent on denying it, this is clear textual evidence that the "God" being referred to is properly identified as "the Father" (capitalization in the original text under discussion).

Einstein here replies that God is called the Father. Now why did he do this? Because he wants me to think that Paul is contrasting the person of "God the Father" with "God the Son" and thus Jesus is not really differentiated from God.

Incorrect. My point is exactly as stated above, to show that the context identifies God as I do (God the Father). It shows how silly NT is being, at least in this particular instance, with my identifying "God" as "The Father", and very naturally connecting the two with the unified title "God the Father". There is no need for me to call upon the semantic Trinitarian connotations of the title, as I have already indicated the basic scriptural foundation of Trinitarian doctrine.

But look at the verse people. Can anyone, including honest Trinitarians (which I'm not putting CO and JS in at the moment due to stupid arguments like this), think that when Paul wrote "God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" he was using the whole phrase "God the Father" in reference to the first person of the Trinity with the title "God the Father"? I hope not or it's back to basic English for you!

Straw man.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/f/fallacies.htm#Straw%20Man

Hopefully my fuller explanation above will make the actual argument clearer to NT so that he won't be compelled to indulge in personal attacks based on arguments that I am not making.

In other words, the verse isn't saying :

"We give thanks to the 'God the Father, the first persn of the Trinty' of the Lord Jesus Christ" with the noun being 'God the Father, the first person of the Trinity'.

:zzz:

It wouldn't even make sense! It is obvious the noun is NOT "God the Father", it is simply "God" with the adjectival clause of 'the Father' tying the noun (God) to the object, That's why the preposition "of" is in front of Jesus in the Greek.

If 'God the Father' were a title and not a noun (God) with an adjectival clause then Paul would have wrote this:

"We give thanks to THE "God the Father" of our Lord Jesus Christ."-
(Shoot, even that doesn't make sense but it makes a little more sense than what CO is arguing. At least it has two definite articles with one pointing out the noun.)

In the Greek, the article is attached to "God" not to "Father", fwiw (literally, "the god father of the lord of us Jesus"). The point is simply that a god for whom the adjectival clause "father of" applies is also rightly a god for who "God the Father" is an appropriate title, regardless of Trinitarian semantics.

If the WTB&TS were consistent in its translation of "kyrios" (apart from doctrinal considerations and the insistence on putting "Jehovah" where it doesn't belong), we'd have "God the father of Jehovah Jesus".

Now I'm going to have to dig around and find my "Kingdom Interlinear".

In otherwords, he would have had TWO "the"s in it instead of one. Look at everytime the expression 'The God of Jesus' appears in the Greek. They all have the definite article "the" in front of the noun. The GreeK has the definite article in front of the noun but there's no second "the" to make the title "God the Father". (And note in CO' reply that he included TWO the's in it by saying (the God) The Father. He's rewriting Greek to now support his argument!)

:lol:
The gusto with which you attack the straw man is truly amusing.

But again, even if there was, the sentence makes no sense. It is obvious Paul was not saying this:
"We give thanks to "God the Father, the first person of the Trinity" of our Lord Jesus Christ."

:zzz:

And he wasn't saying this either though this is how Trinitarians who know a little more about language than CO read it:
"We give thanks to "God the Father, the first person of the Trinity", the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

:zzz:

Of course, Trinitarians have to replace "God" with "God the Father, the first person of the Trinity" in order escape Jesus not being God and they can only do that AFTER they came up with the Trinity. The problem is how people explained all these verses away that clearly show Jesus is not God (Note God, not "God the Father") before they knew there was "God the Father", "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit".

What you seem to be missing, NT, is that I can give God whatever title I wish based on His actions. If he protects me, he is God the Protector. If he manifests omnipotence, then he is God the Almighty. If he's the father of Jesus, the he is God the Father. It has absolutely nothing to do with translation of the text, as you have erroneously assumed.

Better luck with your next reply.

NonTrinitarian

October 21st 2004, 05:11 PM

Sorry non-trin, but I had a very hard time following your rant above. You seem to be stuck in some semantic mode where you keep adding and taking away words from the bible -- such as adding and counting "the"s and so on.
That's okay JS. I understand anything that requires you to think can be pretty challenging for you.

NonTrinitarian

October 21st 2004, 05:28 PM

Except that your point has no force when the verse itself calls "God" "the Father". Though NT seems intent on denying it, this is clear textual evidence that the "God" being referred to is properly identified as "the Father" (capitalization in the original text under discussion).And CO has a problem comprehending any argument higher than a rudementary level. It's obvoius from the text that it is not a title of "God the Father", it is a title of God with the adjectival clause of 'the Father' pointing to Jesus. IE, if I use punctuation to highlight it:

We give thanks to God (one person, only one person, not "God the Father, the FIRST PERSON OF THE TRINITY", just God),,,,,the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This highlights that God is a separate person from Jesus. Now he is identified as the Father of Jesus but he is not called "God the Father", he is called "God", who happens to be "the Father" of Jesus.

Assume for an instance that God is not a Trinity and there is no "God the Son", "God the Father", (titles used to identifyt he three persons of God). The sentence would be written the same exact way! Thus, the fact that "the Father" appears in the sentence does NOT give evidence to the idea that God is a three person God in which Paul is contrasting "God the Father" with "God the Son." It offers ZERO evidence that Paul is saying anything other than ALL OF GOD is separate from Jesus.

Incorrect. My point is exactly as stated above, to show that the context identifies God as I do (God the Father). It shows how silly NT is being, at least in this particular instance, with my identifying "God" as "The Father", and very naturally connecting the two with the unified title "God the Father". There is no need for me to call upon the semantic Trinitarian connotations of the title, as I have already indicated the basic scriptural foundation of Trinitarian doctrine.See above. It doesn't even come close to saying there are two persons of God in this verse. The phrase "the Father" does not lend any support to their being 1 person of God called "God the Father" and another person called "god the Son". It's all of God who happens to be Father of Jesus.

Hopefully my fuller explanation above will make the actual argument clearer to NT so that he won't be compelled to indulge in personal attacks based on arguments that I am not making. Sorry, stupid arguments are game. You simply said the same incorrect thing in different words. The phrase offers no justification for assuming that the "God" in this verse is anyone other than ALL of God. Paul is not talking about "God the Father", he is talking about "God" and says he's the Father of Jesus.

In the Greek, the article is attached to "God" not to "Father", fwiw (literally, "the god father of the lord of us Jesus"). I said the same thing. Thanks for repeating me. But you imply that Paul is saying "The "God the Father"" and he doesn't. The "The" correctly goes between God and Father.

If the WTB&TS were consistent in its translation of "kyrios" (apart from doctrinal considerations and the insistence on putting "Jehovah" where it doesn't belong), we'd have "God the father of Jehovah Jesus".Diversion tactic not relevant to this discussion.

What you seem to be missing, NT, is that I can give God whatever title I wish based on His actions. If he protects me, he is God the Protector. If he manifests omnipotence, then he is God the Almighty. If he's the father of Jesus, the he is God the Father. It has absolutely nothing to do with translation of the text, as you have erroneously assumed.
Better luck with your next reply.Yes, but you are attaching to the title "God" the title "God the Father". I already demonstrated that "the Father" is not part of the title. You are, in essence saying this:

'"God the Father", the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

You have read into "God" the title "God the Father" and attempted to justify it by pointing out that the adjectival clause said "the Father". I clearly pointed out that if there was no Trinity the sentence would have been written the same way. Actually, I think you were originally trying to use it all as a title but changed your mind after I showed you it was wrong. Better luck next time with you.:lol:

Sparko

October 21st 2004, 06:15 PM

That's okay JS. I understand anything that requires you to think can be pretty challenging for you. :duh:

The! The the the. The, the the the the the. The the the? The!

NonTrinitarian

October 21st 2004, 08:44 PM

NT said,
Then he tells them Jesus created all things. It was very clear to
someone who doesn't already believe in the Trinity that Paul meant all
"other" created things. Col 1:15 is exactly in harmony with JW beliefs IF we
insert the "other" in the text like we do scores of other times.

JS shows his ignorance by saying,
That was the clearest admission to scripture tampering I ever heard a JW
give. Of course it fits with your doctrinal beliefs if you change the scripture to
fit your doctrines. I won't even delve into all the verses Trinitarians translate per their doctrine. I'll just mention the many times their own Bibles include the same word (other) in the their translations when it doesn't appear in the Greek. They do this because the context requires them to do it. In Col 1:15,16, Paul had just said Jesus was PART OF CREATION (still waiting for ONE EXAMPLE from the Bible where someone is said to be firstborn of a group and is not part of that group) so the context obviously states that all other participants in that group that Christ belongs to were created through him. (Not from him, through him)

NT said,
And by Jesus God healed many people on earth. Who did the healing? I
mean in the fullest sense.

JS replies,
Apparently JESUS did. And when others healed, they did it in who's name?
They did it in Jesus' name. JS is either experiencing memory loss or he's flat out deceptive. I'm going for the latter. I had already provided scriptures that said it was NOT Jesus' power, it was spoken of as someone other than Jesus. Then JS comes up with the bogus argument that they did it in Jesus' name so apparently Jesus did have his own power. Jesus said we were to ask in his name and he would request the Father. (John 14) So I have clear verses saying the power was to heal came from someone OTHER than Jesus and JS has people asking in Jesus' name (note, not asking Jesus, asking in his name). Mine clearly say it wasn't Jesus' power. We have to take JS' word on it that asking in Jesus' name means it is his power rather than these people simply doing what Jesus told us to do. Does this verse sound familiar Js?
"Whatever you ask the Father in MY NAME, it will be given."

NT said, Jesus didn't have any power to heal people.

JS Replied,
He made a pretty good show of it IMHO. It's your opinion but I don't know how honest it is. In the face of all the verses that say it was NOT Jesus' power, you may be lying to yourself.

NT said,
JS, I'm trying to be nicer to you but you're not making it easy. I am
not sure if you have a reading comprehension problem or just a very bad
memory. Please tell me WHERE I EVER said Jesus did not create the heavens.
Go back and read my posts and point me to that comment. And before you take
a quote out of context in our discussion on John 1:3 (because I can see
this coming from a mile away), stop and ask yourself if I was saying that
Jesus did not create the heavens. Think on it before you reply.

JS replied,
OK, if I mistook what you were saying, let me know. But this is what I was
referring to. When I said that "not one thing came into existence without
him" meant that Jesus could not be created because Angels were things, and
even heaven was created by Jesus because heaven was a thing,

you said:

You have to look at the context of a verse. If John is referencing
Genesis 1:1, like most Trinitarians believe, then "beginning" is in
reference to the beginning of the physical earth. And if that is what John
is referencing, then the panta that came into existence through Christ is
still in reference to the physical earth.

1.) It is pretty clear John 1:1 is referring to Gen 1:1 which is dealing
ONLY with the creation of the physical elements.

2.)... should also tell you it is in reference to the creation of the
earth, not anything prior to it.

3.) "Everything means everything" is also not true because God is in
heaven and obviously he is exempt from this. So no, everything in heaven was
NOT created by Christ. Yes, I said those things. Now why, JS, WHY did you also not mention the points I made about Col 1:16 where I said Christ DID create the angels? You didn't seem to have a problem finding these quotes of mine.

And look at these words of mine you quoted. In EACH instance I am referring to the SCOPE of John 1:1. John 1:1 is referring to Genesis 1:1, which only refers to the creation of the physical earth. You cannot find the creation of the spiritual realm, including heaven in Genesis 1. (I plainly pointed this out to you with EVERY instance the word heaven appears in that chapter). So if John 1:1 is referring to Genesis 1:1 then it is NOT referring to the angelic beings in heaven, who were also existing in the beginning of Genesis 1:1 as Job shows they were applauding God while Genesis chapter 1 was happening. I then said Col 1:16 does cover the scope of the creation of the things in heavens (except Christ's creation). You are either a poor researcher or deceitful to the readers of these posts. Maybe both.

NT pointed to these verses showing Jesus is God,
"One day as he (Jesus) teaching...and the power of the Lord was present
for him to heal the sick."-Luke 5:15

"Men in Israel, hear these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man publicly
shown to you by God to you through powerful works and portents and signs
that God did through him in your midst."-Acts 2:22

Note that all of these verses say it was God's power that healed people.
It's okay if we say Jesus healed these people but we have to recognize that
it was "the power of the Lord" that he was able to do this and that it was
God who did it "through him". Jesus did these healings, not because he was
God but "because God was with him."

JS replies, apparently without giving it much thought,
Not a problem if Jesus IS God.[/quote] Whatever JS. For the intelligent parties out there, note that in each verse the person who is speaking or narrating doesn't attribute the healing power to Jesus. They each say that God (God the Father or whatever crazy definition you want to use), distinguished from the Son, did the healing "through" Jesus. Also, I quoted another verse that shows the same thing and JS didn't reprint that one. I don't know why they were all together.

Acts 10:38-"namely Jesus, who was from Nazareth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land healing all those oppressed by the Devil because God was with him."

Yet another verse showing that Jesus only had power, not because he was God, but because God (however you want to define it) was with Jesus and anointed Jesus with power.

Acts 3:6
Then Peter said, "Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you.
In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk."

Luke 10:17
The seventytwo returned with joy and said, "Lord, even the demons submit to
us in your name."

John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I
am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name-the
name you gave me-so that they may be one as we are one.

(The Father gave Jesus HIS name. They have the same name! They are the same
God) Again JS, do the verses where Jesus says 'whatever you ask the Father in my name will be granted you' mean anything to you? these verses don't say it's Jesus' power. You're reading it into those verses in a very big way. I stack up Acts 10:38; 2:22 and Luke 5:15 to Acts 3:6 and Luke 10:17 any day. And I'll throw all the verses where Jesus says we ask in his name and he will request the Father for it. (see John 14 for example)

And as far as God giving Jesus his name and your stretched interpretation of it. Note first it was GIVEN him. (Oh yeah, I forgot given doesn't mean anything to Trinitarians) But Jesus highlighted that it was God's name, not his own. Jesus actually said 'You have given me your OWN name'. IE, this wasn't a name they both shared from the beginning. It was his Father's OWN name that he gave to the son. I gave my wife my own name too when I married her. Last time I checked, we're not a binity.

NonTrinitarian

October 21st 2004, 08:50 PM

NT said,
Both of these would cause an unbiased person who did not already believe
Jesus was God to think Jesus is not God.

Co replied,
We know unequivocally that Jesus is god from John's gospel. What we learn
from the above is that the father and the son are apparently not the same
person. Clearly, however, the Father is god and the Son is god-and there is
but one god. Colossians was written LONG before John was. They couldn't turn to John and say,'See, John calls Jesus God!'

This is what the Lord, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the Lord of
Hosts, says:
I am the first and I am the last.
There is no God but Me. 7 Who, like Me, can announce [the future]?
Let him say so and make a case before Me,
since I have established an ancient people.
Let these gods declare the coming things,
and what will take place. 8 Do not be startled or afraid.
Have I not told you and declared it long ago?
You are my witnesses!
Is there any God but Me?
There is no [other] Rock; I do not know any. And there isn't. What's your point? I don't claim that Jesus is God. I acknowledge that God calls Jesus "God" but he called a lot of other people "God" too. This doesn't mean any of them are Almighty God.

NT said,
Then Paul calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, immediately telling
all that Jesus is a created being (assuming we stick to the meaning of the
word).

CO replied,
Nonsense. The typical understanding of "firstborn" in the Bible is the idea
of heir ship, and that idea is overwhelmingly supported in the context of
Colossians:

'15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 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. The only nonsense is your argument. Firstborn is seldom used to denote only heir ship rather than first offspring brought into existence. And furthermore, I challenge you to find ONE instance in the Bible where someone is called "firstborn" of a group and is not part of that group. Your lone exception will be this verse in question. How convenient!

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineSt...1&oq=colossians
Bold emphasis assuredly added by CO.
The surrounding text gives us no support for the notion that Jesus was
first-created. God Himself could create all things while creating the Son
first of all, so having created all things does not contribute to the idea
of having been created first (though of course we know from scripture that
there is nothing that was created without the Word). OTOH, "for Him" gives
us the strongest possible support for the idea of heir ship. Heirs inherit,
and if all of creation is for the Son, then the Son obviously receives
ownership of creation.
Finally, as pointed out elsewhere, Paul could have nipped Trinitarianism in
the bud by proclaiming Jesus protoktistos instead of prototokos
("first-created" instead of "firstborn"). Yak Yak Yak, and no proof. Prov 8 calls says Jesus was brought in existence before the earth and describes how he was used in the creation process as a master worker. Also, I just LOVE your argument on how Paul could have used protoktistos if he wanted to nick Trinitarianism in the butt. It's almost kinda cute. Accept for the fact that the word didn't exist in Paul's day. And of course this ASSUMES Paul had reason to nip the Trinity in the bud! The Trinity didn't even exist! No one knew what the Trinity was. There was no written concept of it until centuries later! So exactly HOW could Paul have refuted the Trinity when he didn't even know there was such an idiotic teaching as this that even needed to be refuted?!

NT said,
Then he tells them Jesus created all things. It was very clear to
someone who doesn't already believe in the Trinity that Paul meant all
"other" created things. Col 1:15 is exactly in harmony with JW beliefs IF we
insert the "other" in the text like we do scores of other times.

Co replied,
Good job using all caps for "if", since it is indeed a big "if". As I noted
elsewhere, the Watchtower makes doctrine the primary rationale for
translating the passage with "other" placed helpfully in brackets. Taking
the verse at face value, it is in harmony with the Gospel of John, which
emphatically assures us that that nothing at all was created without the
Word.
NT MOL expressly admits that "other" is added in order to harmonize the
passage with JW doctrine. I see CO still has reading comprehension problems. I don't think those are going to change anytime soon. I clearly said that the CONTEXT of the verse dictates the "other" in it. Unless you can offer ONE example (that's all I am asking for CO, just one tiny example) where ANYONE or ANYTHING is said to be firstborn of something and is not part of that group. Until you refute the meaning of firstborn, then Jesus is part of creation and the context dictates "other" be used.

NT said,
The phrase "He is saying he did not create through another creature" is
your reading into the text what is not there. I don't think Jesus "helped"
God. God doesn't need "help". It was all God's power and it wasn't like
Jesus was doing God a favor in "helping" him create anything. It was God who
was kind enough to let Jesus participate but it was God alone who was the
Creator as Jesus had no power in himself to create anything. God did create
everything alone as it was all His power. If Jesus had any power of his own
then he would have been "helping" God but Jesus didn't have any power so he
couldn't "help" God create. He simply participated in it.

Co replied,
Using your own technique, NT, the reader of the passage is likely to
conclude that Yahweh did all of the work personally. John Sparks has nailed
you very effectively with these references, and your reply is as weak as we
should expect.
Aside from the Yahweh, there is no god. So, who is this god Jesus who
supposedly acts as Yahweh's superfluous puppet (oh how it hurts me to say
that!) in the process of creation? JS arguments are weak but I'm not surprised that you like them. Your's are of the same quality and neither one of you comprehend English well as you continuously misquote me, misunderstand me, etc. Yahweh did all the work personally, assuming you know what that means. It was all God's Power, not Christ's. Christ didn't "create" anything. The things were created through him but it was all God. Jesus isn't God so there is no contradiction in saying there was no God with God. Jesus is God's representative and as such, is occasionally called "god" like other representatives of God are.

The incarnation is obviously not comparable to the pre-existent state, as
the incarnation was subsequent to Jesus emptying himself and taking on the
lowest form. Orthodox doctrine actually relies on Jesus forsaking use of his
own divine power during the incarnation to ensure that his experience was
not a mere counterfeit of the human experience. A logical fallacy for someone who calls Jesus "Full God and Full Man".

The verse does not explicitly state that the Son created via his own power,
nor does it explicitly state that the Son created via borrowed power-but
this we do know: Jesus emptied himself of something for purposes of the
incarnation (the very nature of god, as I understand it, which we may
surmise might have included the power of god).
There is no warrant for the assumption that the power was not Jesus own,
unless it is the prior acceptance of the Watchtower doctrine on this issue. Except all the verses that say GOD created everything through Jesus. See Hebrews 1:1,2. Who is the one called accredited with creation there? Not Jesus! It says "God", one person, separate from Jesus, created everything through another person, Jesus. But note that it was God who is said to do the creating.

NT said,
I agree all verses need to reconcile. Which is why Ihave about 400
verses I'd like Trinitarians to answer some time. But that's another story.
And no, the Father is not the Lord of the congregation. He gave that
authority to Jesus. You have to understand the context and sphere of the
title. The Jews said their father was Abraham and then two verses later said
they only had one Father, God. Want to apply your proposed logic here? I
didn't think so. Why?

Co replied,
It's absolutely stunning the way you accuse others of interpreting the
Scriptures according to preconceived doctrines while being apparently blind
to your own tendency to do the same thing.
Again, context is always the key, and the likely intent of the author in
conjunction with the consistency of the text should always trump doctrinal
considerations, be they henotheistic or Trinitarian.

There's a reason why JW's have historically discouraged Bible reading apart
from the guidance of the Society. Blind? I'm not blind. I'll be the FIRST one to admit I come to the Bible believing Jesus is NOT God. Why not? All of the people in Jesus' day came to him the same way. After reading through the historical accounts in the gospels, I cannot get to the point of believing Jesus is God because of all the stuff he says about himself and God. I can see he had a prehuman existence and that God let him use His power to heal. I can see that God GAVE him almost all authority but none of that says he is God. It all continues to say he is not god. So how can I come to the idea of Jesus being God with all of these verses and no preconceived Trinity doctrine? I can't. The Trinity was developed by people who only want to look at the evidence that makes them think Jesus is God. At least Non-Trinitarians provide explanations and discussions to all of your verses. You all are totally clueless to the many verses that show Jesus is not God, other than John 14:28.

NT said,
Jesus has power but it's not his. It was given him by God. Same as when
Jesus was on earth. Did you know that Jesus didn't have any power on his own
to heal anyone when he was on earth?

CO replied,

Philippians 2:6-8 (HCSB)

4 Everyone should look out not only for his own interests, but also for
the interests of others. 5 Make your own attitude that of Christ Jesus, 6
who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as
something to be used for His own advantage. 7 Instead He emptied Himself by
assuming the form of a slave, taking on the likeness of men. And when He had
come as a man in His external form, 8 He humbled Himself by becoming
obedient to the point of death--even to death on a cross.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineSt...urrentChapter=1

Throughout the incarnation, Jesus possessed his full godly power, but he did
not avail himself of that power during the incarnation. Oh, well if someone from bible crosswalk says so it must be true. I'm sorry, what verse was that that said "Throughout the incarnation, Jesus possessed his full godly power, but he did
not avail himself of that power during the incarnation."

I must have missed that one because all I see are verses where Jesus didn't have any power except what God gave him. The verse that said he had all power but chose not to use it must be somewhere in the back of the Bible, maybe? HA HA HA.

Revelation 22:9-16 (HCSB)

9 But he said to me, "Don't do that! I am a fellow slave with you, your
brothers the prophets, and those who keep the words of this book. Worship
God." 10 He also said to me, "Don't seal the prophetic words of this book,
because the time is near. 11 Let the unrighteous go on in unrighteousness;
let the filthy go on being made filthy; let the righteous go on in
righteousness; and let the holy go on being made holy." 12 "Look! I am
coming quickly, and My reward is with Me to repay each person according to
what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,
the Beginning and the End. 14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, so
that they may have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by
the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the
murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying. 16 "I,
Jesus, have sent My angel to attest these things to you for the churches. I
am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright Morning Star."

Your inclination will be to interpret the above passage to accommodate your
doctrine, NT.
Try interpreting it without any doctrinal considerations. Try interpreting Revelation 1:1 without YOUR doctrinal bias! HA HA! Without ALREADY believing God is a TRINITY and that it's even POSSIBLE for God to give God a revelation you would have NO CHOICE but say Jesus is NOT GOD!. Go ahead CO! Interpret Rev 1:1 WITHOUT the Trinity doctrine, you hypocrite. Anyway, what's the problem? An angel is speaking in verses 6 and maybe 7, though it could be God or Jesus in verse 7. Then John speaks in verse 8. The angel begins speaking again in verses 9-11. God is speaking in verses 12-15 and then Jesus begins speaking in verse 16. The spirit and bride speak in verse 17.

There are a number of speakers in these verses and both John and Jesus introduce themselves when they begin to speak. So it shouldn't be that confusing for you. But then again..

Captain Ochre

October 22nd 2004, 02:32 AM

And CO has a problem comprehending any argument higher than a rudementary level. It's obvoius from the text that it is not a title of "God the Father", it is a title of God with the adjectival clause of 'the Father' pointing to Jesus. IE, if I use punctuation to highlight it:

I'm pretty sure that NT has achieved a near-perfection of unintentional irony with his post above.
His strawman version of the argument was exposed and corrected with explanation, and now he's right back using it again.

We give thanks to God (one person, only one person, not "God the Father, the FIRST PERSON OF THE TRINITY", just God),,,,,the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

God (the Father) is only one person. You don't need to accept the Trinity based on this verse, and I haven't asked you to do so. Simply realize that the "God" referred to in the verse is the same person as "the Father" referred to elsewhere in Scripture.
Hence, it is absolutely justified to refer to this God as "God the Father" precisely because it is not a semantic game but a recognition of the clear teaching of scripture (that the "God" referred to in scripture is--at the very least some of the time--identifiable as "the Father".
Cease with the diversionary tactics if you can.
They're making you look worse.

This highlights that God is a separate person from Jesus. Now he is identified as the Father of Jesus but he is not called "God the Father", he is called "God", who happens to be "the Father" of Jesus.

Thank you for finally conceding my point (as we bear in mind that Trinitarianism distinguishes between "the Father" and "the Son" in terms of personhood).

Assume for an instance that God is not a Trinity and there is no "God the Son", "God the Father", (titles used to identifyt he three persons of God). The sentence would be written the same exact way! Thus, the fact that "the Father" appears in the sentence does NOT give evidence to the idea that God is a three person God in which Paul is contrasting "God the Father" with "God the Son." It offers ZERO evidence that Paul is saying anything other than ALL OF GOD is separate from Jesus.

I had proceeded to explicity explain my point yet you continue to flagellate this straw man? :huh:
Amazing.

See above. It doesn't even come close to saying there are two persons of God in this verse. The phrase "the Father" does not lend any support to their being 1 person of God called "God the Father" and another person called "god the Son". It's all of God who happens to be Father of Jesus.

Huh? The verse doesn't say that it is "all of God who happens to be the Father of Jesus".
:lol:
You missed the point regardless, which is my questioning of your objection to my referring to God as "God the Father".

Sorry, stupid arguments are game. You simply said the same incorrect thing in different words. The phrase offers no justification for assuming that the "God" in this verse is anyone other than ALL of God.

I'm not using it for that. Cut it out with the straw men.

Paul is not talking about "God the Father", he is talking about "God" and says he's the Father of Jesus.

That is a distinction without a difference, afaics, unless you are automatically assuming Trinitarian overtones to the phrase "God the Father" (which would mean that you're playing a semantic game, in effect).
Just for review, you admit that where I read "(the) God" in the NT I can interpret it as referring to "The Father", and since that Father is God, there should be no legitimate complaint about my substituting "God the Father" for "God", since there is no attempt by me to insinuate Trinitarian overtones to the term for the purpose of advancing the case for Trinitarianism (except maybe in somebody's crazed mind).

I said the same thing. Thanks for repeating me. But you imply that Paul is saying "The "God the Father"" and he doesn't. The "The" correctly goes between God and Father.

You're inferring that I am implying that Paul is saying "The "God the Father""--and the inference on your part is erroneous. As God is identified as "the father" such that we can conclude that the same person is "The Father", it is reasonable to place the verse within the Trinitarian context harmoniously.
That's not using the verse to support the Trinitarian doctrine per se, but merely showing that the verse harmonizes with the Trinitarian explanatory framework.

Diversion tactic not relevant to this discussion.

It's clearly relevant to the combined issues of biblical translation and the relationship of Jesus to Jehovah God (do you mind if I use the "Jehovah God" title for God?).
Your discomfort is noted.
:smile:

Yes, but you are attaching to the title "God" the title "God the Father". I already demonstrated that "the Father" is not part of the title. You are, in essence saying this:

'"God the Father", the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.'

You have read into "God" the title "God the Father" and attempted to justify it by pointing out that the adjectival clause said "the Father". I clearly pointed out that if there was no Trinity the sentence would have been written the same way. Actually, I think you were originally trying to use it all as a title but changed your mind after I showed you it was wrong. Better luck next time with you.:lol:

Do you smooch with your straw man?
It's obvious that you love him.

Captain Ochre

October 22nd 2004, 12:30 PM

Colossians was written LONG before John was. They couldn't turn to John and say,'See, John calls Jesus God!'

Do you accept the principle of progressive revelation?
Or not?

If you do accept it, then I don't see the point of your objection.
If you don't accept it, then I don't see how you could be a Jehovah's Witness.

And there isn't. What's your point? I don't claim that Jesus is God.

Huh?
You don't claim that Jesus is (the) God?
Or you don't claim Jesus is God?
If you mean the latter, then you flatly contradict scripture.

I acknowledge that God calls Jesus "God" but he called a lot of other people "God" too. This doesn't mean any of them are Almighty God.

It does, actually, but the point here is not that you accept Jesus as "Almighty God" but simply as God--unless you want to somehow argue that there is somebody other than Jesus who is called "God" by Almighty God ... one in whom "all the fullness of the deity dwells ("it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily"--NWT)" (Col 2:9).

The only nonsense is your argument. Firstborn is seldom used to denote only heir ship rather than first offspring brought into existence.

That's okay. It's not relevant how many times "firstborn" is used irrespective of the order of birth. What's relevant is how many times it is used with the idea of heirship being primary.
Nice try at obfuscation, though!

In the Jewish culture, the idea of "firstborn" son was inseparable from the idea of heirship, and as I have emphasized, the context of Colossians emphasizes that idea of heirship.
It's a great supporting text for Trinitarians and a poor one for JW's as a result.

And furthermore, I challenge you to find ONE instance in the Bible where someone is called "firstborn" of a group and is not part of that group. Your lone exception will be this verse in question. How convenient!

I've already demonstrated how moronic your challenge is. I guess it hasn't sunk in yet (big surprise, there)
I'll repeat the exercise for you again: I challenge you to find ONE instance in the Bible were someone is called "firstborn" of a group where he was not preceded in existence by a member of that same group.
Using logic exactly parallel to yours, we end up concluding that Jesus must have been created by a created being (or at least some part of creation) instead of directly by Almighty God.

You don't think that Almighty God was created--do you?

Yak Yak Yak, and no proof.

On the contrary, my paragraph above is arranged in a fairly tight logical progression.
In effect, you provide no proof that there is no proof ... perhaps if you could be specific about what you think isn't proven (and attempt to address the logic of the argument)?

Prov 8 calls says Jesus was brought in existence before the earth and describes how he was used in the creation process as a master worker. Also, I just LOVE your argument on how Paul could have used protoktistos if he wanted to nick Trinitarianism in the butt. It's almost kinda cute. Accept for the fact that the word didn't exist in Paul's day.

How do you propose to support your claim without a fallacious appeal to ignorance, pray tell?

And of course this ASSUMES Paul had reason to nip the Trinity in the bud!

Don't be stupid. I'm not ascribing motivations to Paul on that issue, but merely describing the effect it would have had on Trinitarianism.
:bonk:

The Trinity didn't even exist! No one knew what the Trinity was. There was no written concept of it until centuries later! So exactly HOW could Paul have refuted the Trinity when he didn't even know there was such an idiotic teaching as this that even needed to be refuted?!

Very easily, if you will think about it.

I see CO still has reading comprehension problems. I don't think those are going to change anytime soon. I clearly said that the CONTEXT of the verse dictates the "other" in it.

I remember it this way, for some reason:
Then he tells them Jesus created all things. It was very clear to someone who doesn't already beleive in the Trinity that Paul meant all "other" created things. Col 1:15 is exactly in harmony with JW beliefs IF we insert the "other" in the text like we do scores of other times.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=709329&postcount=45

You asserted that it is "very clear" that Paul meant all "other" created things, but you offered no reasoning at all from the text unless we count your equally unsupported insistence on understanding "firstborn" as "first-created".
As I've already noted, the context of the verse actually supports "firstborn" as transmitting the idea of heirship.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heirship)

Unless you can offer ONE example (that's all I am asking for CO, just one tiny example) where ANYONE or ANYTHING is said to be firstborn of something and is not part of that group. Until you refute the meaning of firstborn, then Jesus is part of creation and the context dictates "other" be used.

If/then fallacy (if I do not do X, then Y).
I have no need to "refute" the meaning of firstborn, unless that simply means that I provide a good reason for understanding "firstborn" in the sense of heirship--which I have already done (and you haven't mustered any reasonable response to it yet).

JS arguments are weak but I'm not surprised that you like them. Your's are of the same quality and neither one of you comprehend English well as you continuously misquote me, misunderstand me, etc.

John crushed you with that citation, and all you've got is fallacies like your lame if/then challenge and argumentum ad hominem.

Yahweh did all the work personally, assuming you know what that means.

No, tell me what it means. My Bible says that nothing was created without the Word (Christ) ("by him and for him"--Col. 1:15). Was Jesus standing by, watching, while Yahweh did all of the work personally?

It was all God's Power, not Christ's. Christ didn't "create" anything.

("by (through) him and for him"--Col. 1:15)
If Microsoft creates a program through Jeff Smith, who personally created the program?

The things were created through him but it was all God.

("by him and for him"--Col. 1:15)

Jesus isn't God so there is no contradiction in saying there was no God with God.

Jesus isn't (the) God, or Jesus isn't God?
"... and the Word was God." (John 1:1 NIV).
Who is "the Word", iyo?

Jesus is God's representative and as such, is occasionally called "god" like other representatives of God are.

I don't understand how you expect to be taken seriously when you say such things while blatantly ignoring the flatly stated active role of Christ in creation, and the explicit NT emphasis on Jesus divine nature.

A logical fallacy for someone who calls Jesus "Full God and Full Man".

1) Your premise is contested, and you apparently have no defense.
2) Strictly speaking, your caveat doesn't have anything to do with the Trinity. Instead, it is an attack on the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ. I could claim that Jesus wasn't fully man without harming the essence of Trinitarianism per se.
3) Finally, I don't mind dealing with the issue, but it is worth pointing out that this particular attack is not an attack on the internal consistency of Trinitarianism.

Except all the verses that say GOD created everything through Jesus. See Hebrews 1:1,2. Who is the one called accredited with creation there? Not Jesus! It says "God", one person, separate from Jesus, created everything through another person, Jesus. But note that it was God who is said to do the creating.

I repeat: There is no warrant for the assumption that the power was not Jesus' own, unless it is the prior acceptance of the Watchtower doctrine on this issue.
You claim that God does the work personally. If I create my term paper through Maria, who is doing the work personally?

Blind? I'm not blind. I'll be the FIRST one to admit I come to the Bible believing Jesus is NOT God. Why not?

As a default position coming to the Bible initially, that's okay.
It's not okay after you read the intro to the Gospel of John, however.

All of the people in Jesus' day came to him the same way. After reading through the historical accounts in the gospels, I cannot get to the point of believing Jesus is God because of all the stuff he says about himself and God.

The people of that time took Jesus' words as making himself equal with God.

I can see he had a prehuman existence and that God let him use His power to heal. I can see that God GAVE him almost all authority but none of that says he is God.

You've never read John 1:1, then.

It all continues to say he is not god. So how can I come to the idea of Jesus being God with all of these verses and no preconceived Trinity doctrine?

You could start by being honest about the fact that John contradicts your claim about Jesus not being God.

I can't. The Trinity was developed by people who only want to look at the evidence that makes them think Jesus is God. At least Non-Trinitarians provide explanations and discussions to all of your verses. You all are totally clueless to the many verses that show Jesus is not God, other than John 14:28.

You have a very difficult time conducting an argument minus the ad hominem, don't you?
Case by case, the Trinitarian arguments are stronger (just as we are seeing in this thread).
In two of the key verses (John 1:1 and Col. 1:15), we have seen that the Trinitarian position is the one that respects the biblical context.

Oh, well if someone from bible crosswalk says so it must be true.

While the link was faulty, as it happens, it simply led to the Bible verse that I had quoted.
Begging to differ with NT, where Crosswalk says what the Bible says, I regard Crosswalk as an authority.

I'm sorry, what verse was that that said "Throughout the incarnation, Jesus possessed his full godly power, but he did
not avail himself of that power during the incarnation."

It's not in one verse, but communicated by the overall context of the incarnation, along with Paul's exposition regarding the person of Christ.
Another if/then fallacy for NT (if there is no particular verse that teaches X, then X in not taught in that collection of verses).

I must have missed that one because all I see are verses where Jesus didn't have any power except what God gave him. The verse that said he had all power but chose not to use it must be somewhere in the back of the Bible, maybe? HA HA HA.

What power do you think Paul is referring to in 1 Corinthians 5:4?
You alleged that since Jesus healed by the power of the Holy Spirit, therefore he had no more power than that prior to the incarnation. How do you square that claim with the fact that scripture teaches that Jesus was in very nature [G]od prior to humbling himself to take on the form (and existence) of a man?

Try interpreting Revelation 1:1 without YOUR doctrinal bias! HA HA!

I asked you first! HA HA HA!
Now you're dodging! HA HA HA HA!

Without ALREADY believing God is a TRINITY and that it's even POSSIBLE for God to give God a revelation you would have NO CHOICE but say Jesus is NOT GOD!.

:rofl:
If I made the interpretation you suggest, then I'd end up contradicting scripture via my interpretation (see John 1:1). What scripture is contradicted by the unbiased interpretation that I asked of you (that you're currently dodging)?

Go ahead CO! Interpret Rev 1:1 WITHOUT the Trinity doctrine, you hypocrite.

Jesus Christ and God are spoken of as though they are two different persons.

So what's the problem?
:huh:

:smile:

Anyway, what's the problem? An angel is speaking in verses 6 and maybe 7, though it could be God or Jesus in verse 7. Then John speaks in verse 8. The angel begins speaking again in verses 9-11. God is speaking in verses 12-15 and then Jesus begins speaking in verse 16. The spirit and bride speak in verse 17.

There are a number of speakers in these verses and both John and Jesus introduce themselves when they begin to speak. So it shouldn't be that confusing for you. But then again..

You weren't asked to interpret anything prior to verse 9, afaics. God is never identified as a speaker during the couse of the entire chapter, and there is no reason to invoke a theory that God (as apart from Christ) is speaking except on the basis of doctrinal considerations.
Amuse us by explaining exactly why Jesus is "introducing" himself as speaker, as though Jesus had not been the one who uttered the words preceding the introduction.
HA HA HA HA HA!

:rofl:

Sparko

October 22nd 2004, 01:04 PM

Capt. Ochre:

I feel I pretty much creamed Non-Trin earlier, catching him with his own words, and what happens? He just blithely ignores it, calls me names and uses ad homs to deflect my points. He quotes me out of context, leaves bits out that suit him, and claims victory by speaking to an invisible audience who are laughing their heads off -- at him.

I am done with him, all he is good for is :poke:

Waiting for his oh-so-snappy comeback...

John

NonTrinitarian

October 22nd 2004, 01:31 PM

God (the Father) is only one person. You don't need to accept the Trinity based on this verse, and I haven't asked you to do so. Simply realize that the "God" referred to in the verse is the same person as "the Father" referred to elsewhere in Scripture.
Hence, it is absolutely justified to refer to this God as "God the Father" precisely because it is not a semantic game but a recognition of the clear teaching of scripture (that the "God" referred to in scripture is--at the very least some of the time--identifiable as "the Father".
Cease with the diversionary tactics if you can.
They're making you look worse. CO continues to read the Bible with his preconceived Trinity. Paul didn’t say’ “God the Father”, the Father of Jesus’, he just said “God, the Father of Jesus.’ There is nothing in this verse that justifies replacing God with the phrase ‘God the Father’. When Paul said God and then Jesus, without a Triune a priori we should understand that the one God is distinguished from Jesus. Only by already ASSUMING the trinity could ANYONE read this verse and not conclude Jesus is not the one God he was just distinguished from.. No matter how many times CO repeats himself.

Huh? The verse doesn't say that it is "all of God who happens to be the Father of Jesus".
file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CBreanna%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_image001.gif
You missed the point regardless, which is my questioning of your objection to my referring to God as "God the Father". You’re right. It’s the verses that say there is one God and the verses that say God is one. Between those sets of scriptures we have no option but assume God means all of God. How could we think any differently unless we already believe in the Trinity?
.
That is a distinction without a difference, afaics, unless you are automatically assuming Trinitarian overtones to the phrase "God the Father" (which would mean that you're playing a semantic game, in effect).
Just for review, you admit that where I read "(the) God" in the NT I can interpret it as referring to "The Father", and since that Father is God, there should be no legitimate complaint about my substituting "God the Father" for "God", since there is no attempt by me to insinuate Trinitarian overtones to the term for the purpose of advancing the case for Trinitarianism (except maybe in somebody's crazed mind). You’re on drugs. I pointed to this verse to demonstrate that Jesus is not God because it differentiates him from God. The ONLY way you can come around that is to resort to the doctrine of the Trinity. So there is an obvious attempt by you to “to insinuate Trinitarian overtones to the term for the purpose of advancing the case for Trinitarianism”

That's not using the verse to support the Trinitarian doctrine per se, but merely showing that the verse harmonizes with the Trinitarian explanatory framework. You referred to the phrase “the Father” to support for a person in the godhed called “God the Father”, thus attempting to refute the obvious point that Jesus is spoken of as someone other than the one God of Christians.

NonTrinitarian

October 22nd 2004, 01:33 PM

Capt. Ochre:

I feel I pretty much creamed Non-Trin earlier, catching him with his own words, and what happens? He just blithely ignores it, calls me names and uses ad homs to deflect my points. He quotes me out of context, leaves bits out that suit him, and claims victory by speaking to an invisible audience who are laughing their heads off -- at him.

I am done with him, all he is good for is :poke:

Waiting for his oh-so-snappy comeback...

John
Yeah, you're a legend in your own mind, JS.

The nice thing about TWeb is once I quote you you can't go back and delete it. So everyone here can go back and see who stuck his foot in his mouth over and over. And like a trooper you just kept coming back for more.

Adios!

Sparko

October 22nd 2004, 01:54 PM

Yeah, you're a legend in your own mind, JS.

The nice thing about TWeb is once I quote you you can't go back and delete it. So everyone here can go back and see who stuck his foot in his mouth over and over. And like a trooper you just kept coming back for more.

Adios! Yep that is true, people can see exactly how badly you argue, all your strawmen :strawman: and your ad hominems. I stand by my words. you just dodge them.

:poke:

And speaking of foot-in-mouth desease:

Col 1:15 is exactly in harmony with JW beliefs IF we insert the "other" in the text like we do scores of other times.
:lmbo:

Captain Ochre

October 22nd 2004, 02:01 PM

CO continues to read the Bible with his preconceived Trinity.

On the contrary, NT continues to read CO's posts with NT's preconceived notion that CO preconceives the Trinity.

Paul didn’t say’ “God the Father”, the Father of Jesus’, he just said “God, the Father of Jesus.’ There is nothing in this verse that justifies replacing God with the phrase ‘God the Father’.

Excellent job of ignoring my explanation!
:thumb:

When Paul said God and then Jesus, without a Triune a priori we should understand that the one God is distinguished from Jesus. Only by already ASSUMING the trinity could ANYONE read this verse and not conclude Jesus is not the one God he was just distinguished from.. No matter how many times CO repeats himself.

That last sentence just represents another straw man lurking in the reeds. The point is simply that the "God" referred to in the verse is the same "God" that is referred to when Jesus says "The Father".
That point is inarguable, so I guess it is up to NT's straw men to divert attention from it.

You’re right. It’s the verses that say there is one God and the verses that say God is one. Between those sets of scriptures we have no option but assume God means all of God.

Non sequitur and/or argument by assertion.
A couple of NT's favorite fallacies ...

How could we think any differently unless we already believe in the Trinity?

By discerning the principle of progressive revelation (you believe in that principle, don't you?) and by interpreting the verses according to context.
.
You’re on drugs.

You have a strong tendency to argue fallaciously, such as by the use of argumentum ad hominem.

I pointed to this verse to demonstrate that Jesus is not God because it differentiates him from God. The ONLY way you can come around that is to resort to the doctrine of the Trinity.

That's the very doctrine at issue. Do you mean to admit that your approach begs the question (another logical fallacy)?
in order for that verse to support the Trinity, we would have to suppose that there could be such a thing as a Trinity ...

So there is an obvious attempt by you to “to insinuate Trinitarian overtones to the term for the purpose of advancing the case for Trinitarianism”

Non sequitur.
Rather than advancing the Trinity based on the verse, I am simply showing that the verse is amenable to either view, which makes its use as a prooftext for either position extremely dubious.
Chalk up yet another fallacy for NT.

You referred to the phrase “the Father” to support for a person in the godhed called “God the Father”, thus attempting to refute the obvious point that Jesus is spoken of as someone other than the one God of Christians.

You are mistaken. I referred to the phrase "the Father" to show that the person in that sentence who is called "God" is the same person that Jesus elsewhere refers to as "The Father".
[edit to add]
Though I'll grant readily enough that my argument does refute the allegedly obvious point that Jesus is spoken of as someone other than the one God of Christians if we are to suppose something other than "God" referring to the person of the Father.[/edit to add]

I'm beginning to think that you are an authentic idiot--either that or a willing propagandist (rather than a sincere dupe).

It seems to me that you would much prefer writing my arguments for me, since you do not deal with the arguments that I actually use.

NonTrinitarian

October 22nd 2004, 02:19 PM

Do you accept the principle of progressive revelation?
Or not?

If you do accept it, then I don't see the point of your objection.
If you don't accept it, then I don't see how you could be a Jehovah's Witness.

I accept it. But it’s based on the deeper understanding of the Bible. Not God zapping it into our brains. Since the Trinity isn’t explained in the Bible or even hinted at, it’s not an example of progressive revelation.

You don't claim that Jesus is (the) God?
Or you don't claim Jesus is God?
If you mean the latter, then you flatly contradict scripture.

God as in the only true God who is said to be one. Jesus is God in a representational manner though obviously THE greatest representative of God. That’s what the Bible says. Jesus is a representative of God. That’s how Jesus described himself. He said he is His representative of him.

I

Nt said,

I acknowledge that God calls Jesus "God" but he called a lot of other people "God" too. This doesn't mean any of them are Almighty God

Co replied,

It does, actually, but the point here is not that you accept Jesus as "Almighty God" but simply as God--unless you want to somehow argue that there is somebody other than Jesus who is called "God" by Almighty God ... one in whom "all the fullness of the deity dwells ("it is in him that all the fullness of the divine quality dwells bodily"--NWT)" (Col 2:9).

I accept him being given the title God by God. Same as humans. As far as all the fullness being in Jesus, here you go:

Eph 3:19
"that ye might be filled up with all the fullness of God."-King James
"And so be filled to the full with God Himself"-Twentieth Century New
Testament
"that you may be filled up with all the fullness of God"-NASB
"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."- NIV
"And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself"- The Living BIble

Hmm, this seems to put a little damper on your argument that Jesus is God because 'all the fullness of God' is in him. Want to try to work up another excuse on that one?

NT said,

And furthermore, I challenge you to find ONE instance in the Bible where someone is called "firstborn" of a group and is not part of that group. Your lone exception will be this verse in question. How convenient!

CO replied,
I've already demonstrated how moronic your challenge is. I guess it hasn't sunk in yet (big surprise, there)
I'll repeat the exercise for you again: I challenge you to find ONE instance in the Bible were someone is called "firstborn" of a group where he was not preceded in existence by a member of that same group.
Using logic exactly parallel to yours, we end up concluding that Jesus must have been created by a created being (or at least some part of creation) instead of directly by Almighty God.

You don't think that Almighty God was created--do you?

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You challenge me to find an instance where someone is called the firstborn of a group who is not preceeded by someone in that group? Only about a oodle number of examples. Here’s one

20 Now it came about after these things that the report got through to Abraham: “Here Mil´cah herself has also borne sons to Na´hor your brother: 21 Uz his firstborn and Buz his brother and Kem·u´el the father of A´ram, 22 and Che´sed and Ha´zo and Pil´dash and Jid´laph and Be·thu´el”

The group is the sons of Nahor. This group includes UZ, Buzz, Kemuel, Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph and Bethuel. The firstborn in Uz and I’m sure none of the other 7 members of that group preceeded him.

NT said,

Also, I just LOVE your argument on how Paul could have used protoktistos if he wanted to nick Trinitarianism in the butt. It's almost kinda cute. Accept for the fact that the word didn't exist in Paul's day.

CO replies,
How do you propose to support your claim without a fallacious appeal to ignorance, pray tell?

Your ignorance isn’t my problem. I can’t help it if you’re ignorant regarding the word nor that your too stupid to keep purporting the argument now.

NT said,

And of course this ASSUMES Paul had reason to nip the Trinity in the bud!

The politician who plays word games said this

Don't be stupid. I'm not ascribing motivations to Paul on that issue, but merely describing the effect it would have had on Trinitarianism.

You said Paul could have nipped the Trinity in the bud if he had used that word. You two-faced antics when you get caught are kinda funny

I remember it this way, for some reason:

Then he tells them Jesus created all things. It was very clear to someone who doesn't already beleive in the Trinity that Paul meant all "other" created things. Col1:15 is exactly in harmony with JW beliefs IF we insert the "other" in the text like we do scores of other times.

You asserted that it is "very clear" that Paul meant all "other" created things, but you offered no reasoning at all from the text unless we count your equally unsupported insistence on understanding "firstborn" as "first-created".
As I've already noted, the context of the verse actually supports "firstborn" as transmitting the idea of heirship.

Well you got the argument right. Firstborn means the person is part of the group of which he is firstborn. At least that’s what it means the scores of times in the Bible. How foolish of me to want to apply the same meaning in this verse that I do in the other 150+ times in the Bible. Thus, the insertion of ‘other’ is obvious.

No, tell me what it means. My Bible says that nothing was created without the Word (Christ) ("by him and for him"--Col. 1:15). Was Jesus standing by, watching, while Yahweh did all of the work personally?

By personally I mean he was the source of the power. He did it through Jesus. Just as Jesus is said to heal people and just as the verses clearly say it was God who did the healing through Jesus and just as it Attributes the power to heal to someone besides Jesus, in the same way, Heb 1:2 says God created all things through Jesus. (again note two identities, God and Jesus). Now you may proceed to replace God with “God the Father, the first person of the Trinity” at your conveinence. This also addresses the other points on creation you followed up with to refute this arguments.

I repeat: There is no warrant for the assumption that the power was not Jesus' own, unless it is the prior acceptance of the Watchtower doctrine on this issue.
You claim that God does the work personally. If I create my term paper through Maria, who is doing the work personally?

Sure there is reason to see it’s not Jesus’ power. He didn’t even have the power to heal people. The Bible repeatedly says someone else (God the Father or whoever you want it to be) did it through Jesus. Will you like this then?

God the Father created everything through God the Son. It still says Jesus wasn’t the source of creation.

If they are your thoughts then you wrote the paper, even though Maria typed it out. The Power (your thoughts) are your’s, not Maria’s. She’s not capable of coming up with those thoughts, you are. She just does what you tell her.

The people of that time took Jesus' words as making himself equal with God.

Of which he immediately denied both times.

What power do you think Paul is referring to in 1 Corinthians 5:4?

This power:

38 namely, Jesus who was from Naz´a·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil; because God was with him

You alleged that since Jesus healed by the power of the Holy Spirit, therefore he had no more power than that prior to the incarnation. How do you square that claim with the fact that scripture teaches that Jesus was in very nature [G]od prior to humbling himself to take on the form (and existence) of a man?

He gave up divine nature to come to the earth as a man. Ie, turned from a spirit to a man. Christians are also said to one day put on “divine nature”. This doesn’t mean we will be God.

If I made the interpretation you suggest, then I'd end up contradicting scripture via my interpretation (see John 1:1). What scripture is contradicted by the unbiased interpretation that I asked of you (that you're currently dodging)?

The other verses where the Title “Alpha and Omega” are specifically said to not be Jesus.

Jesus Christ and God are spoken of as though they are two different persons.

So what's the problem?

There is one God and God is one.

[quote]You weren't asked to interpret anything prior to verse 9, afaics. God is never identified as a speaker during the couse of the entire chapter, and there is no reason to invoke a theory that God (as apart from Christ) is speaking except on the basis of doctrinal considerations.
Amuse us by explaining exactly why Jesus is "introducing" himself as speaker, as though Jesus had not been the one who uttered the words preceding the introduction.
HA HA HA HA HA!
[quote]

I included prior to verse 9 to highlight the changing speakers. The speaker calls himself the Alpha and Omega. When we go and look elsewhere in Revelation for who the A&O is, we see it is not Jesus. But you don’t like to examine any verses other than the ones you think support you doctrine.

And you can mock me all you want about Jesus introducing himself as the speaker as though he had not been the speaker previously. I don’t see you laughing at verse 8 when John does the same thing. Can your arguments get any more pathetic? I’m sure they can and will.

Captain Ochre

October 22nd 2004, 02:21 PM

Capt. Ochre:

I feel I pretty much creamed Non-Trin earlier, catching him with his own words, and what happens? He just blithely ignores it, calls me names and uses ad homs to deflect my points.

I haven't read the entire thread, but what I have read bears out what you say. Nontrinitarian keeps a full range of logical fallacies at his disposal, which makes productive communication difficult.

He quotes me out of context, leaves bits out that suit him, and claims victory by speaking to an invisible audience who are laughing their heads off -- at him.

Yes, that technique of assuming that any objective person would agree with him is yet another fallacy--one that I hadn't bothered to identify expressly on his part.

I am done with him, all he is good for is :poke:

There is a certain usefulness in getting his fallacies committed to writing for storage in the archives.
A reader with a good handle on logic would have a great deal of trouble accepting NT's claims as he expresses them in this thread, IMHO.

Probably the most outstanding example is his treatment of John 1:1 as though the Word is being called the king of Israel (or the like). Talk about ignoring context!

:cheers:

P.S. I wonder if he'll ever come around to admitting that he accepts the principle of progressive revelation?

Captain Ochre

October 25th 2004, 02:29 AM

I accept it.

Excellent (NT accepts the principle of progressive revelation).

But it’s based on the deeper understanding of the Bible. Not God zapping it into our brains.

The "deeper understanding of the Bible" is generally based on new additions to the canon (though JW’s might base it on new publications by the “faithful and discreet slave”). Much of the OT is understood differently based on NT revelation unavailable to the original audience.
For example, "Wisdom" personified in Proverbs is widely understood by JW's as referring to Jesus--yet I could come at you with a silly argument like: Imagine you were living back then prior to Jesus having been born! Without your preconceived notion of Jesus, you would never think that "Wisdom" was "Jesus" (ad homs left off for the sake of brevity).

Since the Trinity isn’t explained in the Bible or even hinted at, it’s not an example of progressive revelation.

The Trinity isn't "explained" in Trinitarian doctrine, FTM, so it should come as no surprise that it isn't explained in the Bible, either. OTOH, Trinitarian doctrines are hinted at profusely in the Bible.

God as in the only true God who is said to be one.

Just as the Father and the Son are one?
:huh:

Think about this for a moment, because what I just wrote is exactly the type of technique that you pull repeatedly. Jesus is god? Well, so are kings. Jesus is worshiped? Well, so are the lords among men.
You don't know how to even attempt objectivity on this issue, IMO.

Jesus is God in a representational manner though obviously THE greatest representative of God.

A greater representative for God than God himself?
:hrm:

That’s what the Bible says. Jesus is a representative of God. That’s how Jesus described himself. He said he is His representative of him.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that a person can represent himself.

I accept him being given the title God by God. Same as humans. As far as all the fullness being in Jesus, here you go:[/color]

Eph 3:19
"that ye might be filled up with all the fullness of God."-King James
"And so be filled to the full with God Himself"-Twentieth Century New
Testament
"that you may be filled up with all the fullness of God"-NASB
"that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God."- NIV
"And so at last you will be filled up with God Himself"- The Living BIble

Hmm, this seems to put a little damper on your argument that Jesus is God because 'all the fullness of God' is in him. Want to try to work up another excuse on that one?

That's supposed to be a damper? Are you willing to consider the respective contexts?

Colossians 2:9 is in the context of building up Christ to a church which was flirting with angel-worship (2:18), and we have already seen the description of Christ's supremacy (heir of all creation, having supremacy over everything--1:15-19). Further, verse 15 assures us that Christ is "the image of the invisible God".

Cross-referencing Philippians, we find (in the context of humility) that Jesus was "...in very nature God".

In contrast, your reference (Ephesians 3:19) is in the context of love within the body of Christ (the church). The "fullness of God" in that case refers to the love of God, cited as a goal for the body (as with being one in the same sense as the Father and the Son).
Every time we go to the context, you'll get the short end of the stick.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You challenge me to find an instance where someone is called the firstborn of a group who is not preceeded by someone in that group? Only about a oodle number of examples. Here’s one

20[font=Arial] Now it came about after these things that the report got through to Abraham: “Here Mil´cah herself has also borne sons to Na´hor your brother: 21 Uz his firstborn and Buz his brother and Kem·u´el the father of A´ram, 22 and Che´sed and Ha´zo and Pil´dash and Jid´laph and Be·thu´el”

My argument here was rather flawed, but your response is no better. Nahor's sons are all of the group of men (my point), and the firstborn of Nahor is not the firstborn of men.
Further, your example did not follow the requested form, which should have been along the lines of "firstborn of the sons of Nahor". As it was, you decided on the group instead of finding the group identified as such in the text (as we see below).

The group is the sons of Nahor. This group includes UZ, Buzz, Kemuel, Chesed, Hazo, Pildash, Jidlaph and Bethuel. The firstborn in Uz and I’m sure none of the other 7 members of that group preceeded him.

Fair enough. Despite the flaws in your response, I'll concede that my approach in that argument is not effective.
Fortunately, it isn't needed, since the context of the verse is what clues us as to the meaning, not NT's doctrinal concerns, and not most of the time it means X, therefore this time it means X or any other correspondingly fallacious piece of reasoning.

Your ignorance isn’t my problem. I can’t help it if you’re ignorant regarding the word nor that your too stupid to keep purporting the argument now.

You have difficulty responding without the appeal to fallacies such as argumentum ad hominem, it seems.
I'll give you another chance:
How do you propose to support your claim without a fallacious appeal to ignorance, pray tell?

You said Paul could have nipped the Trinity in the bud if he had used that word. You two-faced antics when you get caught are kinda funny

Your refusal to admit that you have made a stupid error is the funny thing.

If Hitler's mom had suffocated Hitler in the crib, then she would have nipped Hitler's Third Reich in the bud regardless of whether she knew what the strangely mustached infant would attempt when he came of age.
:bonk:

As with Paul, her motivations do not enter into the picture drawn via the expression "nipped in the bud".

Well you got the argument right. Firstborn means the person is part of the group of which he is firstborn. At least that’s what it means the scores of times in the Bible. How foolish of me to want to apply the same meaning in this verse that I do in the other 150+ times in the Bible.

You're correct: It is foolish, though you don't truly realize it (assuming facetiousness). Meaning is always properly determined by context, not by patterns of usage divorced from the immediate context. To do the latter is to reason fallaciously.

Thus, the insertion of ‘other’ is obvious.

The insertion of "other" is not only grammatically unwarranted but also a conclusion founded on fallacious reasoning.

By personally I mean he was the source of the power.

So, when I play a CD on my home stereo, Tampa Electric is personally playing the CD (if I'm forgiven the personification of the corporation)?
Interesting. And since the Sun is the ultimate source of almost all of our power, the Sun does pretty much everything on Earth "personally" (forgiving the personification of the Sun).
Good so far?

He did it through Jesus.

As Tampa Electric plays the CD through my stereo system. Or the Sun runs down the street through me.

Just as Jesus is said to heal people and just as the verses clearly say it was God who did the healing through Jesus and just as it Attributes the power to heal to someone besides Jesus, in the same way, Heb 1:2 says God created all things through Jesus.

I'll have to take that as your mere assertion, since it's a logical non sequitur to take it otherwise. Christ humbled himself for purposes of the incarnation, and it was a true act of humility as when somebody regards equals as better than himself.

(again note two identities, God and Jesus). Now you may proceed to replace God with “God the Father, the first person of the Trinity” at your conveinence. This also addresses the other points on creation you followed up with to refute this arguments.

Rather, I'll just remind you that scripture itself repeatedly identifies God as "The Father", with a quick reminder that Jehovah is (a*) god is a true statement.

*just a semi-polite nod to the NWT

Sure there is reason to see it’s not Jesus’ power. He didn’t even have the power to heal people.

Your approach begs the question, namely can anybody or anything have power apart from God(?)—where you assume that a negative answer negates Trinitarian doctrine. The problem would apply to a divine (Trinitarian) Jesus as much as it would to “king of Israel” Jesus. It would apply to Yahweh himself, when it comes to that.

The Bible repeatedly says someone else (God the Father or whoever you want it to be) did it through Jesus. Will you like this then?

God the Father created everything through God the Son. It still says Jesus wasn’t the source of creation.
You seem to be forgetting that the Father and the Son are one God (according to Trinitarianism).
Being one God along with the Father, Jesus cannot help but be the source of creation.

If they are your thoughts then you wrote the paper, even though Maria typed it out.

I don't recall saying that she committed my thoughts to paper.
How specific would she have to be in writing down my thoughts in order to avoid any personal credit?
Perhaps you should just change whatever illustrations I use until they agree with your POV.
:smile:

The Power (your thoughts) are your’s, not Maria’s. She’s not capable of coming up with those thoughts, you are. She just does what you tell her.

How do you know that Maria is not capable of coming up with those thoughts? You seem to have a preconceived notion of Maria’s abilities, afaics.

The people of that time took Jesus' words as making himself equal with God.

Of which he immediately denied both times.

Nonsense—and you’re wise to avoid citing the verses.
Jesus criticized them for unbelief both times.
John 5:17-41
(a portion, NAS):
38 "You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent.39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41 "I do not receive glory from men; 42 but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43 "I have come in My Father's name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44 "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? 45 "Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47 "But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"

If Jesus was God, then it makes no sense to accuse him of blasphemy. He explained that the leaders among the Jews were wrong to think that he was blaspheming by positively identifying himself with God. A blasphemer cannot be telling the truth.

John 10:33-38 (NAS)
33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." 34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, `I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? 35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming,' because I said, `I am the Son of God'? 37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

IOW, the Jewish leaders were right to conclude that Jesus was claiming to be God, and they were criticized for not believing his words—yet Jesus told them in effect that even if they didn’t believe his words, then at least trust his works as proving who He was.

This is as good a time as any to deflate probably the most popular JW objection to the explicit Biblical claim that Jesus is god. In verses 34 & 35, Jesus refers the Jews to an OT citation wherein representatives of God were called “gods” (albeit in a scathing rebuke). Rather than putting himself at that level, Jesus is contrasting himself with the persons referred to in that OT passage (John 10:36,37).
This passage provide no logical warrant for taking the passage as limiting “god” as applied to Jesus to the level to which it was applied in that OT passage. That interpretation is possible, but not preferable when the context is considered, as Jesus immediately emphasizes that his actions make his identity plain (as I said just above, underscoring the fact that the Jews were right about the ramifications of Jesus’ claims but merely at fault for not believing the claims).

]This power:

38 namely, Jesus who was from Naz´a·reth, how God anointed him with holy spirit and power, and he went through the land doing good and healing all those oppressed by the Devil; because God was with him

You're ignoring the context again: During the incarnation, Jesus laid aside his power. You admit as much below, though your understanding of this aspect of the incarnation is incorrect.

He gave up divine nature to come to the earth as a man. Ie, turned from a spirit to a man.

All living creatures have a spirit. Or has “new light” been shed on that time-honored JW teaching? Was Jesus a man devoid of a spirit, then?

May it never be (to swipe a line from a well known apostle)!
There was no need for Jesus to cease to be a spirit. As with many other spirits mentioned in the Bible, Jesus was incarnated by indwelling a human body (a strong sense of “god-with-us”). Unlike an evil spirit, however, Jesus’ spirit was one with his physical body from the time that body was created in Mary’s womb—and apparently no other spirit was crowded or displaced.
And when Jesus breathed his last, that same spirit ascended to God (the Father).

Christians are also said to one day put on “divine nature”. This doesn’t mean we will be God.

Notice your pattern? A citation consisting of two words removed from their original context.
2 Peter 1:4, which I assume you refer to, talks about sharing in the divine nature by putting on incorruptibility. It has nothing at all to do with man having a god nature per se.
The context is going to get you every time.

The other verses where the Title “Alpha and Omega” are specifically said to not be Jesus.

:lol:
Baloney!

Revelation 1:17 (“first and the last”):
17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

I challenge you to back up with reason your claim that “[t]he other verses where the Title (sic) “Alpha and Omega” are (sic) specifically said to not be Jesus”.
Good luck, because you will most certainly need it.

There is one God and God is one.

God is “one” as “[Jesus] and the Father are one”?
You have no clue as to how to develop your argument logically, do you? You just pass along what the Watchtower has programmed into you.

You weren't asked to interpret anything prior to verse 9, afaics. God is never identified as a speaker during the couse of the entire chapter, and there is no reason to invoke a theory that God (as apart from Christ) is speaking except on the basis of doctrinal considerations.
Amuse us by explaining exactly why Jesus is "introducing" himself as speaker, as though Jesus had not been the one who uttered the words preceding the introduction.
HA HA HA HA HA!

I included prior to verse 9 to highlight the changing speakers. The speaker calls himself the Alpha and Omega. When we go and look elsewhere in Revelation for who the A&O is, we see it is not Jesus. But you don’t like to examine any verses other than the ones you think support you doctrine.

:lol:
On the contrary, I want your very best texts in support of your position--and then I'll show how you did a bad job of interpreting the verses, using reason.

You have no reasonable rationale from the text to insist that “[t]he speaker calls himself the Alpha and [the] Omega”.
1) From the start of the chapter (and even before), we’ve just got John and the angel who is showing John things.
2) If the angel is calling himself the “Alpha and the Omega” then he is also calling himself “Jesus”. The scriptural justifications are identical except for an invented convention of introducing the speaker at the beginning of that new speaker’s words. Some of us don’t accept that invention. :poke:
3) Rather, the “angel” is a messenger, as is customary. Where the angel’s words seem to come from the one who sent the message, we should take them as such. Where the angel seems to speak for himself (such as: “Don’t do that!”), we take the words as being his own and not those of the one who sent him.
4) We have no indication that the messenger was sent by anybody other than Jesus in this text. There is no warrant for inferring the involvement of God … unless you’re a Trinitarian … :wink:

And you can mock me all you want about Jesus introducing himself as the speaker as though he had not been the speaker previously.

There’s no decent justification for that interpretation. Rev. 22:16 reveals the identity of the one who sent the angel. Whatever the angel says that is not reasonably taken to be the angel speaking personally apart from the message he was sent to communicate must be taken as coming from the one who sent the messenger: Jesus, the alpha and the omega.

I don’t see you laughing at verse 8 when John does the same thing. Can your arguments get any more pathetic? I’m sure they can and will.

You don’t see me laughing because I’m not on camera (so far as I know).
John isn’t telling us who is speaking when he mentions himself by name. He is letting us know that he is the one who listened to the angel give the message from Christ Jesus (and witnessed the wonders shown by the angel). The whole chapter is John speaking, since he wrote it.

Watch this:
:rofl: