Col 1:15, creation and Trinitarian theology

[Tsmith]

Hello folks,

I thought I'd post this up here to see if anyone would care to discuss it with me.

Colossians 15 is a strong argument against the Trinity. Of course Trinitarians are quick to dismiss it, giving some weak arguments in an attempt to do so. However, an examination of this scripture and the grammar behind it actually provides stronger evidence against the Trinity than most non-Trinitarians realize, and it shows clearly how Trinitarian replies to it simply hold no ground.


Colossians 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.

The image of God
The A part of verse 15 clearly states that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God." To be an image of one, you are their representation or in their likeness. Strong’s defines the Greek work for image, EIKWN, as follows:

From G1503; a likeness, that is, (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: - image.

Thus, we use simple logic here. Who does it state that Jesus is in the image of? Well he is the image of God of course. Is he the one he is the image, or representation of? Not at all. He is representing God, so, therefore, he cannot be God.

Trinitarians will say that this reference to God is speaking only of the Father, but this is an example of the Trinitarian fallacy of equivocation: they do not say what they mean and they do not mean what they say. How so? Well QEOS, and more specifically hO QEOS are used throughout the Bible. For those unfamiliar with Greek, QEOS means God, while hO is the definite article (i.e. the). Trinitarians will not give a proper definition for God. They state that sometimes it just means the Father, sometimes it just means the Son and sometimes it just means the Holy Spirit. Other times, they will say it means all three in the Trinity. They base this determination on theology, not on context. In fact, they will change their definition of QEOS within single chapters of the Bible (Acts 10 is an example of such). How sound is such reasoning? Not very.

Therefore, the simply fact of the matter, is that Jesus is the image of God, ALL of God. If he was simply the image of the Father, the verse would say such, but it does not, it says God.

Firstborn
Our next key word here is firstborn. Trinitarians are quick to dismiss this argument as well, stating that it simply means preeminence. With what basis? They sight a few isolated examples of such (Jer 31:9; Psa 89:27) as their evidence.

Unfortunately for Trinitarians, their isolated examples are in the VAST minority. Overwhelmingly, firstborn (Greek: PRWTOTOKOS) is used simply as the one born first. Included with this is preeminence, as it is part of the birthright, but it also displays the order of birth.

Further evidence of this comes from considering every case of firstborn in the Bible. In doing this, we find that each case of firstborn that is then followed by a genitive (such as "of") consistently means the one born first. We will consider the OT examples of this by looking in the LXX at each case. Keep in mind that this is not every example of firstborn meaning the one born first, but every example showing possession.


Genesis 4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep and of his fatlings, and God looked upon Abel and his gifts,
Genesis 25:13 And these are the names of the sons of Ismael, according to the names of their generations. The firstborn of Ismael, Nabaioth, and Kedar, and Nabdeel, and Massam,
Genesis 35:23 The sons of Lea, the first-born of Jacob; Ruben, Symeon, Levi, Judas, Issachar, Zabulon.
Genesis 36:15 These are the chiefs of the son of Esau, even the sons of Eliphas, the first-born of Esau; chief Thaeman, chief Omar, chief Sophar, chief Kenez,
Genesis 38:7 And Er, the first-born of Judas, was wicked before the Lord; and God killed him.
Genesis 46:8 And these are the names of the sons of Israel that went into Egypt with their father Jacob- Jacob and his sons. The first-born of Jacob, Ruben.
Exodus 6:14 And these are the heads of the houses of their families: the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; Enoch and Phallus, Asron, and Charmi, this is the kindred of Ruben.
Exodus 11:5 And every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sits on the throne, even to the first-born of the woman-servant that is by the mill, and to the first-born of all cattle.
Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharao that sat on the throne, to the first-born of the captive-maid in the dungeon, and the first-born of all cattle.
Exodus 13:13 Every offspring opening the womb of the ass thou shalt change for a sheep; and if thou wilt not change it, thou shalt redeem it: every first-born of man of thy sons shalt thou redeem.
Exodus 13:15 And when Pharao hardened his heart so as not to send us away, he slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both the first-born of man and the first-born of beast; therefore do I sacrifice every offspring that opens the womb, the males to the Lord, and every first-born of my sons I will redeem.
Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not keep back the first-fruits of thy threshing floor and press. The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me.
Exodus 34:19 The males are mine, everything that opens the womb; every first-born of oxen, and every first-born of sheep.
Exodus 34:20 And the first-born of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep, and if thou wilt not redeem it thou shalt pay a price: every first-born of thy sons shalt thou redeem: thou shalt not appear before me empty.
Numbers 1:20 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel according to their kindreds, according to their divisions, according to the houses of their families, according to the number of their names, according to their heads, were- all males from twenty years old and upward, every one that went out with the host-
Numbers 3:40 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Count every first-born male of the children of Israel from a month old and upwards, and take the number by name.
Numbers 3:41 And thou shalt take the Levites for me- I am the Lord-- instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of all the first-born among the cattle of the children of Israel.
Numbers 3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle, and the Levites shall be mine; I am the Lord.
Numbers 3:46 And for the ransoms of the two hundred and seventy-three which exceed the Levites in number of the first-born of the sons of Israel;
Numbers 3:50 He took the silver from the first-born of the sons of Israel, a thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, according to the holy shekel.
Numbers 8:16 For these are given to me for a present out of the midst of the children of Israel: I have taken them to myself instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel that open every womb.
Numbers 8:17 For every first-born among the children of Israel is mine, whether of man or beast: in the day in which I smote every first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified them to myself.
Numbers 18:15 And every thing that opens the womb of all flesh, whatsoever they bring to the Lord, whether man or beast, shall be thine: only the first-born of men shall be surely redeemed, and thou shalt redeem the first-born of unclean cattle.
Numbers 18:17 But thou shalt not redeem the first-born of calves and the first-born of sheep and the first-born of goats; they are holy: and thou shalt pour their blood upon the altar, and thou shalt offer the fat as a burnt-offering for a smell of sweet savour to the Lord.
Numbers 26:5 Ruben was the first-born of Israel: and the sons of ruben, Enoch, and the family of Enoch; to Phallu belongs the family of the Phalluites.
Deuteronomy 12:6 And ye shall carry thither your whole-burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your first-fruits, and your vowed-offerings, and your freewill-offerings, and your offerings of thanksgiving, the first-born of your herds, and of your flocks.
Deuteronomy 12:17 Thou shalt not be able to eat in thy cities the tithe of thy corn, and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thine herd and of thy flock, and all your vows as many as ye shall have vowed, and your thank-offerings, and the first-fruits of thine hands.
Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat it in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to have his name called there; ye shall bring the tithe of thy corn and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thy herd and of thy flock, that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always.
Deuteronomy 15:19 Every first-born that shall be born among thy kine and thy sheep, thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord thy God; thou shalt not work with thy first-born calf, and thou shalt not shear the first-born of thy sheep.
Deuteronomy 33:17 His beauty is as the firstling of his bull, his horns are the horns of a unicorn; with them he shall thrust the nations at once, even from the end of the earth: these are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and these are the thousands of Manasse.
Joshua 17:1 And the borders of the tribe of the children of Manasse, (for he was the first-born of Joseph) assigned to Machir the firstborn of Manasse the father of Galaad, for he was a warrior, were in the land of Galaad and of Basan.
1 Chronicles 1:29 And these are their generations: the first-born of Ismael, Nabaeoth, and Kedar, Nabdeel, Massam,
1 Chronicles 2:3 The sons of Juda; Er, Aunan, Selom. These three were born to him of the daughter of Sava the Chananitish woman: and Er, the first-born of Juda, was wicked before the Lord, and he slew him.
1 Chronicles 2:25 And the sons of Jerameel the first-born of Esron were, the first-born Ram, and Banaa, and Aram, and Asan his brother.
1 Chronicles 2:27 And the sons of Ram the first-born of Jerameel were Maas, and Jamin, and Acor.
1 Chronicles 2:50 These were the sons of Chaleb: the sons of Or the first-born of Ephratha; Sobal the father of Cariathiarim,
1 Chronicles 4:4 And Phanuel the father of Gedor, and Jazer the father of Osan: these are the sons of Or, the first-born of Ephratha, the father of Baethalaen.
1 Chronicles 5:1 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel (for he was the first-born; but because of his going up to his father's couch, his father gave his blessing to his son Joseph, even the son Israel; and he was not reckoned as first-born;
1 Chronicles 5:3 The sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; Enoch, and Phallus, Asrom, and Charmi.
1 Chronicles 6:28 The sons of Samuel; the first-born Sani, and Abia.
Nehemiah 10:36 the first-born of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the first-born of our herds and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, for the priests that minister in the house of our God.
Psalm 135:8 Who smote the first-born of Egypt, both man and beast.

The evidence speaks for itself. Firstborn is clearly used in the VAST majority as the one born first, and when followed by a genitive, it is consistently such.

Part of Creation
The next point of our consideration is the use of the Greek words PASHS KTESIWS. These are translated to "of all creation." PASHS is the genitive form of PAS, where PAS means the whole, or all. This construction in grammar is saying that Jesus is the firstborn of the entire group of creation. So the question is, how can one be firstborn of a group and yet not be part of that group? Is there any example in scriptures, even when preeminence is used exclusively and one is firstborn of a group that they do not belong to? Well the simple answer is no.

The grammar here is what is defined as a part partitive genitive. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testiment defines this as being when a noun is "defined by indicating in the genitive the whole of which it is a part." In this case, we clearly have the entire group of creation in consideration, and he is said to be the firstborn of that group. Having taken into consideration the simple fact that firstborn is never used of a member not belonging to a group; we have no choice but to conclude from a grammatical standpoint that Jesus belongs to the group of creation, him thus being a created being.


When First Born?
Some might argue that he became firstborn at his resurrection. By his dying for all, he was given this position of preeminence. However, the scriptures clearly show that he was firstborn prior to this.


Hebrews 1:6 And again, when He brought the First-born into the world, He said, "And let all the angels of God worship Him."

Thus, even when Jesus came into the world, he was already God's firstborn. As he is called God's "only-begotten" (John 1:18), he truly is the firstborn.

Firstborn From the Dead
Some argue that Colossians 1:18 shows Jesus having preeminence in position only, because there were ones resurrected prior to him. However, is this really considered to be "the resurrection of the dead" that Jesus partook of? No it is not. Jesus became immortal, while these others died again. In the true resurrection of the dead, the bible tells us that ones become immortal.

1 Corinthians 15:42 So also the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.

Jesus was truly the first to partake of this. Because of this, yes he was preeminent, but he was truly the one born first from the dead.

Wisdom or Jesus?
Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" and yet Proverbs 8 speaks of Wisdom as such. Of course, many link Jesus to the Wisdom in Proverbs (1 Cor 1:24). Here Wisdom is speaking of being the one that is created and born first. Let us consider this:

Proverbs 8:22 Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way, from then, before His works.

Here Jehovah is said to have possessed wisdom in the beginning of his way. This Hebrew word is QANAH. It literally means it possess by acquisition. Of course, God acquires things by means of creating them, which is why the LXX translates this to EKTISEN, which translates directly as created. Further reading, we find that Wisdom is spoken of as being brought forth, or brought to birth. The Bible in Basic English renders it here as "given birth." If Wisdom is the one that Jehovah first acquired/produced/created/possessed and this was done by "birth" and Jesus is called firstborn of all creation and is linked to Wisdom here in Proverbs 8, we have even further evidence that Jesus is in fact the one born first.

First Created?
Finally, some will argue that if Jesus was the first created being the grammar would say PRWTOKTIZO or something of the like. Before they can claim this they need to find a single example of this word being used being any time prior to the late second or third century. The simple fact is that the word was not used in Bible times, so the word would not have been used for Christ. Beyond that though, Jesus is called MONOGENHS (only-begotten) and so born is much more appropriate.

Thus, in conclusion, the simple fact of the matter is that Colossians 1:15 clearly distinguish Jesus from God and place him within the group of creation.

-Tony

[dizzle]

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when He brought the First-born into the world, He said, "And let all the angels of God worship Him."

Thus, even when Jesus came into the world, he was already God's firstborn. As he is called God's "only-begotten" (John 1:18), he truly is the firstborn.


This misses a great deal of the point. Let me give you an example. Say we are doing a recapitulation of the life of President Bush. We might say, "The President was born in ***** on *****." Are we suggesting that he was born President?

I am not saying at this poitn my opinion on your point one way or another, just commenting on the weakness of your argument.

Col 1:15, though as White really demonstrates, it an excellent Trin test and really cannot in context be explained any other way.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 11:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125333#post125333)
Dee Dee Warren:



This misses a great deal of the point. Let me give you an example. Say we are doing a recapitulation of the life of President Bush. We might say, "The President was born in ***** on *****." Are we suggesting that he was born President?

I don't see what this has to do with being firstborn of all creation. I'm not sure which is older, George W. or Jeb (assuming I spelt that right). However, lets assume George W. is. We would thus say, George W. is firstborn of all of George Bush's sons. That is the same type of grammar we have in Col 1:15.

Edit: On reconsideration I believe the problem you are having is that you view first-born simply as a title, as you would President, when the fact is that the natural use of PRWTOTOKOS is that of the one born first, not a title. One one is naturally PRWTOTOKOS, they are born that way.


I am not saying at this poitn my opinion on your point one way or another, just commenting on the weakness of your argument.

Col 1:15, though as White really demonstrates, it an excellent Trin test and really cannot in context be explained any other way.

I don't see a weakness from what you presented. Honestly, I don't see how they relate at all.

As for Mr. White's attempt at scholarship. Well I have not read his writings on this particular topic, but I have on others, and I really don't think it has much consequence.

-Tony

[jpholding]

Tsmith,

You seem somewhat familiar with the Wisdom theology, so let me make some comments. I take the view that Col. 1:15-18 offers several allusions to the Wisdom literature and thus identifies Christ as an eternal hypostasis of the Father, in line with Triniatarianism.

To address a few specifics....you really should make shorter posts to start...


Thus, we use simple logic here. Who does it state that Jesus is in the image of? Well he is the image of God of course. Is he the one he is the image, or representation of? Not at all. He is representing God, so, therefore, he cannot be God.

Do you realize that "God" is not actually used as a proper name in the NT? It is more like an adjectival noun -- like "deity". It states a property of Jesus, not an identity. The hO before QEOS shows you this. And this is why the Nicean Creed says Father, Son, and Spirit are all "God". It is a statement of property, not identity.

Our next key word here is firstborn. Trinitarians are quick to dismiss this argument as well, stating that it simply means preeminence. With what basis? They sight a few isolated examples of such (Jer 31:9; Psa 89:27) as their evidence.

Er, no -- not me, anyway. For me the examples come from the pre-NT Wisdom literature in which eternal Wisdom is called YHWH's "firstborn".

In doing this, we find that each case of firstborn that is then followed by a genitive (such as "of") consistently means the one born first.

Yes, but it's not that simple and your note on the genitive needs more info. You need Col. 1:15 to be in a partitive genitive which makes Christ the "firstborn" of creation out to be a part of that creation. Helyer points out ("Arius Revisited," JETS Mar. 1998) there are actually four possible interpretations of the genitive here: 1) partitive (preferred by the Arians and the JWs); 2) comparitive (which would exclude Christ from the creation; 3) place (defines the sphere of Christ's rule over creation) or 4) objective (relates to the action of the "firstborn" upon the creation). Helyer notes that option 1) is excluded by virtue of a) the hoti clause of v. 16 and the pro panta of v. 17, which clearly exclude Christ from the realm of created things; b) the language of eikon in v. 15 and pleroma in v. 19, which includes Christ in the full deity; c) the parallels to the Wisdom tradition, in which Wisdom is not a creation as the rest of creation, but is eternally begotten; d) that the partitive would emphasize the -tokos aspect of prototokos (firstborn), something paralleled in the NT only in Luke 2:7. Helyer therefore opts for the objective genitive as the intent of the passage.

Here Jehovah is said to have possessed wisdom in the beginning of his way. This Hebrew word is QANAH. It literally means it possess by acquisition. Of course, God acquires things by means of creating them, which is why the LXX translates this to EKTISEN, which translates directly as created. Further reading, we find that Wisdom is spoken of as being brought forth, or brought to birth. The Bible in Basic English renders it here as "given birth." If Wisdom is the one that Jehovah first acquired/produced/created/possessed and this was done by "birth" and Jesus is called firstborn of all creation and is linked to Wisdom here in Proverbs 8, we have even further evidence that Jesus is in fact the one born first.

Not quite that simple. QANAH is concerned with the "possession" aspect of the interchange process, rather than the "transaction" or acquisition aspect:

Gen. 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

Prov. 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.

"Wisdom" is not something we create or acquire from outside; we cultivate our own attributes from within. Yet we also see QANAH, as in Gen. 4:1 and Prov. 8, used of the imagery of giving birth. The nature of Wisdom to God is of an attribute that is possessed, used, and cultivated (in line with God using Wisdom as a tool to create, in Proverbs 8). By that token, the land that is qanahed is land which is taken possession of for use. [The word for "bought" in terms of a transaction is miqnah: Lev. 25:15-16, According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy (qanah) of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee: According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price (miqnah) thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it...

Add to this the understanding of the ancients of the interlinking of owner and property, and the conclusion comes that qanah carries the meaning of a possession that is an extension of the owner. In this light Prov. 8 says nothing in terms of the means and method where Wisdom was qanahed and cannot be used to argue that Christ is a being created as humans were rather than eternal.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 04:53 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125512#post125512)
jpholding:

Tsmith,

You seem somewhat familiar with the Wisdom theology, so let me make some comments. I take the view that Col. 1:15-18 offers several allusions to the Wisdom literature and thus identifies Christ as an eternal hypostasis of the Father, in line with Triniatarianism.

I fail to see where in scripture Wisdom is ever spoken of as being eternal. Rather, the personification of such is shown to have come into existance, but with this personification having the attribute of wisdom (Prob 8:14).


Do you realize that "God" is not actually used as a proper name in the NT? It is more like an adjectival noun -- like "deity". It states a property of Jesus, not an identity. The hO before QEOS shows you this. And this is why the Nicean Creed says Father, Son, and Spirit are all "God". It is a statement of property, not identity.

I disagree to a large extent. While, granted, QEOS is a title, it is a title that often carries the force of a proper name. For example, when we say "Almighty God," who do we mean? Well there is only one Almighty God, and so we mean that one, Jehovah. QEOS only really could be said to function as an adjective in certain grammatical cases. Specifically, a predicate nominative, where the qualitative or class force of such is shown.

Er, no -- not me, anyway. For me the examples come from the pre-NT Wisdom literature in which eternal Wisdom is called YHWH's "firstborn".

I see no bearing on how this refutes anything. With Wisdom in Proverbs spoken of as being birthed, the use of QANAH and in the LXX, EKTISHN, the does not really present an issue for me.

Yes, but it's not that simple and your note on the genitive needs more info. You need Col. 1:15 to be in a partitive genitive which makes Christ the "firstborn" of creation out to be a part of that creation. Helyer points out ("Arius Revisited," JETS Mar. 1998) there are actually four possible interpretations of the genitive here: 1) partitive (preferred by the Arians and the JWs); 2) comparitive (which would exclude Christ from the creation; 3) place (defines the sphere of Christ's rule over creation) or 4) objective (relates to the action of the "firstborn" upon the creation). Helyer notes that option 1) is excluded by virtue of a) the hoti clause of v. 16 and the pro panta of v. 17, which clearly exclude Christ from the realm of created things; b) the language of eikon in v. 15 and pleroma in v. 19, which includes Christ in the full deity; c) the parallels to the Wisdom tradition, in which Wisdom is not a creation as the rest of creation, but is eternally begotten; d) that the partitive would emphasize the -tokos aspect of prototokos (firstborn), something paralleled in the NT only in Luke 2:7. Helyer therefore opts for the objective genitive as the intent of the passage.

Can you show me one example of scripture where PRWTOTOKOS is used with a genitive that carries a meaning other than a partitive genitive or genitive of source? Obviously Col 1:15 is not a genitive of source, this leading us to what conclusion.? It is partitive.

Col 1:16 and 17 present no issue for Col 1:15 being a partitive genitive on careful examination of the grammar.

You have not presented any solid grammatical evidence for Col 1:15 to be anything other than a partitive genitive, with the majority of LXX uses agreeing with this conclusion.

"Wisdom" is not something we create or acquire from outside; we cultivate our own attributes from within. Yet we also see QANAH, as in Gen. 4:1 and Prov. 8, used of the imagery of giving birth. The nature of Wisdom to God is of an attribute that is possessed, used, and cultivated (in line with God using Wisdom as a tool to create, in Proverbs 8). By that token, the land that is qanahed is land which is taken possession of for use. [The word for "bought" in terms of a transaction is miqnah: Lev. 25:15-16, According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy (qanah) of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee: According to the multitude of years thou shalt increase the price (miqnah) thereof, and according to the fewness of years thou shalt diminish the price of it...

God does not cultivate Wisdom, he simply has it. Looking in Proverbs 8 we found that the Wisdom spoken of in relation to QANAH is said to have the attribute of wisdom in verse 14, thus showing us that the Wisdom related to QANAH is not an attribute, but something else. Being that all things belong to God, the only way for him to QANAH something is to create.



Add to this the understanding of the ancients of the interlinking of owner and property, and the conclusion comes that qanah carries the meaning of a possession that is an extension of the owner. In this light Prov. 8 says nothing in terms of the means and method where Wisdom was qanahed and cannot be used to argue that Christ is a being created as humans were rather than eternal.

I really fail to see your point. Wisdom, seperate from the attribute (Prov 8:14), is said to be QANAH'ed. In the LXX, we find Wisdom is actually said to be created here. So really, it can be used exactly for this purpose.

-Tony

[OldShepherd]

Yesterday @ 08:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125327#post125327)
Tsmith:

Colossians 15 is a strong argument against the Trinity. Of course Trinitarians are quick to dismiss it, giving some weak arguments in an attempt to do so. However, an examination of this scripture and the grammar behind it actually provides stronger evidence against the Trinity than most non-Trinitarians realize, and it shows clearly how Trinitarian replies to it simply hold no ground.

Colossians 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.

The image of God
The A part of verse 15 clearly states that Jesus is the "image of the invisible God." To be an image of one, you are their representation or in their likeness. Strong’s defines the Greek work for image, EIKWN, as follows:

From G1503; a likeness, that is, (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: - image.

Thus, we use simple logic here. Who does it state that Jesus is in the image of? Well he is the image of God of course. Is he the one he is the image, or representation of? Not at all. He is representing God, so, therefore, he cannot be God.

-Tony

Ho Hum! Another of those endless "This one verse totally destroys, the Trinity argument.," assertions. While a study of Greek grammar is very beneficial, we must remember that the N.T. was primarily written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews. I heard a former Orthodox, then a Messianic, Jew, say that. The meaning of the Greek word tranlsated "first born" is not very helpful here. So what was the Jewish understanding of "first born?" Here is the article on "Primogeniture, "First Born" from the Jewish Encyclopedia, linked below. This would have been the understanding of the Jewish Christians, e.g. Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, paul, etc. writing in the N.T.
Primogeniture
In the Old Testament as well as in the rabbinical legislation a distinction is made between the first-born of inheritance (בכור לנחלה) and the first-born of redemption (בכור לכהן; comp. Bek. viii. 1, 46a).

Primogeniture of Inheritance.

The primogeniture of inheritance refers to the first-born son on the side of the father by any of his wives (if he lived in polygamy). The law of such primogeniture is found in Deut. xxi. 16 et seq., according to which the first-born is to receive a double portion of the inheritance. The passage referred to, however, did not introduce this right, for the preference of the first-born, as the issue of the "first strength" ( ) of the father, existed in patriarchal times (comp. Gen. xxv. 31, xxvii. 29, xlviii. 13, xlix. 3). It is generally assumed that the prerogatives of the first-born consisted in a kind of potestas over the family; in a double share of inheritance (comp. I Chron. v. 1); and in the right to the priesthood (comp. Targ. Onk. and Yer. to Gen. xlix. 3). From Gen. xxv. 31 (comp. xxvii. 36) it appears also that God's promises to the Patriarchs were considered as attached to the line of the first-born. But, as the cases of Esau and Reuben (and Ishmael, Gen. xxi.) show, it was possible for the father to deprive the first-born of his right; and the lawgiver in Deuteronomy prohibits the misuse of parental power in favor of a younger son by a favorite wife. In the succession to the throne primogeniture was generally taken into consideration (comp. II Chron. xxi. 3), though it was not always decisive, as appears in the case of Solomon (I Kings i. 30, ii. 22) and of Abijah (II Chron. xi. 22; and comp. Junior Right).

In the Rabbinical Writings.

Rabbinical law further specifies and qualifies the right of primogeniture. Only the first-born—not the eldest surviving son who has been preceded by another child that has died—and only such a one as, by a normal birth and not by a surgical operation, came into the world in the lifetime of his father is entitled to the double share (Bek. 46a, 47b; B. B. 142b). Furthermore, the first-born of a first-born does not receive a double portion of the inheritance of the grandfather who dies before the father (Bek. 51b; B. B. 124a). On the other hand, if the first-born dies before his father his right passes over to his children, even to daughters (B. B. 122b). Neither the inheritance left by the mother nor posthumous improvements () of and accessions () to the inheritance left by the father are subject to the right of primogeniture (Bek. 51a; B. B. 122b, 124a). The double share of the first-born is not one-half of the property, but double the share of each of the other brothers. If there are, for instance, four brothers, the property is divided into five parts, the first-born receiving two-fifths and the others each one-fifth. But the portion of the first-born is affected by either the death or the birth of another brother after the demise of the father (B. B. 123a, 142b). As the double share of the inheritance entails a double share in the obligations on the part of the first-born, both may be waived by him (B. B. 124a).

It is apparent from the preceding regulations that both in the Old Testament and in the rabbinical law the prerogative of primogeniture was not conceived as an inalienable right inherent in the first-born, but rather as a gift by the Law, prompted by economic considerations. The eldest son, who was to take the father's position, was to be placed economically in a condition to be able to preside with dignity over the family—something like the right of majorat. It is, moreover, probable that the first-born had the obligation of maintaining the female members of the family who remained in the household. For the Talmudic regulation of the status and maintenance of the unmarried daughters after the father's death see Ket. 68a, b.

Primogeniture of Redemption.

The primogeniture of redemption refers to the male first-born on the mother's side and applies to both man and beast: "Sanctify unto me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and beast: it is mine"(Ex. xiii. 2). In the manner of the sanctification of these first-born the following distinctions are drawn:

1. The first-born of a clean animal had to be brought to the sanctuary within a year from the eighth day of its birth (Ex. xxii. 30). If without a blemish it was treated as a sacrifice; i.e., the blood was sprinkled and the fat burned on the altar. As regards the disposal of the flesh there is a difference between the laws in Deuteronomy and those in Numbers. According to the former (Deut. xv. 19 et seq.; comp. xii. 6 et seq., 17 et seq.; xiv. 23) the flesh is eaten by the owner in a sacrificial meal, like that of the "shelamim," while according to the latter (Num. xviii. 17 et seq.; comp. Ex. xxii. 29) it fell to the priest. The latter practise prevailed in the time of Nehemiah (Neh. x. 37) and Josephus (Josephus, "Ant." iv. 4, § 4). Had the animal a blemish, it was treated like any other common food (Deut. xv. 21-23).

2. The first-born of an unclean animal had to be redeemed, when a month old, according to the estimation of the priest, with the addition of one-fifth (Lev. xxvii. 27; Num. xviii. 15 et seq.). The first-born of an ass was either ransomed by a sheep or killed, its neck being broken (Ex. xiii. 13, xxxiv. 20). In Josephus' time (l.c.) all unclean animals were redeemed with one and a half shekels.

3. The first-born of man was, at the age of one month, redeemed with five shekels (Ex. xiii. 13, xxii. 28, xxxiv. 20; Num. xviii. 15 et seq.; comp. iii. 44 et seq.; Neh. x. 37).

In the Talmud the fact that the first-born in this case must be a is emphasized. Thus a first-born son whose birth has been preceded by a miscarriage, or by a still-birth, or by the birth of a monstrosity, or one who was himself brought forth by a surgical operation, is not due to the priesthood. On the other hand, if two wives of the same man both bear sons as first-born children, each must be redeemed (Bek. viii. 1, 2, 46a, 47b).

Origin and Significance.

In Ex. xiii. 11-15 and Num. iii. 12 et seq. (comp. ib. 40 et seq. and viii. 15-18) the dedication of the first-born to Yhwh is connected with the slaying of the first-born of Egypt and the consecration of the Levites to the service of the sanctuary. By destroying the first-born of Egypt and sparing those of Israel, Yhwh acquired an especial ownership over the latter. But as it was not feasible to select the first-born of the entire nation and thus disturb the family organization, the Levites were substituted for them; and, indeed, rabbinical tradition assigns the priesthood to the first-born until the completion of the Tabernacle (Zeb. 112b, 115b; comp. Targ. to Ex. xxiv. 5 and Rashi and Ibn Ezra to Ex. xix. 22, 24). The view implied in the passages quoted seems to be that the Levites took the place of only those first-born which Yhwh actually spared in Egypt, and that while the Levites continued to serve at the sanctuary, all the first-born after the Exodus were nevertheless the property of Yhwh, and therefore had to be redeemed, just as the 273 first-born who surpassed the number of the Levites at Sinai had to be redeemed each with five shekels (Num. iii. 45-51). Doubtless there is here also the adaptation of an ancient custom (comp. Gen. iv. 4). The dedication of the first-born of man is the extension and application by analogy of the custom of consecrating to God the first-fruits of the soil and the firstlings of animals (comp. Ex. xxii. 28 et seq.), a custom found also among other peoples. In Israel this dedication had the significance of an acknowledgment that it was Yhwh's "heritage," that it owed to Him all which it had and was.

The interpretation of the custom of redeeming the first-born as a modification of an older custom of sacrificing the first-born sons in connection with the Passover feast (Baudissin, in Herzog-Plitt, "Real-Encyc." 2d ed., x. 176; comp. also Frazer, "The Golden Bough," 2d ed., ii. 48), has no foundation in history. There are instances in later times attesting not only the custom of sacrificing children, but also the fact that at times the first-born was preferred as a victim (II Kings iii. 27; Micah vi. 7; Ezek. xx. 26); but there is nowhere a trace of the demand of such a "blood-tax" on the part of the Deity or Lawgiver from the people, and its existence is unknown even among the Canaanites (comp. Wellhausen, "Prolegomena," 2d ed., p. 91; Robertson Smith, "Religion of the Semites," 2d ed., p. 464; and Toy on Ezek. xx. 26 in "S. B. O. T.").

In Modern Times.

Since the destruction of the Temple and cessation of sacrifices the dedication of the first-born of clean animals is limited to their being kept inviolate and exempt from any use (comp. Deut. xv. 19), unless they have or receive some blemish, in which case they may be slaughtered for food. The redemption of the first-born of an ass and of man is still carried out according to the Biblical ordinances, and the redemption of the first-born son () is a festive occasion. From such redemption are exempt not only priests and Levites, but also their children (Bek. 4a, 47a). Adult first-born on either side are also obliged to fast on the eve of Passover, unless they are released from the obligation by some festive celebration, such as the completion of the study of a tract of the Talmud ("siyyum"; comp. "Yad," Bekorot, xi. 17; Yoreh De'ah, §§ 300, 305, 321).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=527&letter=P

[Tsmith]

Today @ 01:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125914#post125914)
OldShepherd:



Ho Hum! Another of those endless "This one verse totally destroys, the Trinity argument.," assertions. While a study of Greek grammar is very beneficial, we must remember that the N.T. was primarily written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews. I heard a former Orthodox, then a Messianic, Jew, say that. The meaning of the Greek word tranlsated "first born" is not very helpful here. So what was the Jewish understanding of "first born?" Here is the article on "Primogeniture, "First Born" from the Jewish Encyclopedia, linked below. This would have been the understanding of the Jewish Christians, e.g. Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, paul, etc. writing in the N.T.
[/url]

Well an interesting post, but I don't see how it refutes a single point I've made. I would suggest you make a closer consideration what I actually wrote because this did not disagree with it on any level that I can find.

-Ton

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 06:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126189#post126189)
Tsmith:

Well an interesting post, but I don't see how it refutes a single point I've made. I would suggest you make a closer consideration what I actually wrote because this did not disagree with it on any level that I can find.

-Ton

Or you could go back and actully read the post. The first born was not necessarily the one whose birth occurred first. And the second paragraph in, "In the Rabbinical Writings.", particularly the sentence which begins, "The eldest son"

[Tsmith]

Today @ 01:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126270#post126270)
OldShepherd:



Or you could go back and actully read the post. The first born was not necessarily the one whose birth occurred first. And the second paragraph in, "In the Rabbinical Writings.", particularly the sentence which begins, "The eldest son"

I grant you as much, that the right could change. However, the natural usage of the word is the one born first. In Col 1:15, 16 we are dealing specifically with creation, and with such, Col 1:15 stands as the obvious qualifier to verse 16. There is nothing within the context to indicate otherwise.

Further, if Jesus was not the one born first of all creation, why did the one who was lose that right?

That said, still nothing within the text refutes what I have stated.

-Tony

[jpholding]

Hmmm,

I fail to see where in scripture Wisdom is ever spoken of as being eternal.

It is so spoken of in the intertestamental Wisdom literature. In the time of Proverbs Hebrew had no word as such for "eternal" and came as close as they could by "piling on" indications of Wisdom's awesome age. (The only possible word suggested, 'olam, means "in perpetuity" and not "eternal" -- see Barr's Biblical Words for Time.

If you respond by saying we can't consider extrabiblical sources, you need reply no further. You would not be someone I could do business with. :smile:

Rather, the personification of such is shown to have come into existance, but with this personification having the attribute of wisdom (Prob 8:14).

Hmm, where in Proverbs do you find the word "personification"? :brow: You are aware that "hypostasis" defined, at any rate, is, a personified attribute of a deity?

I disagree to a large extent. While, granted, QEOS is a title, it is a title that often carries the force of a proper name.

"Force of" is not the same as "is". And our modern use of "Almighty God" is not relevant to use of the words in the Bible.

I see no bearing on how this refutes anything. With Wisdom in Proverbs spoken of as being birthed, the use of QANAH and in the LXX, EKTISHN, the does not really present an issue for me.

Hmm. You seem to have a repeated problem with not seeing bearing of material that refutes what you say. smile: I'll put it this way: If Philo can say the Eternal Logos is "firstborn" of God then clearly the word means preeminence and not strict creation order. Now the Logos WAS a "creation" of the Father but as a hypostatic attribute -- eternally produced of the Father. So you could call it "first created" in a real sense, but you would have to add that it was "first eternally". Thus also Wisdom and the Trinity members of Son and Spirit.

Can you show me one example of scripture where PRWTOTOKOS is used with a genitive that carries a meaning other than a partitive genitive or genitive of source?

Why do I need to do that?

Col 1:16 and 17 present no issue for Col 1:15 being a partitive genitive on careful examination of the grammar.

Um, merely saying "nuh uh" is not an answer to what Heyler said...is this the best you can do?

God does not cultivate Wisdom, he simply has it.

Ahhhh...so you just shot your position in the foot. Now is God eternal, unchanging in nature? If He is, then He can NEVER have been without His Wisdom. Hence, Wisdom in Prov. 8 MUST be eternal. :thumb: Thank you!

Looking in Proverbs 8 we found that the Wisdom spoken of in relation to QANAH is said to have the attribute of wisdom in verse 14, thus showing us that the Wisdom related to QANAH is not an attribute, but something else.

Um, it is shown to be an attribute of God, and I would expect the attribute of Wisdom, personified, to HAVE wisdom in practice...

Being that all things belong to God, the only way for him to QANAH something is to create.

This is not an answer to my point about it reflecting the possession aspect. But even if you ARE right, "create" is a perfectly acceptable verb to use for an eternal hypostasis.


I really fail to see your point. Wisdom, seperate from the attribute (Prov 8:14), is said to be QANAH'ed.

Wisdom, a personification (8:12), possesses wisdom itself (8:14) and is what is QANAHed.

[o2bwise]

I can't keep up with something I am ignorant of (extensive use of Greek and its grammar).

But, I do not have a problem with the following idea. We are called to compare spiritual with spiritual. Often truth is uncovered via doing things like word searches.

I do not have a problem that the word WISDOM was selected, by God, to be a metaphor for His Son. IF this is so, it is inappropriate to maintain the Son is God due to the age wisdom must be (as old as God).

It would be like requiring that because Christ is the chief cornerstone, he is made of rock.

Again, I don't know a lot of Greek, but I believe I know some reasonable principles. The Bible uses words as metaphors almost constantly. Metaphors only go so far. It is bad interpretation, in my opinion, to take literal realities from words used as metaphors, and require they apply to what the metaphor is being used to represent.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Happy Giraffe]

Interesting discussion, Found this article, might be of some use on the discussion.

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Goldsmith.Col1_15.htm

[Tsmith]

Today @ 04:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126398#post126398)
jpholding:

It is so spoken of in the intertestamental Wisdom literature. In the time of Proverbs Hebrew had no word as such for "eternal" and came as close as they could by "piling on" indications of Wisdom's awesome age. (The only possible word suggested, 'olam, means "in perpetuity" and not "eternal" -- see Barr's Biblical Words for Time.


Being that we can seemingly agree that OLAM does not make something eternal, I fail to see your real point. Wisdom personified has an awesome age, but it does have an age. God has no age.


Hmm, where in Proverbs do you find the word "personification"? :brow: You are aware that "hypostasis" defined, at any rate, is, a personified attribute of a deity?

The word is not there, but the definition of the word is brought forth in the statements made. I fail to see where your hypostasis point applies.


"Force of" is not the same as "is". And our modern use of "Almighty God" is not relevant to use of the words in the Bible.

Actually, semantically, it is the same.

Hmm. You seem to have a repeated problem with not seeing bearing of material that refutes what you say. smile: I'll put it this way: If Philo can say the Eternal Logos is "firstborn" of God then clearly the word means preeminence and not strict creation order. Now the Logos WAS a "creation" of the Father but as a hypostatic attribute -- eternally produced of the Father. So you could call it "first created" in a real sense, but you would have to add that it was "first eternally". Thus also Wisdom and the Trinity members of Son and Spirit.


The problem is that Biblically, you cannot refute what I'm saying. Where does scripture call hO LOGOS eternal? You can only seem to supply non-biblical statements that use post-biblical language in attempting to explain things away, but that does not prove anything. God eternally had his LOGOS, but that does not mean he eternally had the one CALLED LOGOS. There is a difference between something and someone who is called something. If you fail to seperate the two, you come to a variety of contradictions, such as "eternally begotten" and "eternal son" and "eternally created." All are contradict, but are used to describe Trinitarianism. Fortunately, the Bible is much simpler than this and does not require the philosophy that you try and introduce to it.

It is interesting how people introduce terms like "eternally begotten." If the Bible was trying to relate such a concept, it would have said such! The fact that people must later come up with these terms in an attempt to explain away what it actually says tells us a lot.



Why do I need to do that?


Because you tried to state that I was wrong without a single piece of grammatical evidence for such. So, I said, provide evidence. You didn't even open the door to a CHANCE that I might be wrong. Until you do, your attempted refute serves no purpose.



Um, merely saying "nuh uh" is not an answer to what Heyler said...is this the best you can do?

Ask and you shall recieve.

For starters, if we compare Col 1:15 to verse 16, we find that the ALL discussed is not the same. In Col 1:15 we find that Paul used the feminine of PAS, where verse 16 contains the neuter. Thus, the all of creation he is firstborn of is not the same as that which was created through him. With that said, when a subject is in view and PAS is used, the subject is not neccesarily removed from the group which he/it is spoken of in relation to. We can see this at Matthew 26:35; Mark 4:31; Luke 13:2, and Luke 21:29. So that said, grammatically, Jesus is not issolated from being created. We could go into this further, but I see no need as its rather cut and dry.



Ahhhh...so you just shot your position in the foot. Now is God eternal, unchanging in nature? If He is, then He can NEVER have been without His Wisdom. Hence, Wisdom in Prov. 8 MUST be eternal. :thumb: Thank you!

Umm, no. Because we are dealing with the person Wisdom is personified in, Jesus Christ. That said, this PERSON, who has the attribute of Wisdom (Prov 8:14), which is something God eternally had (the attribute), is not eternal.



Um, it is shown to be an attribute of God, and I would expect the attribute of Wisdom, personified, to HAVE wisdom in practice...

And so we know this personification to be in a person, not the attribute itself. That said, the person in the LXX is clearly said to be created, thus not being eternal.


This is not an answer to my point about it reflecting the possession aspect. But even if you ARE right, "create" is a perfectly acceptable verb to use for an eternal hypostasis.

If you create something, it is not eternal. Jesus is created, so he is not eternal. Are we going to now introduce another post biblical term such as eternally created? You cannot be eternal and be created, as created, by definition, introduces a point of origin.


Wisdom, a personification (8:12), possesses wisdom itself (8:14) and is what is QANAHed.


QANAH is used for the personification, not the attribute.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 04:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126444#post126444)
Happy Giraffe:

Interesting discussion, Found this article, might be of some use on the discussion.

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Goldsmith.Col1_15.htm

I've read this article before and it really fails because he is attempting to say that Jesus was created when he became flesh, which I believe O2BWise has shown quite well not to be true. He "took the form of man" (Phil 2:7) he was not recreated as man.

-Tony

[Happy Giraffe]

I as read he doesnt argue that. I believe it offers a sound defense for the trinity. Perhaps if you could explain why you think he is suggesting what you stated he did.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 11:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126977#post126977)
Happy Giraffe:

I as read he doesnt argue that. I believe it offers a sound defense for the trinity. Perhaps if you could explain why you think he is suggesting what you stated he did.

Actually, he argues exactly what I stated. From paragraph 2:

"It is a fundamental tenet of the Trinity that at a certain point in history the Logos “became flesh”, both sides agreeing that He possessed a truly human nature (creature). So the fact that Christ can be shown to be a member of creation tells us nothing whatsoever about His pre-existence before he “became flesh”, or his ultimate identity (John 1:14 cf. Phil. 2:1-6). "

and from the third from the last paragraph:

"We also believe that Christ entered the category as per John 1:14."

That said, Mr. Goldsmith errors because Christ does not change his being. One does not become a creature. We note that his MORPH changed, not his being (Phil 2:6,7). He took the form of man, he did not become a created being that he once was not.

Further, the use of hOTI at Col 1:16 I believe removes this possibility as well, because this indicates that because his being first-born of the group of creation, from there all things were created through him. So his being first-born was something that happened before anything else was created. That said, Christ would HAVE to be created because he could not be first-born of all creation if creation had not started at that point, and yet this indicates he was first-born of all creation before anything was created through him.

-Tony

[AVmetro]

Here's a challenge (http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Reyes_Partitive.htm) that may interest you.
...

Firstborn
Our next key word here is firstborn. Trinitarians are quick to dismiss this argument as well, stating that it simply means preeminence. With what basis? They sight a few isolated examples of such (Jer 31:9; Psa 89:27) as their evidence.

Yet these "isolated examples" prove the exception. In fact, a closer look at the context of Ps89:27, for example, will reveal that it is Messianic. That in and of itself demonstrates how the Christ is "firstborn".

Unfortunately for Trinitarians, their isolated examples are in the VAST minority. Overwhelmingly, firstborn (Greek: PRWTOTOKOS) is used simply as the one born first. Included with this is preeminence, as it is part of the birthright, but it also displays the order of birth.

And? 'Stacking the deck' is not a valid basis upon which to substantiate an argument. See also the challenge linked above.

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when He brought the First-born into the world, He said, "And let all the angels of God worship Him."

Rev13:8 ..just to show you that your argument could fail. However, I have no problem with Christ being the "firstborn", pre-incarnation as a title of preeminence. I don't totally define 'firstborn' by His relative position in the resurrection, so the argument above is inapplicable.

Thus, even when Jesus came into the world, he was already God's firstborn. As he is called God's "only-begotten" (John 1:18), he truly is the firstborn.

Really? Christ is God's only-begotten Son? See Job38:7 etc. See also:

Heb 11:17-18 - By faith, being tested, Abraham offered up Isaac; and he receiving the promises was offering up the only begotten, as to whom it was said, "In Isaac your Seed shall be called"

...yet as you know, Issac was not Abraham's "only-begotten". Ishmael was born first and was living at the time. Therefore, unless you insist upon Christ being the sole creation of God, then the fact must be admitted that the title carries the implications of preeminence over strict literalism.

I've read this article before and it really fails because he is attempting to say that Jesus was created when he became flesh, which I believe O2BWise has shown quite well not to be true. He "took the form of man" (Phil 2:7) he was not recreated as man.

I don't believe "recreated" is the word you should be looking for, correct? In order for Christ to be "recreated" He would have to have been a "creation" to begin. That would be more along the lines of WTS theology.

Rather, He entered creation in taking on flesh (Phil2:7, Heb2:14 et al). Are you implying that He wasn't really 'man'? Somehow I think you are and in doing so are misrepresenting the Trinitarian viewpoint. John 1:14 'ginomai sarx'. Fully God and fully man.

That is Trinitarian orthodoxy and if you intend to refute it by stating that Christ is a part of the creation class then you are simply punching a strawman of your own "creation" :wink:.

I need to add though, nevertheless, that I prefer the reading "firstborn over all creation" as it best fits the theme of the context.

God bless

[Tsmith]

Today @ 02:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127195#post127195)
IronMetro:

Here's a challenge (http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Reyes_Partitive.htm) that may interest you.
...



This really isn't of issue for me, because I'm not arguing the word is as they claim. For example, one can be PRWTOTOKOS and yet be an only child. In such a case, it is not partitive because the one is the whole. Only when others are introduced does it become partitive. In this case, because the whole of things is introduced, it must be partitive because one cannot be of a ranking within a group and not be part of it.


Yet these "isolated examples" prove the exception. In fact, a closer look at the context of Ps89:27, for example, will reveal that it is Messianic. That in and of itself demonstrates how the Christ is "firstborn".

And yet this is a future prophecy, which does not apply to Christ already being first-born prior to creation in Col 1:15. Rather, this prophecy applies well to Col 1:18, which actually, on consideration, would allow me to remove this verse from my list of one. How so? Well in Col 1:18 God made Jesus first-born, but in that way he was actually the one born first.


And? 'Stacking the deck' is not a valid basis upon which to substantiate an argument. See also the challenge linked above.


Actually, it isn't stacking the deck. It is considering the normal use of language.


Rev13:8 ..just to show you that your argument could fail. However, I have no problem with Christ being the "firstborn", pre-incarnation as a title of preeminence. I don't totally define 'firstborn' by His relative position in the resurrection, so the argument above is inapplicable.

And yet PRWTOTOKOS does NOT mean preeminence, no matter how much you try and say it does. It means the one born first.


Really? Christ is God's only-begotten Son? See Job38:7 etc. See also:

Heb 11:17-18 - By faith, being tested, Abraham offered up Isaac; and he receiving the promises was offering up the only begotten, as to whom it was said, "In Isaac your Seed shall be called"

...yet as you know, Issac was not Abraham's "only-begotten". Ishmael was born first and was living at the time. Therefore, unless you insist upon Christ being the sole creation of God, then the fact must be admitted that the title carries the implications of preeminence over strict literalism.

Yes, they are called God's sons, but unlike Jesus who was created directly by God, these are created THROUGH Jesus. That said, the Isaac stuff is of no consequence, as according to the Targum, Ishmael did not count as a decendant of Abraham, only Isaac did.


I don't believe "recreated" is the word you should be looking for, correct? In order for Christ to be "recreated" He would have to have been a "creation" to begin. That would be more along the lines of WTS theology.

Right, he was either always created or not. He wasn't created at some point after already existing.

Rather, He entered creation in taking on flesh (Phil2:7, Heb2:14 et al). Are you implying that He wasn't really 'man'? Somehow I think you are and in doing so are misrepresenting the Trinitarian viewpoint. John 1:14 'ginomai sarx'. Fully God and fully man.

Well the Bible does not say he is fully God and fully man. Rather, Phil 2:7 says he emptied himself. If he is fully God, this scripture is a lie. He didn't enter creation at some point, he was Jesus still. You don't suddenly become created.

That is Trinitarian orthodoxy and if you intend to refute it by stating that Christ is a part of the creation class then you are simply punching a strawman of your own "creation" :wink:.

Even if you want to attempt to argue that Christ entered into creation at some point, this still has no real bearing on Col 1:15 with Jesus already being first-born before becoming flesh.

I need to add though, nevertheless, that I prefer the reading "firstborn over all creation" as it best fits the theme of the context.

And it is also a grammatically IMPOSSIBLE rendering.

-Tony

[AVmetro]

And yet this is a future prophecy, which does not apply to Christ already being first-born prior to creation in Col 1:15.

Significance? It doesn't really matter to me when Christ was made God's 'firstborn' but rather that he was 'made' firstborn in the sense of having preeminence as opposed to being the first-created.

Rather, this prophecy applies well to Col 1:18, which actually, on consideration, would allow me to remove this verse from my list of one. How so? Well in Col 1:18 God made Jesus first-born, but in that way he was actually the one born first.

And it applies well to vs15. Granted that it refers to vs18 are you insisting that it is limited to verse 18? Especially considering the use of the word in Ps89 deals with preeminence and not literal relative position as in Col1:18. Now look at vs15 i.e. "all things made FOR Him". In Ps89 YHWH will make the Messiah His "firstborn, the Highest of the Kings of the earth". They're used in conjunction together. The themes match.

Actually, it isn't stacking the deck. It is considering the normal use of language.

It's taking many examples which use the word one way in order to substantiate your argument that it is used in Col1:15 in the same as opposed to any other potential uses. Yes, that is called 'stacking the deck'.

And yet PRWTOTOKOS does NOT mean preeminence, no matter how much you try and say it does. It means the one born first.

Ps89 et al

Yes, they are called God's sons, but unlike Jesus who was created directly by God, these are created THROUGH Jesus.

Now there's an insignificant and yet much needed nuance. So all you've managed to accomplish is verify that the title "only-begotten" does in fact hold the implications of unique. No matter how much you assert, Christ is not YHWH's only-begotten. Whether created with or without the aid of another the fact remains that Christ is not God's ONLY creation. Adding above said nuance only puts up a smokescreen. It's insignificant to the point.

That said, the Isaac stuff is of no consequence, as according to the Targum, Ishmael did not count as a decendant of Abraham, only Isaac did.

And? So what you intend to get across is that Ishmael wasn't really Abraham's son? The very fact that the Targum did not "count" Ishmael as a decsendant only serves to substantiate the fact that "only-begotten" is used as a title of preeminence in this case. Otherwise one could not say that Issac was literally Abraham's ONLY Son.

Right, he was either always created or not. He wasn't created at some point after already existing.

Therefore the word "REcreate" is inappropriate as it would under your own theology:

1.] Michael the Archangel was the first of God's creations

2.] Michael the Archangel was REcreated as Christ

>

1.] Christ existed from all eternity, uncreated

2.] Christ BECAME flesh therefore entering the creation class (Jn1:14, Heb2:14, of which He can be a part - e.g. Col1:15)

Well the Bible does not say he is fully God and fully man.

It states clearly that Christ was made like His brethen in all aspects Heb2:17. Do you deny that Christ became fully man? We hope not. That settled, look to Col2:9 where the fullness of 'divine quality' resides bodily in Christ. You can deny that this entails that Christ is [The] God but that is beside the point for now. The fact is, Christ is fully man and yet also fully divine. Therefore I CAN state that my view is substantiated from scripture. All you can do is simply disagree upon interpretation of said passages.

Rather, Phil 2:7 says he emptied himself. If he is fully God, this scripture is a lie.

Emptied Himself of what? His divinity? No. There are several interpretations as to what Christ "emptied" Himself of and you have only mentioned one. I see no "lie".

He didn't enter creation at some point, he was Jesus still. You don't suddenly become created.

You enter the creation class if you take on flesh (Jn1:14). Not simply "pose" as a 'man' but to actually become a 'man'. This suffices for me. And it's orthodox to boot :wink:.

Even if you want to attempt to argue that Christ entered into creation at some point, this still has no real bearing on Col 1:15 with Jesus already being first-born before becoming flesh.

You're simply assuming your case in order to substantiate your argument. I would expound on this but it would actually be beside the point. It doesn't matter WHEN He was "made firstborn". My point rested on the proposed 'partitive genitive' i.e. the "..of creation" and how it was a strawman argument against the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe the title 'firstborn' to be one of preeminence so it matters not "when" it was first applied, before or after the incarnation.

And it is also a grammatically IMPOSSIBLE rendering.

I'm certain the above is arguable, but being that Greek grammar is not my area, I'll let it fly. :smile:

God bless

[Tsmith]

Today @ 05:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=127324#post127324)
IronMetro:



Significance? It doesn't really matter to me when Christ was made God's 'firstborn' but rather that he was 'made' firstborn in the sense of having preeminence as opposed to being the first-created.

And you have failed to prove such. PRWTOTOKOS does NOT mean preeminence. Sorry, that is not what it means. break the word down, diagram the word. You'll never find preeminence in it.



And it applies well to vs15. Granted that it refers to vs18 are you insisting that it is limited to verse 18? Especially considering the use of the word in Ps89 deals with preeminence and not literal relative position as in Col1:18. Now look at vs15 i.e. "all things made FOR Him". In Ps89 YHWH will make the Messiah His "firstborn, the Highest of the Kings of the earth". They're used in conjunction together. The themes match.

You have failed to prove that Psalms 89 deals with preeminence, especially when you consider that PRWTOTOKOS does not mean such. You are raising a strawman by saying a word has a meaning that it simply does not. Can you show me a lexicon that has PRWTOTOKOS meaning preeminence? I've yet to see one.


It's taking many examples which use the word one way in order to substantiate your argument that it is used in Col1:15 in the same as opposed to any other potential uses. Yes, that is called 'stacking the deck'.

Sorry if you don't like it, but the typical use of grammar is important in considering how to understand and/or translate a text.



Ps89 et al


You have failed to show this means preeminence, yet I have easily shown where this prophecy is fulfilled in Christ literally being first-born in a place of time, made such by God, but being of time PRWTOTOKOS not meaning preeminence. Again you are working from a true strawman.


Now there's an insignificant and yet much needed nuance. So all you've managed to accomplish is verify that the title "only-begotten" does in fact hold the implications of unique. No matter how much you assert, Christ is not YHWH's only-begotten. Whether created with or without the aid of another the fact remains that Christ is not God's ONLY creation. Adding above said nuance only puts up a smokescreen. It's insignificant to the point.

I really fail to see what your point is. Christ is the only one spoken of as being created by birth (Prov 8). Being that he was the only one birthed, it is obvious he is the only begotten.



And? So what you intend to get across is that Ishmael wasn't really Abraham's son? The very fact that the Targum did not "count" Ishmael as a decsendant only serves to substantiate the fact that "only-begotten" is used as a title of preeminence in this case. Otherwise one could not say that Issac was literally Abraham's ONLY Son.

Being that he wasn't counted, Isaac could say he is the only begotten.


Therefore the word "REcreate" is inappropriate as it would under your own theology:

1.] Michael the Archangel was the first of God's creations

2.] Michael the Archangel was REcreated as Christ

>

1.] Christ existed from all eternity, uncreated

2.] Christ BECAME flesh therefore entering the creation class (Jn1:14, Heb2:14, of which He can be a part - e.g. Col1:15)


I never said I agreed that he was recreated, as I do not. Further, you have failed to prove that he actually became part of creation from this. It is an interesting theory, but one you cannot substatiate.

That said, it has no bearing, because by Col 1:15, 16 we find that Jesus was "first-born of all creation" because he became flesh.


It states clearly that Christ was made like His brethen in all aspects Heb2:17. Do you deny that Christ became fully man? We hope not. That settled, look to Col2:9 where the fullness of 'divine quality' resides bodily in Christ. You can deny that this entails that Christ is [The] God but that is beside the point for now. The fact is, Christ is fully man and yet also fully divine. Therefore I CAN state that my view is substantiated from scripture. All you can do is simply disagree upon interpretation of said passages.

Yes he was made like them, but he didn't become something he wasn't. If you aren't created, no matter what form you take, you cannot suddenly become created.

That said, Col 2:9 is of no bearing. We go back to Col 1:19 and we find the fulness was pleased to dwell in him, so it was something that was granted him. Further, at Eph 3:19 we find that Christians can be filled with the fulness of God. This does not make Christ fully divine as a man, but a man that has something divine dwelling in him, just as Christians can have.


Emptied Himself of what? His divinity? No. There are several interpretations as to what Christ "emptied" Himself of and you have only mentioned one. I see no "lie".

Well he emptied himself of SOMETHING. And if he was still 100% God as a man, he emptied himself of nothing, because he was still 100% Almighty. There is your contradiction.


You enter the creation class if you take on flesh (Jn1:14). Not simply "pose" as a 'man' but to actually become a 'man'. This suffices for me. And it's orthodox to boot :wink:.

That is not Biblical though. There is no basis for what you are saying in scripture.


You're simply assuming your case in order to substantiate your argument. I would expound on this but it would actually be beside the point. It doesn't matter WHEN He was "made firstborn". My point rested on the proposed 'partitive genitive' i.e. the "..of creation" and how it was a strawman argument against the doctrine of the Trinity. I believe the title 'firstborn' to be one of preeminence so it matters not "when" it was first applied, before or after the incarnation.

Actually, its not. The fact that he was firstborn of all creation prior to his incarnation disproves your his becoming part of creation at a later time theory. Further, if he is part of creation from his start, then he is created being and there goes the Trinity. It is no strawman.

I'm certain the above is arguable, but being that Greek grammar is not my area, I'll let it fly. :smile:

Not really. If a person wants to say "firstborn over all creation" its quite easy to do, and Col 1:15 doesn't.

Btw, we have your district convention this weekend and I am leaving in about 4 hours for that, so I may not reply until sun/mon time period from this point.

-Tony

[jpholding]

Aherm, ahoy,

Being that we can seemingly agree that OLAM does not make something eternal, I fail to see your real point. Wisdom personified has an awesome age, but it does have an age. God has no age.

The "real point" is that you can't use as an argument that Wisdom is NOT described as eternal in Prov. 8, because if the Hebrews had no word for "eternal" they can hardly use the word to describe anything. It's like asking them to lift both their legs and float in the air.

The word is not there, but the definition of the word is brought forth in the statements made. I fail to see where your hypostasis point applies.

Because if you admit Wisdom in Prov. 8 is a personification of God's attributes, you admit it is a hypostasis.

Actually, semantically, it is the same.

As an English major I disagree. :smile: The difference is subtle but it does exist.

The problem is that Biblically, you cannot refute what I'm saying. Where does scripture call hO LOGOS eternal? You can only seem to supply non-biblical statements that use post-biblical language in attempting to explain things away, but that does not prove anything.

Does it not? As noted, if you are one of those sorts who says, "It's not in the Bible," we may discontinue this conversation now. I do not deal with those who use such a "head in the sand" approach which naively insists that the Bible, apart from its contexts, can be viably interpreted. You cannot maintain such a position with any consistency without tossing out any lexicons, study aids, or other context-determining material. It runs like this:

1) Intertestamental Jewish lit called Wisdom eternal.
2) The NT's descriptions of Christ made clear allusions to this literature, in which what was said of eternal Wisdom in the lit is now said in the NT of Christ.

Your only recourse is:

1) To deny the extensive parallels -- parallels that take up at least a page and a half of citations, using the same words and concepts as the inter. lit
2) To create an arbitrary "two wisdoms" theory

What you are doing is essentially a version of #1 -- pre-emptively. And that is notaddressing the data, but ignoring it arbitrarily based on a pre-conceived idea that "if it isn't in the Bible itself" it isn't relevant. And here you do #2:

God eternally had his LOGOS, but that does not mean he eternally had the one CALLED LOGOS.

This is a completely artificial distinction. Here again the parallels to pre-NT Jewish lit destroy this pretense as well. Jesus was identified WITH Wisdom/Logos directly. And your recourse to this is also flawed:

come to a variety of contradictions, such as "eternally begotten" and "eternal son" and "eternally created.""

Contradiction? Not in the least. Verbs of production like created, generated, etc. contain within them no temporal baggage. The temporality of the object of the verb is determined by the nature of the object, not by the verb itself. Since of course only God is eternal, only God could create or generate from Himself something eternally created or generated. Your only way out of this is to find a verb of production that contains within its semantic freight a connotation of eternality. In other words, if indeed Trinitarianism is true, what verb -- bereft of any adjective -- would be used to describe the Father/Son relationship? (Warning: I debated this with someone recently and they admitted there was no word they could think of....maybe you can do better.)

Fortunately, the Bible is much simpler than this and does not require the philosophy that you try and introduce to it.

Unfortunately, a statement like this is incredibly naive. If you believe it, then have you also thrown out your study of the Greek language? Why not? If you need THAT context to understand the text better, how can you consistently deny the use of other contexts that define and elucidate the text?

It is interesting how people introduce terms like "eternally begotten." If the Bible was trying to relate such a concept, it would have said such!

As noted, the OT could not have, having no word for "eternal" to express the idea. The NT did so by allusion to eternal Wisdom in the other texts.

The fact that people must later come up with these terms in an attempt to explain away what it actually says tells us a lot.

The fact that people must resort to "what it actually says" and ignore contexts tells me a great deal more than that. :smile:

Because you tried to state that I was wrong without a single piece of grammatical evidence for such.

That's what Heyler's material was for. I'm glad you attempted a response this time, but it doesn't make a lot of sense here --

For starters, if we compare Col 1:15 to verse 16, we find that the ALL discussed is not the same. In Col 1:15 we find that Paul used the feminine of PAS, where verse 16 contains the neuter.

What difference does this make? The PAS of Col. 1:15 modifies "creature" does it not? All this tells us is that creatures enjoy a "feminine" relationship with respect to Christ -- whereas "all things" in v. 16 expands beyond creatures to all objects in the universe. This does nothing to defuse what Heyler offered and indeed has no bearing on the matter at all.

Thus, the all of creation he is firstborn of is not the same as that which was created through him.

None of which makes any difference in context. Obviously he is not "firstborn" of rocks and trees. And if eternal Logos, a hypostatic creation of God, can be "firstborn" for Philo, what's the point?

With that said, when a subject is in view and PAS is used, the subject is not neccesarily removed from the group which he/it is spoken of in relation to.

"Not necessarily"? That sure helps. And you touched not one of Heyler's points. Need to cut and dry a little more, feller! :smile:

Umm, no. Because we are dealing with the person Wisdom is personified in, Jesus Christ. That said, this PERSON, who has the attribute of Wisdom (Prov 8:14), which is something God eternally had (the attribute), is not eternal.

That's that artificial distinction again. I have already answered this.

And so we know this personification to be in a person, not the attribute itself.

The conclusion does not follow at all and you have not shown it except by assuming that artificial distinction unknown in the texts.

That said, the person in the LXX is clearly said to be created, thus not being eternal.

See note above about verbs. Until you settle that, you have no options against eternality.

You cannot be eternal and be created, as created, by definition, introduces a point of origin.

It does not, as noted. Nothing in the verb indicates temporal nature, and unless you can identify a verb that expresses eternality, you have no recourse.

QANAH is used for the personification, not the attribute.

For the third or foruth time, the artificial distinction not found in the text. The attribute is what IS personified.

[GodisonePerson]

Dear JP


Contradiction? Not in the least. Verbs of production like created, generated, etc. contain within them no temporal baggage. The temporality of the object of the verb is determined by the nature of the object, not by the verb itself. Since of course only God is eternal, only God could create or generate from Himself something eternally created or generated. Your only way out of this is to find a verb of production that contains within its semantic freight a connotation of eternality. In other words, if indeed Trinitarianism is true, what verb -- bereft of any adjective -- would be used to describe the Father/Son relationship? (Warning: I debated this with someone recently and they admitted there was no word they could think of....maybe you can do better.)

Verbs of production such as "created" or "generated" imply that something came into being or had an origin at a certain point in time. The only way that Nicene defenders can obviate this authentic difficulty is to attach the adjective "eternal" to the verb "generated," define eternal as "timeless" and claim that the Son was begotten eternally, and not created. Even God cannot eternally create a thing since anything created is, by definition, not eternal. This was a point I tried to drive home during our debate. You can't eternally create something any more than you bring forth a square circle or married bachelors. It is logically contradictory to argue that God can eternally create an entity and Nicea realized this fact. That is one reason why the Nicene Creed says that the Son was begotten, not created. While you claim to be in harmony with Nicene orthodoxy, you obviously reject what the creed says about the origin of the Son.

And, for the record, I could not think of a verb of production that inherently connotes eternality because there is not one. If something is produced, it comes into being and thus is not eternal. It is only by word magic that one can contend otherwise. Besides, human language is infected with temporality. But while we may not have verbs of production that connote eternality, the Hebrews had and we have ways to describe the eternal nature of a thing or things.

Sincerely
Dan

[Justme]

This post not only constitutes harassment but is entirely foreign to the thread topic. Re-familiarize yourself with the forum rules. Thank you.

Hi OS,

It's so good to see you.

I've been dropping in on you over at your home place and putting together a case against you.

One of these days you may even see me in your own mirror, I'm looking over your shoulder so close!!!!!!!!!!

Take care ands love life OS,

Justme

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** G1 says--

Verbs of production such as "created" or "generated" imply that something came into being or had an origin at a certain point in time.

**7** this seems to me to place the cart in front of the horse. "created" (in the ante-Nicene era) and "generated" do not, and need not, imply anything other than causation. they are in themselves silent as regards metaphysical necessity. if God (="the Father") can "generate" the Son at t48 on the divine timeline (granting that God lives in time), then there is no reason why God would be unable to have done so at any moment prior to that point. in other words, if God can "create" (="produce") the Son at a moment, it necessarily follows that he can do so at any and every moment at which he (God) exists.

The only way that Nicene defenders can obviate this authentic difficulty is to attach the adjective "eternal" to the verb "generated," define eternal as "timeless" and claim that the Son was begotten eternally, and not created.

**8** this is bogus. Richard Swinburne in The Christian God argues both that God exists within time and that the Son is "as old" as the Father (with an amped up re-working of Richard of St. Victor's argument).
the notion of "eternal generation" (taken in a temporal sense rather than an a-temporal sense) is not at all incoherent. G1's simply asserting as much comes nowhere near proving it.

You can't eternally create something any more than you bring forth a square circle or married bachelors.

**7** if you load the word "create" with strictly Arian connotations, then of course not. but this is, in itself, no more impressive than a Trinitarian simply arguing "You can't have a Father without a Son anymore than you can have an all red wall that is blue!".
Origen was comfortable with the notion of eternal "creation". so too was Dionysius of Alexandria. the entire Nicene school felt at ease with the notion.
again, that G1 offers a misdirected analogy to advance his point is no evidence that he is correct.

While you claim to be in harmony with Nicene orthodoxy, you obviously reject what the creed says about the origin of the Son.

**7** this is a severely unnuanced reading of JP's argument. JP uses the word in its ante-Nicene sense, and therefore he is no more "at odds" with post-Nicene theology than is Origen (on this point).
substitute "generated" or "produced" or "begotten" in place of "created" and try again. they are, in his context, virtually synonymous.

If something is produced, it comes into being and thus is not eternal.

**8** the sun produces shine at every moment at which the sun exists. again, the notion of eternal generation is by no means incoherent; if it is coherent to suppose that God can produce the Son at a moment, it is therefore coherent to suppose that God can produce the Son at any/every moment.

Besides, human language is infected with temporality.

**7** and corporeality as well. and it is every bit as flawed to imagine that God cannot be eternally Father as it is to imagine that God cannot be "spirit"--the reason for both is exactly the same: "i don't get it, i can't picture it; it doesn't correspond to the three-dimensions from which i gain all of my notions regarding reality."

But while we may not have verbs of production that connote eternality, the Hebrews had and we have ways to describe the eternal nature of a thing or things.

**8** aye, here ya go: any being such that that being exists in virtue of its properties is eternal.
adios. thanks for not responding at all to my request that we might be able to tie up our debate by the 15th, alongside your constantly tardy posts.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** yo--

And you have failed to prove such. PRWTOTOKOS does NOT mean preeminence. Sorry, that is not what it means. break the word down, diagram the word. You'll never find preeminence in it.

**7** it really doesn't matter. check the section on "Holt on the Origin of the Son of God" at
http://www.tektonics.org/holtb01.html
peace

[GodisonePerson]

Phantaz Sunlyk says:

**8** G1 says--

Verbs of production such as "created" or "generated" imply that something came into being or had an origin at a certain point in time.

**7** this seems to me to place the cart in front of the horse. "created" (in the ante-Nicene era) and "generated" do not, and need not, imply anything other than causation. they are in themselves silent as regards metaphysical necessity. if God (="the Father") can "generate" the Son at t48 on the divine timeline (granting that God lives in time), then there is no reason why God would be unable to have done so at any moment prior to that point. in other words, if God can "create" (="produce") the Son at a moment, it necessarily follows that he can do so at any and every moment at which he (God) exists.

[G1]
Let's put this issue in perspective. JP Holding argues that he adheres to Nicene orthodoxy. Why you therefore bring in the ante-Nicenes is beyond me. Nicene orthodoxy teaches that the Father timelessly begets the Son. The Son's generation is outside the bounds of time and "co-extensive with the divine life," according to some Catholic theologians. God the Father does not "create" the Son or beget him at T48, says Nicea. If you or JP Holding want to adopt an opposing stance via-a-vis Nicea, you certainly have the political right to do so. But do not pretend that the "eternal creation" idea put forth by Holding is representative of Nicene trinitarianism.

<<The only way that Nicene defenders can obviate this authentic difficulty is to attach the adjective &quot;eternal&quot; to the verb &quot;generated,&quot; define eternal as &quot;timeless&quot; and claim that the Son was begotten eternally, and not created.>>

**8** this is bogus. Richard Swinburne in The Christian God argues both that God exists within time and that the Son is &quot;as old&quot; as the Father (with an amped up re-working of Richard of St. Victor's argument).
the notion of &quot;eternal generation&quot; (taken in a temporal sense rather than an a-temporal sense) is not at all incoherent. G1's simply asserting as much comes nowhere near proving it.

[G1]
Does Swinburne use Holding's language "eternal creation"? Does he equate the verbs "created" and "generated" when they are applied to the eternal Son? I highly doubt it. Besides, since Swinburne posits a God in time, he is not strictly abiding by Nicene orthodoxy. That is, after all, the bone of contention between Holding and me. We are not talking about the ante-Nicene fathers, Swinburne (who does not strictly hold to Nicene orthodoxy which posits a timeless god) or any other party that overtly or covertly rejects the language of the Nicene Creed. For the record, I never claimed that the notion of "eternal generation" is incoherent. But "eternal creation" most certainly is.

<<You can't eternally create something any more than you bring forth a square circle or married bachelors.>>

**7** if you load the word &quot;create&quot; with strictly Arian connotations, then of course not. but this is, in itself, no more impressive than a Trinitarian simply arguing &quot;You can't have a Father without a Son anymore than you can have an all red wall that is blue!&quot;.
Origen was comfortable with the notion of eternal &quot;creation&quot;. so too was Dionysius of Alexandria. the entire Nicene school felt at ease with the notion.
again, that G1 offers a misdirected analogy to advance his point is no evidence that he is correct.

[G1]
I am not about to let you drag a red herring acroos the waters, sir. We are talking about Nicene orthodoxy, not Origen or Dionysius of Alexandrian. Nicea unequivocally and resolutely refused to affirm that the Son was eternally created. It clearly decided that the Son was begotten or generated, not made or created. Comparing Origen with Nicea is comparable to juxtaposing apples and oranges. I know you've read Lacugna. She brings this point out nicely in God for Us (page 61): "The Cappadocians made a very clear distinction between being begotten and being made . . . Everyone admitted that Christ was begotten (gennetos). The task was to show how being begotten did not entail being created (hence the exegetical difficulties with Prov. 8:22)."

**7** this is a severely unnuanced reading of JP's argument. JP uses the word in its ante-Nicene sense, and therefore he is no more &quot;at odds&quot; with post-Nicene theology than is Origen (on this point).
substitute &quot;generated&quot; or &quot;produced&quot; or &quot;begotten&quot; in place of &quot;created&quot; and try again. they are, in his context, virtually synonymous.

[G1]
Excuse me for presenting an "unnuanced reading" of JPH's argument, but he himself never claimed that he was using "create" in the ante-Nicene and not in the Nicene sense. He needs to make this point more explicit, if that is what he means by "created." Since we were talking about Nicene orthodoxy, however, which does not use "generate" and "create" synonymously, I assumed that JPH followed Nicea in this regard. But I now learn that he is actually defending ante-Nicene "orthodoxy" instead?

**8** the sun produces shine at every moment at which the sun exists. again, the notion of eternal generation is by no means incoherent; if it is coherent to suppose that God can produce the Son at a moment, it is therefore coherent to suppose that God can produce the Son at any/every moment.

[G1]
I have not argued that "eternal generation" is incoherent. My point is that you cannot eternally "create" an entity or entities without producing a contradictory state of affairs, unless you rework the standard definition of "create," which Nicea refused to do. To eternally create an entity or entities is logically impossible. Why you choose to change my wording and then attempt to topple over a strawman is somewhat "mysterious." :smile: Finally, Nicea does not seem to say that God produced the Son at "a moment." According to historical orthodoxy (Nicene onwards), the Son is "produced" or generated timelessly. Augustine uses the fateful expression semper natus to describe the Son's eternal, timeless, immutable and continuous generation. The Athanasian Creed also explicitly declares that "The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten." The three persons are said to be one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

**7** and corporeality as well. and it is every bit as flawed to imagine that God cannot be eternally Father as it is to imagine that God cannot be &quot;spirit&quot;--the reason for both is exactly the same: &quot;i don't get it, i can't picture it; it doesn't correspond to the three-dimensions from which i gain all of my notions regarding reality.&quot;

[G1]
I'm not sure why you're bringing in this apparently irrelevant material. I am not contending that God cannot eternally be a Father. The argument presented from this corner is that God cannot eternally create (as the term is traditionally used) an entity or entities.

**8** aye, here ya go: any being such that that being exists in virtue of its properties is eternal.

[G1]
I know you're aware that orthodoxy has historically made a distinction between eternal (=timeless) and everlasting (=infinite time). If Holding meant something different by the term "eternal," he certainly had plenty of chances to set the record straight. But he did not.

<<adios. thanks for not responding at all to my request that we might be able to tie up our debate by the 15th, alongside your constantly tardy posts. [/QUOTE]>>

Sorry we could not finish our debate by the 15th. We usually have 5 days to respond, I thought. Yes, I have been late with some posts and another time, the board was down so that I couldn't post. Before we got started, I tried to tell you that I was extremely busy and also debating Joelkaki. I will reply to you tomorrow. It will be shorter than our other exchanges have been But I will deal with the Medieval and modern evidence for your case. Take your time replying, if you want.

Adios
Dan

[Jezz]

GodisonePerson:
&lt;&lt;The only way that Nicene defenders can obviate this authentic difficulty is to attach the adjective &amp;quot;eternal&amp;quot; to the verb &amp;quot;generated,&amp;quot; define eternal as &amp;quot;timeless&amp;quot; and claim that the Son was begotten eternally, and not created.&gt;&gt;
I'm a little bit out of my league here, but I thought I'd throw this comment out there for consideration...

First, a small nit: if it's attached to a verb, that makes it an adverb, not an adjective.

Second, it would seem to me that the only reason Nicene defenders were forced to add the adverb "eternal" to the verbs "created" and "generated" was because the original Arian heretics tried to reinterpret the meaning of the words "created" and "generated". In NT times they were always understood as being verbs with no particular sense of time attached (and hence not necessarily implying that their beginning must have been in time). It was only the later heretics that tried to assert that "created" implied "created at some point in time". The addition of the word "eternal" was only added to protect the understanding that had always been in place - not to try and change the understanding.

To me, this seems quite simple. Jesus is God's Word/Wisdom - noone in this thread seems to be in dispute with this. So tell me, when was God ever without His Wisdom? The simple answer: never! Thus God's Wisdom must be just as eternal as God Himself. In other words, Jesus must be eternal.

For consistency purposes, it therefore follows that "firstborn" does not imply that Jesus had a beginning in time - it is simply used as a synonym for "heir".

Simple, isn't it? I don't quite see the relevance of all the complicated grammatical arguments - those trying to use them seem to be missing the forest for the trees...?

[GodisonePerson]

Dear Jezz

I must get busy on my "tardy" reply to Phantaz. So, this will be brief.

:First, a small nit: if it's attached to a verb, that makes it an adverb, not an adjective.:

You're correct. What I should have said is, "they attach the adjective "eternal" to the *noun* "generation." Eternal is an adjective, not an adverb. But sorry I confused you earlier.

:Second, it would seem to me that the only reason Nicene defenders were forced to add the adverb &quot;eternal&quot; to the verbs &quot;created&quot; and &quot;generated&quot; was because the original Arian heretics tried to reinterpret the meaning of the words &quot;created&quot; and &quot;generated&quot;. In NT times they were always understood as being verbs with no particular sense of time attached (and hence not necessarily implying that their beginning must have been in time).:

You say that "in NT times" the verb "created" (and generated) did not necessarily imply that something "created" or generated began to exist at a certain time, T. That is an interesting proposition, Jezz. Do you have any examples to support this suggestion? For I don't know of any occurrences in the New Testament where "create" or its derivatives does not imply inceptive action. Moreover, the early church fathers wrote about creatio ex nihilo. Tertullian and the Shepherd of Hermas both argue in favor of this concept. If the word "create" did not necessarily delineate ingressive or inceptive action, what exactly did it mean in Tertullian and the Shepherd? Were they arguing that the world, in being created from nothing, had no beginning in time? And, despite Phantaz' assertions to the contrary, Origen also recognized that the verb of production "create" does imply that a thing created has a beginning, whether in or out of time.

:To me, this seems quite simple. Jesus is God's Word/Wisdom - noone in this thread seems to be in dispute with this. So tell me, when was God ever without His Wisdom? The simple answer: never! Thus God's Wisdom must be just as eternal as God Himself. In other words, Jesus must be eternal.:

We've covered this point, Jezz, and I'm not arguing whether Jesus is eternal or is not eternal. My beef is that Holding wants to place a foot in both areas, so to speak. He wants to say that Jesus is both "eternal" and "created." According to Nicea, that will not work.

:For consistency purposes, it therefore follows that &quot;firstborn&quot; does not imply that Jesus had a beginning in time - it is simply used as a synonym for &quot;heir&quot;.:

Firstborn is not the same as creation. Finally, you can't eternally create an entity or entities. Athanasius knew this, the Cappadocians were aware of this point and later creeds (e.g. Athanasian) affirm that the Son is "increate" but begotten.

Peace
Dan

[Jezz]

GodisonePerson:
I must get busy on my &quot;tardy&quot; reply to Phantaz. So, this will be brief.
No worries - brief is often better. :smile:

You're correct. What I should have said is, &quot;they attach the adjective &quot;eternal&quot; to the *noun* &quot;generation.&quot; Eternal is an adjective, not an adverb. But sorry I confused you earlier.
No worries. You didn't confuse me, I merely wanted to show that I could do grammar too! :wink:

You say that &quot;in NT times&quot; the verb &quot;created&quot; (and generated) did not necessarily imply that something &quot;created&quot; or generated began to exist at a certain time, T. That is an interesting proposition, Jezz. Do you have any examples to support this suggestion? For I don't know of any occurrences in the New Testament where &quot;create&quot; or its derivatives does not imply inceptive action. Moreover, the early church fathers wrote about creatio ex nihilo. Tertullian and the Shepherd of Hermas both argue in favor of this concept. If the word &quot;create&quot; did not necessarily delineate ingressive or inceptive action, what exactly did it mean in Tertullian and the Shepherd? Were they arguing that the world, in being created from nothing, had no beginning in time? And, despite Phantaz' assertions to the contrary, Origen also recognized that the verb of production &quot;create&quot; does imply that a thing created has a beginning, whether in or out of time.
As I said, this is out of my area of expertise. I was merely summarising what I thought Holding et al's argument was (I might be wrong). I am not sure if the textual argument for this position exists.

We've covered this point, Jezz, and I'm not arguing whether Jesus is eternal or is not eternal. My beef is that Holding wants to place a foot in both areas, so to speak. He wants to say that Jesus is both &quot;eternal&quot; and &quot;created.&quot; According to Nicea, that will not work.

[quote]Firstborn is not the same as creation.
I realise that, but I don't see the signficance of this point as you raise it.

Finally, you can't eternally create an entity or entities. Athanasius knew this, the Cappadocians were aware of this point and later creeds (e.g. Athanasian) affirm that the Son is &quot;increate&quot; but begotten.
Well, this all depends on what baggage the society of the time associates with the verb "create". There is only a contradiction if one's interpretation of "create" implies a beginning time point.

Is there any reason why something can't be created at the beginning of time? Yet if it was created at the beginning of time, there there was no time when it didn't exist. Therefore it is also eternal. Thus, there is no contradiction between "created" and "eternal", as I see it. This is what I understand is meant by "eternally created" or "eternally begotten". Similarly, an "eternal generation" or "eternal creation" is a something that was created/generated in the beginning.

[jpholding]

Wow,

Missed a lot, but Jezz and Phantaz are saying what I would. proceed.

Only question for G1: What is is about "created" that makes it unable to have eternal connotations? Um? If it's just usage on temporal objects, then it is the category of object, not the verb, that imposes the limitation and it is the same whether we say "generated" or whatever.

[GodisonePerson]

JPH and Jezz

I got my reply to Phantaz finished, so I don't feel guilty about responding now. :teeth:

[Jezz]
Is there any reason why something can't be created at the beginning of time?

[G1]
Augustine said that God created the universe "with" time. Time was introduced when God brought forth all other things. So, maybe nothing prevents an entity from being created "at the beginning of time." But I'm sure you would not want to call the universe eternal simply because there has never been a time when it did not exist, according to Augustine.

[Jezz]
Yet if it was created at the beginning of time, there there was no time when it didn't exist. Therefore it is also eternal. Thus, there is no contradiction between "created" and "eternal", as I see it.

[G1]
Please remember that we're talking about how Nicea used "eternal," not how you or I might employ the adjective. The 4th century council decided that Christ is eternally begotten or generated, not created. One professing to defend Nicene Trinitarianism should therefore avoid applying the terminology "eternal creation" to the Son.

[JPH]
Only question for G1: What is is about &quot;created&quot; that makes it unable to have eternal connotations? Um? If it's just usage on temporal objects, then it is the category of object, not the verb, that imposes the limitation and it is the same whether we say &quot;generated&quot; or whatever.

[G1]
The problem I have with using expressions such as "eternal creation" is all about semantics, that is, uncancellable denotative properties of signifiers or referring expressions utilized by individuals or entire speech communities. The semantic properties of "create," as it is used in the OT, the NT, as it was applied in the 1st-4th centuries are consistent. The verb constantly refers to the bringing forth of an entity ex nihilo or ex mente. The point is that a creation has potency and goes from non-being to being. But the generation of the Son is semper natus.

In ST IIIa.16.8, Thomas Aquinas cites Jerome's warning that "careless expressions lead to heresy." He makes this statement in the context of discussing whether Christ should be called a creature or not. Thomas answers: "In consequence it should not be stated without qualification that Christ is a creature or is subordinate to the Father; such statements should be qualified by the phrase, 'according to his human nature.'" Christ is not a creature in relation to his divinity.

Peace
Dan

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey G1, i hope you're having a wonderful day :teeth:
and hey, on the side, check this out. the other day i went to the local market to buy meself a sodi-pop, and this short little Jewish guy (with this really big smile on his face, as though he were an 8 year old on the tilty-whirl) is reading "The Watchtower". ("Noah's Flood" or some such was on the cover.) so i ask him, "ya think it really happened?", and he says, "of course!".
anywho, we get to talking, and it turns out that he believes himself to be Jesus (calls hisself "Yeshua"). he called me his "child" (he even called the Witnesses "my children")--a strange fellow, no doubt.
anywayyyysss--

JP Holding argues that he adheres to Nicene orthodoxy. Why you therefore bring in the ante-Nicenes is beyond me.

**8** i brought up the ante-Nicene understanding of the word "created", and cited Origen as proof that there is no dichotomy between eternality (whether temporal or a-temporal) and the word "create" itself. every work i've read on the Nicene era argues the same when it deals with this subject.

Nicene orthodoxy teaches that the Father timelessly begets the Son. The Son's generation is outside the bounds of time and "co-extensive with the divine life," according to some Catholic theologians.

**8** well and good, though i'd caution against reading too much into the word "timelessly", as most who use it haven't any especially clear notion of what it includes/entails.
that said, the above comment from you has no bearing whatever on JP's position. again, you need to take the time to realize that JP isn't simply using the word "create" according to common/contemporary usage (note also the way he uses the word "hypostasis", which is equally distinct from the Nicene sense--why? because he's arguing from within the context of the ANE. but anyone who didn't take the time to realize this would immediately be at cross-purposes when trying to talk with or about him).
though i accept the official statements and tradition of the Church regarding God's eternality, i'm not sure as to the precise manner of God's relationship to time (nor are the official statements and tradition of the Church). since we have to use temporal notions when speaking at all, i'm therefore comfortable with either manner of speaking, and i translate chronology when spoken of in the divine life into logic.

T48, says Nicea. If you or JP Holding want to adopt an opposing stance via-a-vis Nicea, you certainly have the political right to do so. But do not pretend that the "eternal creation" idea put forth by Holding is representative of Nicene trinitarianism.

**8** having read a decent deal of literature on "time" and "eternality" in the divine life, i think it rather hasty on your part to simply pigeon-hole JP's Trinitarian Christology in this respect. if you want, you can try and bang out the precise nature of time, or what exactly it means for God to be outside of it (which JP does maintain). but you need to realize that only after this is done can you advance criticisms of the above nature.
coming from JP, "eternal creation" is identical in meaning with Athanasius' "eternally begotten". you'd be better off gaining your understanding of an author from within his own thought-context rather than to impose your own upon him, and then charging him with the "errors" that come from doing such.

Does Swinburne use Holding's language "eternal creation"?

**8** actually, yes. but again, Swinburne is an analytic philosopher who takes the time to carefully define his words before using them. hence, as with JP, he can't simply be charged with heresy because of the word itself. as Gregory Nazianzus stated, "we won't worry about syllables so long as the meaning is the same".

Does he equate the verbs "created" and "generated" when they are applied to the eternal Son?

**7** again, yes. but the mere fact that you ask this question--as though it were of some especial relevance--proves that you're missing the point. it'd be more relevant if you could show that an ANE specialist doesn't equate certain words, or even an ante-Nicene specialist dealing with Trinitarian Christology.

I highly doubt it.

**8** what right do you have even to speculate as much? it'd be like a Protestant, knowing next to nothing about the JW's, thinking it "dubious at best" that JW's can call Jesus "god". his error would be the same as yours--ignoring context (JW's have a more nuanced understanding of the word g-o-d than our hypothetical Protestant, which allows such a predication to be made of one who is not vested with the commonly-so-called "God properties").

Besides, since Swinburne posits a God in time, he is not strictly abiding by Nicene orthodoxy.

**8** i've talked to Swinburne regarding his understanding of God's relationship to time. i asked whether or not most in the EO Church (which he belongs to) would object to it. his response was that he doubted that there were many who would even understand it.
the point is this--as remarked above, the issue is nowhere near as "cut and dried" as you imagine it to be. when you say "a God in time", i have no reason to think that you mean by that phrase what i would mean in saying as much--still less Swinburne.
what i do realize is this--it would therefore be a severe leap on my part to simply imagine there to be a one-one correspondence between the phrase, the meaning the phrase has according to me, and the meaning the phrase has according to you.

Nicene orthodoxy which posits a timeless god

**8** Nicea wasn't about defining God's relationship to time; it was about rejecting the notion that the Son is contingent. God's relationship to time was a commonly held presupposition (for better or worse), not a subject of dispute. the Arians (at Nicea) didn't even believe the Son to have been begotten in time, and also (verbally) held to the notion of an "eternal" begettal of the Son.

I am not about to let you drag a red herring acroos the waters, sir.

**7** pardon me, Mr., but i don't think you're even in a position to be able to distinguish between a red herring and a baboon, as far as this goes.

We are talking about Nicene orthodoxy, not Origen or Dionysius of Alexandrian. Nicea unequivocally and resolutely refused to affirm that the Son was eternally created.

**8** oh yeah, which anathema was that? i must have missed it.
if the word "created" is taken in an Arian sense, then implicitly, yes. alongside that, re above.

Comparing Origen with Nicea is comparable to juxtaposing apples and oranges.

**7** what???? cite a source!
that's about the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. Nicene Trinitarian Christology practically is taken directly from Origen.

I know you've read Lacugna. She brings this point out nicely in God for Us (page 61): "The Cappadocians made a very clear distinction between being begotten and being made . . . Everyone admitted that Christ was begotten (gennetos). The task was to show how being begotten did not entail being created (hence the exegetical difficulties with Prov. 8:22)."

**7** a pointless comment in context; re above; cf. Widdicombe (_The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius_) pgs 63-93, Hanson (_The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God_) pgs 60-98, 202-207, and Williams (_Arius: Heresy and Tradition_) pgs 131-148.
La Cugna doesn't go, in any depth, into this specific issue, and your citation of her merely proves that you're accustomed to reading what you will into sentences and comments that are sufficiently vague.

but he himself never claimed that he was using "create" in the ante-Nicene and not in the Nicene sense.

**8** the fact that he was comfortable with using it alongside an explicit affirmation of the Nicene Creed should have told you as much (and anyone familiar with his work knows that he practically lives in ANE primary and secondary sources).
instead, you read your own understanding into his words, thereby finding a contradiction.
g'ahead and ask him whether or not i'm right on this one. ask him about the thought-context in which he uses the word "create".

Since we were talking about Nicene orthodoxy, however, which does not use "generate" and "create" synonymously, I assumed that JPH followed Nicea in this regard. But I now learn that he is actually defending ante-Nicene "orthodoxy" instead?

**7** JP's own descriptions of the word (i.e., "the verb is modified by its object", etc.) were clear enough. he can't be blamed for both your inability to not anachronize alongside your lack of a firm grasp on Nicene Trinitarian Christology (see my debate with G1 for more on this).

unless you rework the standard definition of "create," which Nicea refused to do

**8** Nicea "refused"????? good grief man, the very work from La Cugna that you rely on says that genetos (create) and gennetos (beget) were synonyms prior to the late fourth century (pgs 32-33). if the Cappadocians "clearly differentiated" between the two, then the Nicenes had to have reworked (or better still, "clarified") the standard definitions.

Why you choose to change my wording and then attempt to topple over a strawman is somewhat "mysterious."

**7** still more proof that G1 can't manage to find the point.

According to historical orthodoxy (Nicene onwards), the Son is "produced" or generated timelessly.

**8** etc., etc. this proves only that, as La Cugna stated, there was terminological clarification resulting from the Nicene era. it says nothing about the words in themselves or in another context.

Before we got started, I tried to tell you that I was extremely busy and also debating Joelkaki.

**7** no bigee. its not so much that you are slow in responding--its that you failed to address the pm i sent to you. (for example, you could have said, "well, i'll go as quickly as i can, but i'm rather busy, so i wouldn't expect too much", or some such).
adios.

[AVmetro]

Btw, we have your district convention this weekend and I am leaving in about 4 hours for that, so I may not reply until sun/mon time period from this point.

Then I'll refrain from posting on this topic till then. Have a nice weekend. :wink:

God bless

[GodisonePerson]

**8** say hey G1, i hope you're having a wonderful day :teeth:
and hey, on the side, check this out. the other day i went to the local market to buy meself a sodi-pop, and this short little Jewish guy (with this really big smile on his face, as though he were an 8 year old on the tilty-whirl) is reading &quot;The Watchtower&quot;. (&quot;Noah's Flood&quot; or some such was on the cover.) so i ask him, &quot;ya think it really happened?&quot;, and he says, &quot;of course!&quot;.
anywho, we get to talking, and it turns out that he believes himself to be Jesus (calls hisself &quot;Yeshua&quot;). he called me his &quot;child&quot; (he even called the Witnesses &quot;my children&quot;)--a strange fellow, no doubt.
anywayyyysss--

[G1]
You my hero, Phantaz. You still want to be a Roman Catholic Byzantine monk? Why not be a bishop instead? Hear they need a new one in Arizonee. :help: And t'anks [sic] for sharing that storee bout the strange Jewish feller wit' may. Don't want to be accused of antisemitism though. :teeth:

**8** i brought up the ante-Nicene understanding of the word &quot;created&quot;, and cited Origen as proof that there is no dichotomy between eternality (whether temporal or a-temporal) and the word &quot;create&quot; itself. every work i've read on the Nicene era argues the same when it deals with this subject.

[G1]
I'll quote papa Widdicombe later. 'Llow me to quoteth Sir Jaroslav Pelikan fer now:

"It was to the incarnate one and to the reality of his created nature as man that the defenders of Nicea applied those passages of subordination on the basis of which the Arians had called the preexistent one a creature. This meant, above all, that 'he created me' in Proverbs 8:22 either had to be using 'created' in an improper sense or had to be speaking of the created humanity of the incarnate Christ" (The Christian Tradition, 1:205).

Sir Pelikan says the Nicene defenders chose the latter deal, interpreting the word "created" as a reference to Christ's humanity, not to his preexistence. Thomas Marsh makes this same point in The Triune God. He views this exegetical approach as a somewhat desperate move by Athanasius which did not take into account the "conditioned" nature of biblical revelation. At any rate, Nicea parted ways with Origen when it came to referring the verb of production "created" to Christ. Nicea knew that you cannot create something eternally, whether in time or out. If Holding claims to be a defender of Nicene orthodoxy, then he needs to drop the terminology, "eternal creation" as applied to the Son's divinity.

**8** well and good, though i'd caution against reading too much into the word &quot;timelessly&quot;, as most who use it haven't any especially clear notion of what it includes/entails.
that said, the above comment from you has no bearing whatever on JP's position. again, you need to take the time to realize that JP isn't simply using the word &quot;create&quot; according to common/contemporary usage (note also the way he uses the word &quot;hypostasis&quot;, which is equally distinct from the Nicene sense--why? because he's arguing from within the context of the ANE. but anyone who didn't take the time to realize this would immediately be at cross-purposes when trying to talk with or about him).

[G1]
Fair enough, if Holding makes this usage explicit and refers to himself as a ANE or an ANF defender rather than a defender of Nicene orthodoxy. But he ain't done this fer as I can tale [sic].

**8** having read a decent deal of literature on &quot;time&quot; and &quot;eternality&quot; in the divine life, i think it rather hasty on your part to simply pigeon-hole JP's Trinitarian Christology in this respect. if you want, you can try and bang out the precise nature of time, or what exactly it means for God to be outside of it (which JP does maintain). but you need to realize that only after this is done can you advance criticisms of the above nature.
coming from JP, &quot;eternal creation&quot; is identical in meaning with Athanasius' &quot;eternally begotten&quot;. you'd be better off gaining your understanding of an author from within his own thought-context rather than to impose your own upon him, and then charging him with the &quot;errors&quot; that come from doing such.

[G1]
If Holding thinks God is outside of time, my criticisms are valid. Furthermore, the comments made here are based on the earlier debate in which Holding did lay out some of his views regarding God and time without mentioning that he was approaching the matter from an ANE perspective. As I recall correctly, Holding claimed to be an advocate of Nicene orthodoxy. Nicea says, "begotten, not made" or created. It that simple.

[G1]
Does Swinburne use Holding's language &quot;eternal creation&quot;?

**8** actually, yes. but again, Swinburne is an analytic philosopher who takes the time to carefully define his words before using them. hence, as with JP, he can't simply be charged with heresy because of the word itself. as Gregory Nazianzus stated, &quot;we won't worry about syllables so long as the meaning is the same&quot;.

[G1]
Where exactly does Swinburne call Christ an "eternal creation" and apply this language to the divinity of the Son? And, while Gregory may not been worried 'bout syllables, Thomas declared that careless speech leads to heresy. Analytic philosopher or not, Holding should avoid the language of "created" for the preexistent Son, if he wants to avoid "heresy."

[G1]
Does he equate the verbs &quot;created&quot; and &quot;generated&quot; when they are applied to the eternal Son?

**7** again, yes. but the mere fact that you ask this question--as though it were of some especial relevance--proves that you're missing the point. it'd be more relevant if you could show that an ANE specialist doesn't equate certain words, or even an ante-Nicene specialist dealing with Trinitarian Christology.

[G1]
You brought up Swinburne and that's why I'm asking you about him. You make the claim that Swinburne uses the same language as Holding and seemingly means the same thing as my other hero when speaking of Christ as an "eternal creation," yet you ain't shared a thang Swinburne actually wrote with the class. C'mon, hero. Play nice and give us a quote from Swinburne. :smile:

[G1]
Besides, since Swinburne posits a God in time, he is not strictly abiding by Nicene orthodoxy.

**8** i've talked to Swinburne regarding his understanding of God's relationship to time. i asked whether or not most in the EO Church (which he belongs to) would object to it. his response was that he doubted that there were many who would even understand it.
the point is this--as remarked above, the issue is nowhere near as &quot;cut and dried&quot; as you imagine it to be. when you say &quot;a God in time&quot;, i have no reason to think that you mean by that phrase what i would mean in saying as much--still less Swinburne.
what i do realize is this--it would therefore be a severe leap on my part to simply imagine there to be a one-one correspondence between the phrase, the meaning the phrase has according to me, and the meaning the phrase has according to you.

[G1]
I've read Swinburne's Coherence of Theism and know what he means by God being temporal. I also realize that Nicene orthodoxy excludes the notion of a temporal generation for the Son. He was begotten timelessly according to Nicea. Augustine also writes that the Son was generated before God brought forth the universe "with time" in his Confessions. One may not be classified as a heretic if she posits divine temporality. But one who argues for a temporal God is certainly going beyond the clear confession of 325 CE.

**8** Nicea wasn't about defining God's relationship to time; it was about rejecting the notion that the Son is contingent. God's relationship to time was a commonly held presupposition (for better or worse), not a subject of dispute. the Arians (at Nicea) didn't even believe the Son to have been begotten in time, and also (verbally) held to the notion of an &quot;eternal&quot; begettal of the Son.

[G1]
Never said that Nicea was about "defining God's relationship to time, sir. But when the council stated,

"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"

It certainly did not mean that the Son was begotten in time. See Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall. The Trinity, page 28; O'Collins, The Tripersonal God, page 99.

[G1]
I am not about to let you drag a red herring acroos the waters, sir.

**7** pardon me, Mr., but i don't think you're even in a position to be able to distinguish between a red herring and a baboon, as far as this goes.

[G1]
That's what you get for thinking, as they say. :smile: A red herring floats, but a baboon don't.

**8** oh yeah, which anathema was that? i must have missed it.
if the word &quot;created&quot; is taken in an Arian sense, then implicitly, yes. alongside that, re above.

[G1]
Your interpretation of Nicea leaves a lot to be desired. The Nicene Council did not mean that they only anathamatized the word "created" as applied to the preexistent Son when it carried an "Arian" sense. Take some Sir Pelikan, Didymus the Blind, Athanasius, Cappadocians, Widdicombe and call moi in the morning.

**7** what???? cite a source!
that's about the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. Nicene Trinitarian Christology practically is taken directly from Origen.

[G1]
If that's true, then why did Nicea and subsequent writers refuse to apply the verb "created" to the preexistent divine Son? Why did Athanasius argue that the verb "created" only referred to Christ's humanity?

[G1]
I know you've read Lacugna. She brings this point out nicely in God for Us (page 61): &quot;The Cappadocians made a very clear distinction between being begotten and being made . . . Everyone admitted that Christ was begotten (gennetos). The task was to show how being begotten did not entail being created (hence the exegetical difficulties with Prov. 8:22).&quot;

**7** a pointless comment in context; re above; cf. Widdicombe (_The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius_) pgs 63-93, Hanson (_The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God_) pgs 60-98, 202-207, and Williams (_Arius: Heresy and Tradition_) pgs 131-148. La Cugna doesn't go, in any depth, into this specific issue, and your citation of her merely proves that you're accustomed to reading what you will into sentences and comments that are sufficiently vague.

[G1]
I think you need to read what papa Widdicombe writes on pages 89-90. Origen used ktisis, Widdicome contends. However, what he meant by it is far from clear. More significantly, later orthodoxy distanced itself from such language. It thought it proper to use the term "create" or "created" only when referring to the Son's humanity. So Thomas, et al.

[G1]
Since we were talking about Nicene orthodoxy, however, which does not use &quot;generate&quot; and &quot;create&quot; synonymously, I assumed that JPH followed Nicea in this regard. But I now learn that he is actually defending ante-Nicene &quot;orthodoxy&quot; instead?

**7** JP's own descriptions of the word (i.e., &quot;the verb is modified by its object&quot;, etc.) were clear enough. he can't be blamed for both your inability to not anachronize alongside your lack of a firm grasp on Nicene Trinitarian Christology (see my debate with G1 for more on this).

[G1]
I like your standards of fairness, my hero. I'm supposed to "anachronize" (an exegetical fallacy) and figure out what my opponent failed to clearly articulate? Right on! :thumb: And you have no idea how firm my "grasp" is of Nicene Trinitarian Christology, as if there is any other kind of Nicene Christology (harhar). Seems my grasp is firmer than you or Holding's if you think it is ok to call the preexistent Son an "eternal creation" and still remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.

**8** Nicea &quot;refused&quot;????? good grief man, the very work from La Cugna that you rely on says that genetos (create) and gennetos (beget) were synonyms prior to the late fourth century (pgs 32-33). if the Cappadocians &quot;clearly differentiated&quot; between the two, then the Nicenes had to have reworked (or better still, &quot;clarified&quot;) the standard definitions.

[G1]
True, beget and create were synonymous. The Arians used this distinction to prove that the begotten Son was a creature. But Nicea and the Cappadocians didn't rework the definitions only refined the terms. They subsequently spoke of Christ as begotten, not created, and denied that begottenness entailed createdness. You ain't said a thang to subvert that fact.

Nuff fun for won [sic] night.

Adios
Dan

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey G1--

You my hero, Phantaz.

**7** really?

You still want to be a Roman Catholic Byzantine monk?

**8** do you really care?

Why not be a bishop instead? Hear they need a new one in Arizonee.

**7** nice! a below the belt move. smoke must be coming out ya ears--no need to guess what caused it, nyuk nyuk nyuk :rofl:
composure, old boy, composure!

'Llow me to quoteth Sir Jaroslav Pelikan fer now:

**8** well, as they say in Carolina (:wink:), "let 'im holla!"

"It was to the incarnate one and to the reality of his created nature as man that the defenders of Nicea applied those passages of subordination on the basis of which the Arians had called the preexistent one a creature. This meant, above all, that 'he created me' in Proverbs 8:22 either had to be using 'created' in an improper sense or had to be speaking of the created humanity of the incarnate Christ" (The Christian Tradition, 1:205).

**7** but yo!, flip the scrip a few pages back, and check wha' the man sez--
The trinitarian and christological exegesis of this passage [Prov. 8:22f.] of distinction had used it [in the ante-Nicene corpus] to specify how the preexistent Logos was to be distinguished from the creatures. For Athenagoras, it meant that God, being eternally "endowed with reason", had the Logos within himself eternally, and that therefore the Son, as Logos, "did not come into existence" but was eternal. [Pelikan: 1, 191]
and check wha' Henri Crouzel notes regarding "[The] Ante-Nicenes" use "of the verb ktizein[/] ["create"] and its derivatives [I]ktisis and ktisma." 'Dat "Prov. 8:22 puts into the mouth of Wisdom, who for most of the early Fathers represents the Son, the words 'ho kyrios ektisen me' and a little further on it is a question of the generation (gennao) of Wisdom. Likewise Col. 1:15 calls Christ the first-born of all ktisis, thus including him in the ktisis. That is why these words do not have for Origen the strict meaning of creating ... So ktizein applies to all God's production, by generation or by creation." [Henri Crouzel, Origen, pg. 175]
so what do we have here? nothing more than more evidence of G1's flawed hermeneutic and inability to not anachronize when he needs to beat a source until it says what he needs it to. the word "create", like almost all words in general (and certain words during the Nicene era especially) gained a precision that it did not have prior to that point. no one wishes to deny that "create" was a word that the Nicenes didn't apply to the Son--the question here is the meaning of that word in particular contexts (JP Holding's sense, and the sense of the word prior to the Nicene era).
perhaps they don't teach grad students at GlasLen to not collapse two distinct meanings under a single word and use the word itself to confuse the meanings. i recommend further studies be taken under the guidance of James Dunn at Durham, if ya got 'da bank.

Sir Pelikan says the Nicene defenders chose the latter deal, interpreting the word "created" as a reference to Christ's humanity, not to his preexistence. Thomas Marsh makes this same point in The Triune God. He views this exegetical approach as a somewhat desperate move by Athanasius which did not take into account the "conditioned" nature of biblical revelation.

**7** on the side, it is also worth noting that certain anti-Arians, such as Basil of Ancyra, continued to use "create" in reference to the Son's deity (by which they meant no more than that the Father produced or generated the Son), and that Basil was ultimately accepted by Athanasius, alongside being something of a mentor to Basil of Caesarea.
back to the main-line, the above only proves that the Nicenes were somewhat anachronistic as well, and did the best that they could to save the sense of the passage (in light of the then present controversy) while disallowing a heretical interpretation.

At any rate, Nicea parted ways with Origen when it came to referring the verb of production "created" to Christ.

**8** re above, the word itself had become sharpened, thus carrying more definite connotations not exclusively acknowledged by Origen.
and this is what is oh so wonderful about G1--

Nicea knew that you cannot create something eternally, whether in time or out.

**7** that he doth ignore context. he acts as though the word itself were something like immutable, always having the exact same meaning, from Proverbs to Colossians to Philo to Origen to Arius to Basil to J.P. Holding.

If Holding claims to be a defender of Nicene orthodoxy, then he needs to drop the terminology, "eternal creation" as applied to the Son's divinity.

**7** Holding speaks from and within the historical-cultural of the ANE, and if G1 wishes to engage him, he must atleast be aware of where the battle is to be fought. Holding never "carelessly" applies the word "create" to the Son; he almost always qualifies it by equating it with "produced" or "generated" or some other such word, and this for the express purpose of making it clear that he doesn't intend it in an unorthodox way.
but this is too much for G1 to grasp ... either that, or he's unable to not pounce on the chance to take something out of context and impose upon it a confusion that isn't there.
judging from my interactions with 'im so far, my guess would be that it's a little bit of both.

Fair enough, if Holding makes this usage explicit and refers to himself as a ANE or an ANF defender rather than a defender of Nicene orthodoxy.

**7** he doesn't need to abandon being a defender of Nicene orthodoxy in order to speak as he speaks, and this because he qualifies the sense of the word when he uses it. your inability to grasp what he says isn't his problem, and i find it strange that the only people who complain about him are neo-Arians who are unable to argue with men not made of straw.

But he ain't done this fer as I can tale [sic].

**8** how far can you tale? nyuk nyuk nyuk :teeth:

If Holding thinks God is outside of time, my criticisms are valid.

**7** no they aren't, and this for the simple reason that you load the word with connotations not acknowledged by Holding.
your criticisms are valid? well, atleast we see here G1's epistemic prowess going at full steam, if nothing else.

Where exactly does Swinburne call Christ an "eternal creation" and apply this language to the divinity of the Son?

**8** in a Journal article defending the coherence of the Trinity entitled Could There be More than One God?--you can look it up online (and i'm sure this article would be tons o' fun for you, as you could very easily misread it and take it out of context and charge Swinburne with polytheism as well; right up your alley!). in it he says that "The creation of the second God by the first of which I am speaking is an everlasting creation; at each moment of endless time the first God keeps in being the second God."

And, while Gregory may not been worried 'bout syllables, Thomas declared that careless speech leads to heresy. Analytic philosopher or not, Holding should avoid the language of "created" for the preexistent Son, if he wants to avoid "heresy."

**7** re above, Holding, in modifying the word almost every time he uses it, avoids being "careless". its neither his fault nor mine that you are unable to approach a statement without reading into it every incoherence that is convenient for you.

the same thing as my other hero

**8** yo G1, lighten up ol' boy! :rant:

yet you ain't shared a thang Swinburne actually wrote with the class. C'mon, hero. Play nice and give us a quote from Swinburne.

**7** ouch, that was a rather unfortunate display of displaced confidence on your part :rofl:
next time, count 'da odds before ya role the dice.

A red herring floats, but a baboon don't.

**8** for some reason i'm inclined to think that your statements on this subject are more accurate than your statements regarding the theology of the Trinity.
atleast we know why your posts are so late :rofl:

Your interpretation of Nicea leaves a lot to be desired.

**7** quite a charge, coming from an Arian :teeth:

The Nicene Council did not mean that they only anathamatized the word "created" as applied to the preexistent Son when it carried an "Arian" sense.

**8** yes, it did.

call moi in the morning.

**7** give me your number and i will.

If that's true, then why did Nicea and subsequent writers refuse to apply the verb "created" to the preexistent divine Son? Why did Athanasius argue that the verb "created" only referred to Christ's humanity?

**8** cf Widdicombe and the above mentioned work by Crouzel, pgs. 186-192.

I think you need to read what papa Widdicombe writes on pages 89-90. Origen used ktisis, Widdicome contends. However, what he meant by it is far from clear.

**7** and the very first sentence from the paragraph you allude to explicitly states that, with regard to the Father's production of the Son, "he does not do so in the same sense that he wills the world into existence." at the end of that paragraph, Widdicombe cites the work from Rowan Williams i cited in my previous post, stating that according to Origen "the Logos is without doubt formed by the Father, directly and uniquely, in a way that sets him apart at least from what later orthodoxy understood as 'creation'." on page 91, Widdicombe concludes that the Son's relationship to the Father is held, according to Origen, "irrespective of his role in relation to creation" and that the "Father-Son relation is simply part of the definition of the word God".
hence once again G1's attempt to hi-jack a source is brought to a screeching halt. while it may not be totally clear how Origen understood the word "create" in reference to the Son, it is clear that his understanding of the word excluded the only connotation that is excluded by orthodoxy.
mebbe now, with your interest piqued, you can take another few days and try and track down a copy of the above mentioned work by Crouzel for more on this point, as you've done with Widdicombe :teeth:

I'm supposed to "anachronize" (an exegetical fallacy) and figure out what my opponent failed to clearly articulate? Right on!

**8** "failed to clearly articulate"??? don't blame anyone for your self for your inability to read.

And you have no idea how firm my "grasp" is of Nicene Trinitarian Christology,

**7** sure i do--i just watched you dodge it entirely in our debate with me in the Wrestling Ring. the equating of "the Father" with "the Power of the Father" in Ambrose, alongside the ridiculous attempt to subvert Athanasius' talk of generation to your understanding of homoousious, alongside other such windows into the competence of your prowess, was rather telling.

as if there is any other kind of Nicene Christology (harhar

**8** actually, there is--i distinguish Incarnational Christology from Trinitarian Christology. the one refers to the unity of two natures in the one person of the Son, the other refers to the relationship of the divine in the Son to the divine in the Father and Holy Spirit.

Seems my grasp is firmer than you or Holding's if you think it is ok to call the preexistent Son an "eternal creation" and still remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.

**7** you can't even properly exegete a person talking with you now. what reason do we have to think that you're capable of interpreting persons 1600+ years dead?
whatever it is that you have a firm "grasp" on, i suggest that you let it go, thus allowing yourself the ability to take hold of the writings you are supposed to be reading.
on the side, i find it somewhat strange that G1 uses for a screen-name a phrase taken from Lactantius that Mr. Edgar Foster used to use for a signature line, alongside his penchant for talk of Tertullian, and ceaseless badgering of me ever since he arrived on this board. judging from his rather lifeless sarcasm, it looks like his attempt at axe-grinding incognito has resulted in the grinding of his nerves :smile:
keep it up--whether data or wit, you'll get stomped in both areas.
holla at ya later, as they say in Carolina :thumb:

[Jezz]

GodisonePerson:
[Jezz]
Is there any reason why something can't be created at the beginning of time?

[G1]
Augustine said that God created the universe &quot;with&quot; time. Time was introduced when God brought forth all other things.
Indeed. Modern physics is in complete agreement here - time began when the universe began.

So, maybe nothing prevents an entity from being created &quot;at the beginning of time.&quot; But I'm sure you would not want to call the universe eternal simply because there has never been a time when it did not exist, according to Augustine.
Ahh, this is where things get a little tricky. Our language starts to betray us, because our language describes events that always rely on time. For example, the question "was Jesus created before the universe" does not make sense, because "before" means "earlier in time" (in this context). But you can't get any earlier in time than the beginning of time - which was the point at which the universe was created. So Jesus cannot have been created "before the universe", by definition. He can only have been created "in the beginning". Indeed, that is the earliest point in time that anything could have been done, because by definition it is the earliest point in time.

I'm not sure how the Niceans define "eternal" (perhaps someone here could enlighten me), but I have understood it to mean "to exist for all time". You have correctly noted that by this definition, the universe must be eternal. I personally do not see the problem with this. Perhaps if/when I get the "proper" definition of eternal, I might understand.

[Jezz]
Yet if it was created at the beginning of time, there there was no time when it didn't exist. Therefore it is also eternal. Thus, there is no contradiction between &quot;created&quot; and &quot;eternal&quot;, as I see it.

[G1]
Please remember that we're talking about how Nicea used &quot;eternal,&quot; not how you or I might employ the adjective. The 4th century council decided that Christ is eternally begotten or generated, not created. One professing to defend Nicene Trinitarianism should therefore avoid applying the terminology &quot;eternal creation&quot; to the Son.
Well, that completely depends on how one defines "eternal creation". If one defines "eternally created" in such a way that it means exactly the same thing as the Niceans mean when they said "eternally begotten", then there is no problem.

[jpholding]

I'll juts note here that Phantaz represents my position accurately.

I should know, dang it, it's MY view. :smile:

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey Jezz, i hope all is well with you--

For example, the question "was Jesus created before the universe" does not make sense, because "before" means "earlier in time" (in this context). But you can't get any earlier in time than the beginning of time - which was the point at which the universe was created. So Jesus cannot have been created "before the universe", by definition. He can only have been created "in the beginning".

**7** actually, i think your position needs to be modified somewhat. the Son's procession is metaphysically antecedent to creation (of angels, the universe, etc.) according to Nicene orthodoxy. in other words, the Father-Son relationship exists for its own sake and it is essential to both persons--the Son as well as the Father (and this cannot be said of creation).
also, there is a common interpretation of Gen. 1:1 in the history of the church, according to which the "beginning" spoken of is Christ (cf. Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15f). in other words, to say that God created "in the beginning" is to say that God created through and by his Son, who is "the beginning".

I'm not sure how the Niceans define "eternal" (perhaps someone here could enlighten me), but I have understood it to mean "to exist for all time".

**8** they, and pretty much everyone in the 4th century (including the Arians) understood it as "existing outside of time". but whatever way you understand it, it doesn't really matter here, so long as you agree that the Son is intrinsic to the Father (hence if God is "outside of time", so too would the Son be, in the exact same sense, since he is proper to the being of God).

Well, that completely depends on how one defines "eternal creation". If one defines "eternally created" in such a way that it means exactly the same thing as the Niceans mean when they said "eternally begotten", then there is no problem.

**8** if you can agree with what i've said above, the Nicenes would have no problem with you :smile:
peace and all good things.

[Tsmith]

06-19-2003 @ 08:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=128031#post128031)
jpholding:

The &quot;real point&quot; is that you can't use as an argument that Wisdom is NOT described as eternal in Prov. 8, because if the Hebrews had no word for &quot;eternal&quot; they can hardly use the word to describe anything. It's like asking them to lift both their legs and float in the air.

It is argued by the fact that personified wisdom is spoken of as coming into existance.


Because if you admit Wisdom in Prov. 8 is a personification of God's attributes, you admit it is a hypostasis.


It is the fact that the attribute is personified IN A PERSON that makes this untrue.


As an English major I disagree. :smile: The difference is subtle but it does exist.

The subtle difference has no real impact on my orignal point.


Does it not? As noted, if you are one of those sorts who says, &quot;It's not in the Bible,&quot; we may discontinue this conversation now. I do not deal with those who use such a &quot;head in the sand&quot; approach which naively insists that the Bible, apart from its contexts, can be viably interpreted. You cannot maintain such a position with any consistency without tossing out any lexicons, study aids, or other context-determining material. It runs like this:

1) Intertestamental Jewish lit called Wisdom eternal.
2) The NT's descriptions of Christ made clear allusions to this literature, in which what was said of eternal Wisdom in the lit is now said in the NT of Christ.


Wait a second. You are the one that has been going on how about it could NOT call wisdom eternal, but only OLAM. Now you say it calls it eternal? Which is it? the NT never remotely indicates Christ as Wisdom is eternal.


Your only recourse is:

1) To deny the extensive parallels -- parallels that take up at least a page and a half of citations, using the same words and concepts as the inter. lit
2) To create an arbitrary &quot;two wisdoms&quot; theory


The two wisdom "theory" is hardly a theory, but a reality proven by Proverbs 8.


This is a completely artificial distinction. Here again the parallels to pre-NT Jewish lit destroy this pretense as well. Jesus was identified WITH Wisdom/Logos directly. And your recourse to this is also flawed:

You've failed to thus far proven anything.

Contradiction? Not in the least. Verbs of production like created, generated, etc. contain within them no temporal baggage. The temporality of the object of the verb is determined by the nature of the object, not by the verb itself. Since of course only God is eternal, only God could create or generate from Himself something eternally created or generated. Your only way out of this is to find a verb of production that contains within its semantic freight a connotation of eternality. In other words, if indeed Trinitarianism is true, what verb -- bereft of any adjective -- would be used to describe the Father/Son relationship? (Warning: I debated this with someone recently and they admitted there was no word they could think of....maybe you can do better.)

Actually, there is a temporal implication within the verbs themselves. If one is created, the temporal aspect is implied. Further, Proverbs 8 relates this creation to actually being birthed. If one is birthed, there is a time when this even takes place, that being the persons origin.

Unfortunately, a statement like this is incredibly naive. If you believe it, then have you also thrown out your study of the Greek language? Why not? If you need THAT context to understand the text better, how can you consistently deny the use of other contexts that define and elucidate the text?

This statements has no relation to what I said in any reality.


As noted, the OT could not have, having no word for &quot;eternal&quot; to express the idea. The NT did so by allusion to eternal Wisdom in the other texts.

You keep talking about allusions too. Maybe because you want them to, but it is of course of great interest that it never actually states such.

The fact that people must resort to &quot;what it actually says&quot; and ignore contexts tells me a great deal more than that. :smile:

Context is wonderful, but read what the context actually says. Stop trying to read into the text.


That's what Heyler's material was for. I'm glad you attempted a response this time, but it doesn't make a lot of sense here --


Actually, it makes perfect sense from the standpoint of grammar.


What difference does this make? The PAS of Col. 1:15 modifies &quot;creature&quot; does it not? All this tells us is that creatures enjoy a &quot;feminine&quot; relationship with respect to Christ -- whereas &quot;all things&quot; in v. 16 expands beyond creatures to all objects in the universe. This does nothing to defuse what Heyler offered and indeed has no bearing on the matter at all.

You err in assuming KTISEWS is limted to living beings. There is no basis for such an assumption. There is nothing to rule out it including rocks, for example.


None of which makes any difference in context. Obviously he is not &quot;firstborn&quot; of rocks and trees. And if eternal Logos, a hypostatic creation of God, can be &quot;firstborn&quot; for Philo, what's the point?

Why is he not firstborn of rocks? I would say he certainly is!


&quot;Not necessarily&quot;? That sure helps. And you touched not one of Heyler's points. Need to cut and dry a little more, feller! :smile:

Actually, it is very cut and dry. Jesus is not removed from the realm of creation even thought it says that through him all was created, because the way the Greek grammar functions.



That's that artificial distinction again. I have already answered this.

Actually, you haven't. A clear distinction is made in Proverbs 8.



Then why does the one personified as Wisdom possess the attribute? There are two cases of Wisdom, one as a person and one as an attribute.


[quote]See note above about verbs. Until you settle that, you have no options against eternality.

Origin is an implied part of creation, and further it speaks of it being birthed, thus requiring an event to have taken place.


It does not, as noted. Nothing in the verb indicates temporal nature, and unless you can identify a verb that expresses eternality, you have no recourse.

I don't need a verb to express eternality, you do. The fact that a word is used that makes a direct implication to a time where existance was not is all I need.


For the third or foruth time, the artificial distinction not found in the text. The attribute is what IS personified.

The attribute is personifed in the person. When the PERSON speaks, the PERSON says he had an origin.

-Tony

[Jezz]

phantaz sunlyk:
**8** say hey Jezz, i hope all is well with you--
Hey phantaz, stuff is mostly well with me - I hope the same of you. :smile:

**7** actually, i think your position needs to be modified somewhat. the Son's procession is metaphysically antecedent to creation (of angels, the universe, etc.) according to Nicene orthodoxy. in other words, the Father-Son relationship exists for its own sake and it is essential to both persons--the Son as well as the Father
Yes, that is my belief.

(and this cannot be said of creation).
I'm not quite sure I agree with that. It might be right and is what I've thought for many years, but I recently started to toy with some different reasoning. Perhaps you'd like to have a look at it and see what you think.

It is plain to me that the universe could not exist without God. But what about the opposite - could God exist without the universe? I would argue that He couldn't. But before you jump on this interpretation as being an affront to God's ability to do as He pleases, please hear me out! :smile:

My reasoning is actually the other way around. The fact that God created the universe means that it was God's will to create the universe. He wouldn't be our God if He didn't want to create this universe. And because God's will is always done, this means that our God could not exist if the universe did not exist. So rather than the position "God could not exist without the universe" being an affront to God's sovereignity, it's actually the other way around - it is precisely because of God's sovereignity that He couldn't exist without the universe that His will desired.

I suppose that God could have chosen not to create the universe if He so desired, but if He did so desire, then He wouldn't be our God.

Perhaps this is a lesser degree of "essentiality" in this link than the Father-Son relationship, but I certainly think that God could not exist without the universe.

also, there is a common interpretation of Gen. 1:1 in the history of the church, according to which the &quot;beginning&quot; spoken of is Christ (cf. Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15f). in other words, to say that God created &quot;in the beginning&quot; is to say that God created through and by his Son, who is &quot;the beginning&quot;.
That doesn't make quite as much sense to me - how does that harmonise with John 1:1? Why say "In the beginning was the Word" if the Word was the beginning?

Disclaimer: I do believe that all things were made through Jesus, as per the Nicene creed - I just don't think that Gen 1:1 is evidence of that. It's certainly compatible with that interpretation, but I don't think it's evidence.

**8** they, and pretty much everyone in the 4th century (including the Arians) understood it as &quot;existing outside of time&quot;. but whatever way you understand it, it doesn't really matter here, so long as you agree that the Son is intrinsic to the Father (hence if God is &quot;outside of time&quot;, so too would the Son be, in the exact same sense, since he is proper to the being of God).
I do believe that the Son is intrinsic to the Father. I believe that both are "outside of time", in the sense that they were the same in the beginning as they are now, and as they will be for the rest of time. I can't think of any definition of "outside of time" that makes sense apart from this (though I'm open to suggestions).

[snip]

**8** if you can agree with what i've said above, the Nicenes would have no problem with you :smile:
peace and all good things.
I do agree (with the possible exception outlined above, pending your input). Thanks for the clarification.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey Jezz, happy day!

Hey phantaz, stuff is mostly well with me - I hope the same of you.

**7** actually, i'm doing kinda rubbishy. i think i have kidoacedosis (sp?)--a condition that comes from hyperglycemia (diabetes). hopefully things'll gradually get better this week though.

I suppose that God could have chosen not to create the universe if He so desired, but if He did so desire, then He wouldn't be our God.
Perhaps this is a lesser degree of "essentiality" in this link than the Father-Son relationship, but I certainly think that God could not exist without the universe.

**7** i see where you're coming from, and i'm not entirely opposed to what i think lies at the bottom of your (admittedly somewhat hazy) conviction. it actually reminds me somewhat of Origen himself.
my recommendation is this--develop the area of your thought that thinks that "perhaps this is a lesser degree of essentiality". so long as you maintain this, i don't see your position as being necessarily out of bounds (don't be offended please--i realize that i haven't any right to pass judgement on you, but you yourself implied that your thought on this issue might alarm me).
also, you may be interested in Sergius Bulgakov's The Bride of the Lamb, wherein he articulates a doctrine of God being "eternally the creator", while still maintaining that creation happens in time (as opposed to God, who is eternal). my own thought on this topic is close to his, insofar as i've developed it.

That doesn't make quite as much sense to me - how does that harmonise with John 1:1?

**8** well, it makes about as much sense as does calling Jesus "the Word", while elsewhere having him speak the Word. perhaps not entirely consistent at first glance, but expressing a keen insight nonetheless.

Why say "In the beginning was the Word" if the Word was the beginning?

**7** see Origen's Commentary on John, book I. he goes on for fifty pages on the first two words of John's gospel!

Disclaimer: I do believe that all things were made through Jesus, as per the Nicene creed - I just don't think that Gen 1:1 is evidence of that. It's certainly compatible with that interpretation, but I don't think it's evidence.

**8** you may be right--the early Fathers approached the Bible in a different manner from us moderns, however.
nonetheless, i think both you and they are getting basically the same Christology from Scripture as a whole. i personally like the old school method better.

I can't think of any definition of "outside of time" that makes sense apart from this

**7** yeah, me neither, and i'm not at all a fan of the thinking of God in "static" terms. we can only describe things that we have experience of, and even our spiritual intuitions rely on spatial metaphors when they are spoken of. but i don't really worry about a "definition"--i follow it simply because, first of all, it is the tradition of the Church, and second, it doesn't seem to me to be necessarily logically incoherent.
still, all of my speech about God relies on symbols--spatial as well as temporal. i'm simply accustomed to translating temporality into "logic" when it comes to doctrinal classifications (a common example of this is the Filioque--no one thinks that the Spirit proceeds from the Father later in time than does the Son, but still, in order to get something of the point across, theologians still say things like "after", and such.)
so, i guess i'm trying to get the best of both worlds. side with Traditional orthodoxy, yet recognize the validity of our common talk and thought insofar as it goes, and as conditioned by orthodoxy. that's probably why the "God and time" issue doesn't bother me, at all.
look forward to hearin' from ya again! peace!

[GodisonePerson]

Hope you're having a great day, Phantaz.

[G1]
You my hero, Phantaz.

**7** really?

[G1]
Maybe hero is going a bit far. But you are one of the more interesting personalities on this forum. I probably read your posts more than anyone else's on theologyweb.

[G1]
You still want to be a Roman Catholic Byzantine monk?

**8** do you really care?

[G1]
Of course I care. It's not everyday that I meet a Roman Catholic Byzantine monk who likes disco and rap. :smile:

[G1]
'Llow me to quoteth Sir Jaroslav Pelikan fer now:

**8** well, as they say in Carolina (), "let 'im holla!"

[G1]
Do they say that in Carolina? Really? Never knew that. Do you mean South Carolina or North Carolina? Learn something knew [sic] everyday.

[G1]
"It was to the incarnate one and to the reality of his created nature as man that the defenders of Nicea applied those passages of subordination on the basis of which the Arians had called the preexistent one a creature. This meant, above all, that 'he created me' in Proverbs 8:22 either had to be using 'created' in an improper sense or had to be speaking of the created humanity of the incarnate Christ" (The Christian Tradition, 1:205).

[Phantaz]
**7** but yo!, flip the scrip a few pages back, and check wha' the man sez--
The trinitarian and christological exegesis of this passage [Prov. 8:22f.] of distinction had used it to specify how the preexistent Logos was to be distinguished from the creatures. For Athenagoras, it meant that God, being eternally "endowed with reason", had the Logos within himself eternally, and that therefore the Son, as Logos, "did not come into existence" but was eternal. [Pelikan: 1, 191]

[G1]
The move you make here serves as further evidence that you're now a little desperate and know that I am right. Everytime I bring up evidence that shows the Nicene Council deemed the term "creature" to be out of bounds when referring to the preexistent Son, you say, "Hey! Look at the ante-Nicenes." We're not talking about the ante-Nicenes though. I know what they believed and how they interpreted Proverbs 8:22. Can we focus on the Nicenes now? I know you can do it, Phantaz. ;-)

[Phantaz]
and check wha' Henri Crouzel notes regarding "[The] Ante-Nicenes" use "of the verb ktizein[/] ["create"] and its derivatives [I]ktisis and ktisma." 'Dat "Prov. 8:22 puts into the mouth of Wisdom, who for most of the early Fathers represents the Son, the words 'ho kyrios ektisen me' and a little further on it is a question of the generation (gennao) of Wisdom. Likewise Col. 1:15 calls Christ the first-born of all ktisis, thus including him in the ktisis. That is why these words do not have for Origen the strict meaning of creating ... So ktizein applies to all God's production, by generation or by creation." [Henri Crouzel, Origen, pg. 175]

[G1]
That is nice to know, but ultimately irrelevant. Who's arguing that the ante-Nicenes did not use "creation" or "to create" to describe God's productions? This usage by the early fathers also implied that the thing "created" or "generated" also had a beginning or [i]ab initio. But Nicea, which we're supposed to be discussing, said this practice is not in line with orthodoxy. The Son was begotten, not created, that council declared. Holding, however, continues to use theological language pertaining to the Son in the manner of the ANF (not really, the ANE) while claiming to be a Nicene defender. But one or the other claim has to go, if he is going to be in line with the decision of 325 CE.

[Phantaz]
so what do we have here? nothing more than more evidence of G1's flawed hermeneutic and inability to not anachronize when he needs to beat a source until it says what he needs it to. the word "create", like almost all words in general (and certain words during the Nicene era especially) gained a precision that it did not have prior to that point. no one wishes to deny that "create" was a word that the Nicenes didn't apply to the Son--the question here is the meaning of that word in particular contexts (JP Holding's sense, and the sense of the word prior to the Nicene era).

[G1]
These words coming from Trinitarians, who have cut and stretched texts to suit their fancy for years? Tell me it ain't so. No matter how much precision "create" gained, it was never really used to refer to an entity that was generated continuously or without beginning. It always impled that the thing created (ktisis) had a starting point or inceptive moment. Even Origen's use of the word allows for this understanding. Furthermore, the ancient Hebrews knew nothing about an eternal generation or creation. They believed that "create" meant to bring something into being from non-being, in the case of the divine activity (Proverbs 8:22-31). Whether using the verbs bara or qanah[/], the Bible writers made it clear that anything God "created" had to pass into existence from non-existence. They had no concept of an eternal generation. The closest they would have come to such an idea would have been a creation brought forth [i]ad olam. The mountains created by Jehovah, for instance, are said to be ad olam.

[Phantaz]
perhaps they don't teach grad students at GlasLen to not collapse two distinct meanings under a single word and use the word itself to confuse the meanings. i recommend further studies be taken under the guidance of James Dunn at Durham, if ya got 'da bank.

[G1]
Not sure what "they" teach at GlasLen, whatever that is, since I'm not a graduate student at Glaslen or anywhere else. And, for your info, I'm not collapsing two distinct meanings under a single word and thereby confusing meanings. I am speaking from the vantage-point of Nicea. Something Holding claims to be doing, but clearly does not put into practice. If he did, he would not speak of an eternal creation. And he cannot appeal to the ANE for this usage either. Maybe he could say "a creation of indefinite duration" based on the ANE documents. But "eternal creation" (timeless or otherwise) is not a concept that we find in the OT.

**7** on the side, it is also worth noting that certain anti-Arians, such as Basil of Ancyra, continued to use "create" in reference to the Son's deity (by which they meant no more than that the Father produced or generated the Son), and that Basil was ultimately accepted by Athanasius, alongside being something of a mentor to Basil of Caesarea.
back to the main-line, the above only proves that the Nicenes were somewhat anachronistic as well, and did the best that they could to save the sense of the passage (in light of the then present controversy) while disallowing a heretical interpretation.

[G1]
What individuals continued to do after Nicea is not as important as what the church decided in 325 afterwards. Athanasius may have "ultimately accepted" Basil's usage. But he did his best to distance himself from ever calling the Son a creature as far as his deity is concerned. Athanasius himself applied the word "creature" to the humanity of the Son. A point that JP Holding-defender of Nicene orthodoxy-would do well to keep in mind. The word "create" could have become sharper. But it never implied that the entity created did not begin at some point in time. If Origen used the term in a way that did not imply the Son had a beginning, he was simply wrong.

**7** Holding speaks from and within the historical-cultural of the ANE, and if G1 wishes to engage him, he must atleast be aware of where the battle is to be fought. Holding never "carelessly" applies the word "create" to the Son; he almost always qualifies it by equating it with "produced" or "generated" or some other such word, and this for the express purpose of making it clear that he doesn't intend it in an unorthodox way.

[G1]
Never said he intends to be unorthodox. Who does aim at being doctrinally out of bounds? I feel like I'm talking with Humpty Dumpty 1 and 2. You can't arbitrarily assign any old meaning to a term and then say, "I know the word normally means this, but when I use a word, it means whatever I want it to mean. Yet, I'm still in harmony with orthodoxy." That is like me using the term "Trinity" to describe the God I worship, the filial figure that I follow, and the force that unfailingly accomplishes God's will and then claiming that I'm still a faithful JW. It won't work and is completely insane. The fact is that bara or qanah were never used in the OT to speak of eternal creations. The ancient Hebrews would have been utterly befuddled hearing such language.

[G1]
But he ain't done this fer as I can tale [sic].

**8** how far can you tale? nyuk nyuk nyuk

[G1]
Should they not be, how fer can ya tale?

[G1]
Where exactly does Swinburne call Christ an "eternal creation" and apply this language to the divinity of the Son?

**8** in a Journal article defending the coherence of the Trinity entitled Could There be More than One God?--you can look it up online (and i'm sure this article would be tons o' fun for you, as you could very easily misread it and take it out of context and charge Swinburne with polytheism as well; right up your alley!). in it he says that "The creation of the second God by the first of which I am speaking is an everlasting creation; at each moment of endless time the first God keeps in being the second God."

[G1]
Swinburne has already been charged with being a tritheist. Think I'll deal with that topic later. I notice that he also does not say "eternal creation" but "everlasting creation." Since you're being so vague about this article and not providing the appropriate context, I'll have to check this out myself. Either way, Swinburne's language seems to be clearly at odds with the language of Nicea.

[G1]
yet you ain't shared a thang Swinburne actually wrote with the class. C'mon, hero. Play nice and give us a quote from Swinburne.

**7** ouch, that was a rather unfortunate display of displaced confidence on your part
next time, count 'da odds before ya role the dice.

[G1]
A display of displaced confidence? That does not make sense to me. Do you mean, "misplaced"? In any event, I have nothing to be sorry about, sir. I was right not to put trust in your word alone. I still don't trust your reading of Swinburne here and I'm going to track the article myself. Something is woefully missing in your presentation of this point.

**8** for some reason i'm inclined to think that your statements on this subject are more accurate than your statements regarding the theology of the Trinity.
atleast we know why your posts are so late

[G1]
You exaggerate when it comes to my being late. You forget that we have five days to reply between posts. The board was also down one time and, besides, I told you that I have a life outside of the internet. I can't just sit on my rump all day and type emails to those who are not interested in truth anyway. Can't put food on the table that way.

[G1]
The Nicene Council did not mean that they only anathamatized the word "created" as applied to the preexistent Son when it carried an "Arian" sense.

**8** yes, it did.

[G1]
Phantaz has spoken, let us acquiesece!

[G1]
call moi in the morning.

[Phantaz]
**7** give me your number and i will.

[G1]
1-800-GIT WYZE. You can also try 1-800-WAKE-UPP

**8** "failed to clearly articulate"??? don't blame anyone for your self for your inability to read.

[G1]
My mama learnt me how to read at a very early age. Sounds like someone shoulda taught you how to 'rite. "Don't blame anyone for your self"?

**7** sure i do--i just watched you dodge it entirely in our debate with me in the Wrestling Ring. the equating of "the Father" with "the Power of the Father" in Ambrose, alongside the ridiculous attempt to subvert Athanasius' talk of generation to your understanding of homoousious, alongside other such windows into the competence of your prowess, was rather telling.

[G]
Where did I equate the Father with the power of the Father. You'll have to excuse me, but I'm used to debate opponents proving their every assertion and not simply expecting me to believe their baseless charges and ex cathedra pronouncements.

**7** you can't even properly exegete a person talking with you now. what reason do we have to think that you're capable of interpreting persons 1600+ years dead?

[G1]
Since when do we interpret or exegete persons? Thought texts were what one exegetes. Is this another shining example of your intellectual prowess, terminological precision and world class education?

[Phnataz]
on the side, i find it somewhat strange that G1 uses for a screen-name a phrase taken from Lactantius that Mr. Edgar Foster used to use for a signature line, alongside his penchant for talk of Tertullian, and ceaseless badgering of me ever since he arrived on this board. judging from his rather lifeless sarcasm, it looks like his attempt at axe-grinding incognito has resulted in the grinding of his nerves
keep it up--whether data or wit, you'll get stomped in both areas. holla at ya later, as they say in Carolina

[G1]
My name does not necessarily come from Lactantius. I'm a believer in the unipersonality of God. What name did you expect me to select? God is three pesons? I've hardly talked about Tertullian since I've been here and you flatter yourself if you thinkj I've been badgering you. You asked for the debate in the gym and you jumped into this thread when I was actually addressing Holding. So, please don't accuse me of badgering you. I've also heard that you and JP Holding are the same person and that JP Holding's name is actually R***** T*****. Whether I'm Edgar Foster or Heinz Schmitz, as you accused me of being one time, is not really that important. I've told you my name is Dan and that is what I expect to be called on theologyweb. It shows something of your character to try and "out" someone on a forum where Holding insists on not revealing his name. Hey, my name is Dan and if you don't like it, not really a whole lot I can do about it. This is my last reply in this thread.

Adios
Dan

[jpholding]

Hum,

It is argued by the fact that personified wisdom is spoken of as coming into existance.

"Coming into existence" is not in the text. You are merely importing the semantic freight of the word "created" as we use it.

It is the fact that the attribute is personified IN A PERSON that makes this untrue.

That made no sense and does not show how it is made untrue.

The subtle difference has no real impact on my orignal point.

Why not?

Wait a second. You are the one that has been going on how about it could NOT call wisdom eternal, but only OLAM. Now you say it calls it eternal? Which is it? the NT never remotely indicates Christ as Wisdom is eternal.

The NT alludes to literature that clearly DOES indicate that Wisdom is eternal. Time to educate you more directly.
Ecclesiasticus 1:1-4 All wisdom cometh from the Lord, and is with him for ever. The sand of the sea, and the drops of the rain, And the days of eternity who shall number? The height of the heaven and the breadth of the earth And the deep and wisdom, who shall search them out? Wisdom hath been created before all things, And the understanding of prudence from everlasting.
Note that "created before all things" and "from everlasting" are held as parallels. This by itself refutes any contention that "created" MUST carry the semantic freight of prior non-existence. Note as well that this describes Wisdom as having been "created before all things," as being "from everlasting" and as comparable to "the days of eternity." In this we are in harmony with the Trinitarian view of Jesus as created or generated by the Father eternally, that is, finding his source in the Father and having no existence apart from Him, yet also having existed eternally as God does. Sirach writes further:
I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, And covered the earth as a mist. I dwelt in high places, And my throne is in the pillar of the cloud. Alone I compassed the circuit of the heaven, And walked in the depth of the abyss. (Ecclesiasticus 24:3-5)
He created me from the beginning of the world, And to the end I shall not fail. (Ecclesiasticus 24:4)
Wisdom says of herself: "I came forth from the mouth of the Most High" (the "Word" of God) and "my throne was in the pillar of the cloud" -- an allusion to the Old Testament sign of the divine presence. Wisdom also says that it has "encircled the vault of heaven, and walked in the depths of the abyss...ruled over the waves of the sea and over all the earth, and over every people and nation." In the book of Job (12, 28), these things are what God asks whether Job can do, with the implication that only God can do them.
Finally, Sirach says, "(God) searches out both the deep and the heart, and he perceives all their cunning devices. For the Most High knows all, and he sees the signs of the age. He declares changes that occur, and reveals the searching out of hidden things. He does not lack insight, and nothing escapes him. The might of his wisdom he measures out, He is the same from eternity. Nothing is added and nothing is withdrawn, and there is no need for anyone to instruct him." (42:18-21) Wisdom is an attribute of God, and is co-eternal with Him -- otherwise, Wisdom is a thing "added" to Him, or someone has "instructed" Him. Bauckham makes a similar observation concerning a much later passage: "2 Enoch 33:4, in an echo of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40:13), says that God had no advisor in his work of creation, but that his Wisdom was his advisor. The meaning is clearly that God had no one to advise him. His Wisdom, who is not someone else but intrinsic to his own identity, advised him." Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament , 21.
The Wisdom of Solomon: In this intertestamental work written under the persona of Solomon, Wisdom is described as the artificer of all things (7:22), "the breath of the power of God and a pure effluence flowing from the Almighty" (7:25), and is spoken of as the "image" of the goodness of God (7:26), able to do all things and make all things new. "Wisdom" was also envisioned as sharing God's throne, having been present with God from all eternity, and was thought of as proceeding from God. God's Wisdom and Word are equated in verse 9:2 -- "O God of my fathers, the Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy word, and ordained men through thy wisdom." Wisdom is also credited with performing miracles, like the parting of the Red Sea (Wisdom of Solomon 10:18-19).
Philo. The Jewish philosopher Philo was a contemporary of Jesus and the author of several philosophical and historical works. Philo calls Wisdom (which he also refers to as the logos) the "image (eikon) of God," refers to the Wisdom of God as the one through whom the universe came into being, and describes Wisdom as God's "firstborn son," as neither unbegotten like God or begotten like men, as Light and as "the very shadow of God." He regarded the logos as one of several attributes of God which he referred to collectively as "powers," with the logos as the chief power in the hierarchy.
Now keep this in mind: What these writers said of Wisdom, the authors of the New Testament also said about Christ. There existed in Judaism certain set motifs about Wisdom with which the writers of the New Testament worked, and that, as Hurtado (44, 46) puts it, "ancient Judaism provided the first Christians with a crucial conceptual category" that was applied to the risen and exalted Jesus. Examples:
The Gospel of John identifies Jesus with Wisdom in a number of ways. Jesus speaks in long discourses characteristic of Wisdom (Prov. 8, Sir. 24, Wisdom of Solomon 1-11). John's emphasis on "signs" mirrors that of the Wisdom of Solomon, and John uses the same Greek word for them (semeion). Finally, John's overwhelming use of the term "Father" (115 times) matches the emphasis on that title in the late Wisdom literature.
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The prologue to John's gospel makes a precise identification of Christ with Wisdom, describing the Logos' Christological role (1:3), its role as the ground of human knowledge (1:9) and as the mediator of special revelation (1:14) -- the three roles of the pre-existent Logos/Wisdom. In calling Jesus God's Logos, John was affirming Jesus' eternality and ontological oneness with the Father by connecting him with the Wisdom tradition.
Now consider these parallels with John's prologue and the Wisdom literature:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Wisdom of Solomon 9:9 With you (God) is Wisdom, who knows your works and was present when you made the world.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Proverbs 8:35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. (1:11)
1 Enoch 42:2 Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of men, and found no dwelling place.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Sirach 24:8 The one who created me assigned a place for my tent. And he said: 'Make your dwelling in Jerusalem.'
John 6:27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you.
Wisdom of Solomon 16:26 On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval. So that your children, whom you loved, O Lord, might learn that it is not the production of crops that feeds humankind but that your word sustains those who trust in you.
John 14:15 If you love me, you will obey what I command.
Wisdom of Solomon 16:18 And love of Wisdom is the keeping of her laws, and giving heed to her laws is assurance of immortality.
The Word was in the beginning (John 1:1)
Wisdom was in the beginning (Prov. 8:22-23, Sir. 1:4, Wis. 9:9)
The Word was with God (John 1:1)
Wisdom was with God (Prov. 8:30, Sir. 1:1, Wis. 9:4)
The Word was cocreator (John 1:1-3)
Wisdom was cocreator (Prov. 3:19, 8:25; Is. 7:21, 9:1-2)
The Word provides light (John 1:4, 9)
Wisdom provides light (Prov. 8:22, Wis. 7:26, 8:13; Sir. 4:12)
Word as light in contrast to darkness (John 1:5)
Wisdom as light in contrast to darkness (Wis. 7:29-30)
The Word was in the world (John 1:10)
Wisdom was in the world (Wis. 8:1, Sir. 24:6)
The Word was rejected by its own (John 1:11)
Wisdom was rejected by its own (Sir. 15:7)
The Word was received by the faithful (John 1:12)
Wisdom was received by the faithful (Wis. 7:27)
Christ is the bread of life (John 6:35)
Wisdom is the bread or substance of life (Prov. 9:5, Sir. 15:3, 24:21, 29:21; Wis. 11:4)
Christ is the light of the world (John 8:12)
Wisdom is light (Wis. 7:26-30, 18:3-4)
Christ is the door of the sheep and the good shepherd (John 10:7, 11, 14)
Wisdom is the door and the good shepherd (Prov. 8:34-5, Wis. 7:25-7, 8:2-16; Sir. 24:19-22)
Christ is life (John 11:25)
Wisdom brings life (Prov. 3:16, 8:35, 9:11; Wis. 8:13)
Christ is the way to truth (John 14:6)
Wisdom is the way (Prov. 3:17, 8:32-34; Sir. 6:26)
The letters of Paul continue the identification of Jesus with God's Wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30 is the most clear: Christ is explicitly identified as "the power of God and the wisdom of God." Elsewhere in 1 Cor. of relevance:
Wisdom 1:4: Wisdom existed before all things.... 1 Corinthians 2:7: ...wisdom that God predestined before the ages.... Wisdom 1:6: To whom has the root of wisdom been revealed? 1 Corinthians 2:10: God revealed these things to us.... Wisdom 1:10: ...he has given [wisdom] to those who love him. 1 Corinthians 2:9: ...which God has prepared for those who love him. Wisdom 1:15: [Wisdom] has built an eternal foundation among men.... 1 Corinthians 3:10: ...as a wise architect I laid down a foundation.... Wisdom 2:5: Gold is tested in the fire.... 1 Corinthians 3:12-13: And if any man builds upon the foundation with gold or silver or precious stones..., it is to be revealed in fire.

Colossians 1:15-18 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
This passage, the one that started this thread, is full of allusions to the Wisdom literature. Note the following parallels:
Colossians 1:15a He is the image of the invisible God...
Wisdom of Solomon 7:26 (Wisdom is) a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.
Colossians 1:15b ...the firstborn over all creation.
Philo's reference to Wisdom as the "firstborn son" and offspring of God.
Colossians 1:16a ...by him all things were created..
Wisdom of Solomon 1:14 "for he created all things that they might exist"
Sirach 1:4 and Philo refer to Wisdom as the "master workman" of creation.
Colossians 1:17b He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Wisdom of Solomon 1:7 ...that which holds all things together knows what is said...
The book of Hebrews, while never identifying Jesus directly as Wisdom, does indicate an equivalence. In verse 3 the rare Greek term apaygasma is used to describe Jesus as the "brightness of God's glory," just as the word is used in Wisdom of Solomon (7:25-26) to describe Wisdom's radiance. Hebrews ascribes to Jesus the same functions that the Philonic/Alexandrian Wisdom literature assigned to Wisdom: mediator of divine revelation, agent and sustainer of creation, and reconciler of God and man (Wisdom of Solomon 7:21-8:1).
Hebrews also says of Jesus what Philo says of the Logos. Philo referred to Wisdom as the "charakter of the eternal Word" just as Hebrews uses this term of Jesus. Hebrews also "asserts the superiority of Jesus over a group of individuals and classes that served mediatorial functions in Alexandrian thought," including angels, Moses, Melchizidek, and the high priest. Finally, in Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, though universal in scope, by God's decree rests in Jerusalem, and is regarded as having the role of the priesthood: "In the holy tabernacle I ministered before him, and so I was established in Zion." (24:10) Compare this proclamation with what is found in the Book of Hebrews chapters 3-10 describing Christ as our "high priest" ministering at a heavenly tabernacle.

Back to you:

The two wisdom "theory" is hardly a theory, but a reality proven by Proverbs 8.

A theory is all it is, and is not found in Prov. 8, and is completely contradicted by the above, and is entirely makeshift.

Actually, there is a temporal implication within the verbs themselves. If one is created, the temporal aspect is implied.

Mere denial does not answer the point whatsoever. You are merely re-asserting your original position without any answer to my own.

Further, Proverbs 8 relates this creation to actually being birthed. If one is birthed, there is a time when this even takes place, that being the persons origin.

Once again, only if you import the same semantic freight of temporality as with the other verbs. You have not gotten over this point, and never will.

This statements has no relation to what I said in any reality.

Hmph. As usual, quick with denial and short on explanation.

You keep talking about allusions too. Maybe because you want them to, but it is of course of great interest that it never actually states such.

It does so enough for anyone who can read as noted above.

Context is wonderful, but read what the context actually says.

I did -- all contexts, not just the one you read in English and devoid of the background.

Actually, it makes perfect sense from the standpoint of grammar.

As usual and again, quick with denial but short on explanation.

You err in assuming KTISEWS is limted to living beings. There is no basis for such an assumption. There is nothing to rule out it including rocks, for example.

Um --

1 Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving...

Have a Rock McMuffin?

Rev. 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Wow, talking rocks!

Rev. 8:9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

Hey, rocks that die!

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Have you told that rock the Gospel yet?

Why is he not firstborn of rocks? I would say he certainly is!

You can figure from the above. Meanwhile how about Philo?

Actually, it is very cut and dry. Jesus is not removed from the realm of creation even thought it says that through him all was created, because the way the Greek grammar functions.

You just say it and spray it, but I still don't see any actual response to Heyler. Maybe you have none. Maybe you just copied this material from someone else?

Actually, you haven't. A clear distinction is made in Proverbs 8.

I have shown that it isn't, more than 200 billion times.

Then why does the one personified as Wisdom possess the attribute? There are two cases of Wisdom, one as a person and one as an attribute.

Gee, wouldn't personified Wisdom BE wise? :huh:

Origin is an implied part of creation, and further it speaks of it being birthed, thus requiring an event to have taken place.

Again, only if you load semantic freight illegally.

I don't need a verb to express eternality, you do.

I don't need one at all, because temporal adjectives serve the purpose. You need to prove that one did NOT exist that could have been used, otherwise you're treading air.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 06:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=130759#post130759)
jpholding:

Hum,

It is argued by the fact that personified wisdom is spoken of as coming into existance.

&quot;Coming into existence&quot; is not in the text. You are merely importing the semantic freight of the word &quot;created&quot; as we use it.

And I am allowed to do that. There is no rule that says otherwise.


It is the fact that the attribute is personified IN A PERSON that makes this untrue.

That made no sense and does not show how it is made untrue.

Because it is the person that is speaking. The person is saying that he was created, that he was the masterworker. We know the master worker was Jesus (Col 1:16), not an attribute.



The subtle difference has no real impact on my orignal point.

Why not?


Because you said QEOS is just a title, and I said it carries much more weight than that.


Wait a second. You are the one that has been going on how about it could NOT call wisdom eternal, but only OLAM. Now you say it calls it eternal? Which is it? the NT never remotely indicates Christ as Wisdom is eternal.

The NT alludes to literature that clearly DOES indicate that Wisdom is eternal. Time to educate you more directly.

By all means...


Ecclesiasticus 1:1-4 All wisdom cometh from the Lord, and is with him for ever. The sand of the sea, and the drops of the rain, And the days of eternity who shall number? The height of the heaven and the breadth of the earth And the deep and wisdom, who shall search them out? Wisdom hath been created before all things, And the understanding of prudence from everlasting.
Note that &quot;created before all things&quot; and &quot;from everlasting&quot; are held as parallels.


I find it of interest that this same phrase "from everlasting" is used also in Proverbs 8:23. We note, however, that this phrase also means "from ancient times." Literally, it denotes an indefinite amount of time into the past. Knowing that this was originally written in Hebrew, it is an important fact to consider. So you can get nothing eternal out of this, but the use of create has an semantic implication of origin.


This by itself refutes any contention that &quot;created&quot; MUST carry the semantic freight of prior non-existence. Note as well that this describes Wisdom as having been &quot;created before all things,&quot; as being &quot;from everlasting&quot; and as comparable to &quot;the days of eternity.&quot;

Well, going to the Greek, we find AIWNOS, which just as with the Hebrew does not have a definite implication. The force of KTIZO denoting origin is so strong that it cannot be ignored.

In this we are in harmony with the Trinitarian view of Jesus as created or generated by the Father eternally, that is, finding his source in the Father and having no existence apart from Him, yet also having existed eternally as God does.

Actually, according to the Nicene Creed, this is a direct contradiction:

"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."

Further, the Athanasian Creed is even more directly contradicted.

"The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. "

Now, knowing that Proverbs 8:22 LXX uses EKTISEN, we look up this (as KTIZO) in Strong's and we find that to "make" is actually a direct part of the word's definition. A direct contradiction to Nicene, and obviously, with the word being used to mean created at all, is an even further contradiction to the Athanasian Creed.



Sirach writes further:
I came forth from the mouth of the Most High, And covered the earth as a mist. I dwelt in high places, And my throne is in the pillar of the cloud. Alone I compassed the circuit of the heaven, And walked in the depth of the abyss. (Ecclesiasticus 24:3-5)
He created me from the beginning of the world, And to the end I shall not fail. (Ecclesiasticus 24:4)

Actually, the second one is verse 9 and I think there are two key words here. First, we again find EKTISEN, which is of course created. But also, we have APO, which, translated from, denotes an actual point of origin.


Wisdom says of herself: &quot;I came forth from the mouth of the Most High&quot; (the &quot;Word&quot; of God) and &quot;my throne was in the pillar of the cloud&quot; -- an allusion to the Old Testament sign of the divine presence. Wisdom also says that it has &quot;encircled the vault of heaven, and walked in the depths of the abyss...ruled over the waves of the sea and over all the earth, and over every people and nation.&quot; In the book of Job (12, 28), these things are what God asks whether Job can do, with the implication that only God can do them.


That is really weak. Job is more about man's inability vs. God's ability. For example, Job 38 reads:

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Does this mean that only God was there? No.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

The angels were there, but man was not.


Finally, Sirach says, &quot;(God) searches out both the deep and the heart, and he perceives all their cunning devices. For the Most High knows all, and he sees the signs of the age. He declares changes that occur, and reveals the searching out of hidden things. He does not lack insight, and nothing escapes him. The might of his wisdom he measures out, He is the same from eternity. Nothing is added and nothing is withdrawn, and there is no need for anyone to instruct him.&quot; (42:18-21) Wisdom is an attribute of God, and is co-eternal with Him -- otherwise, Wisdom is a thing &quot;added&quot; to Him, or someone has &quot;instructed&quot; Him. Bauckham makes a similar observation concerning a much later passage: &quot;2 Enoch 33:4, in an echo of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40:13), says that God had no advisor in his work of creation, but that his Wisdom was his advisor. The meaning is clearly that God had no one to advise him. His Wisdom, who is not someone else but intrinsic to his own identity, advised him.

And he we must distiguish between the attribute of wisdom and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, wisdom personified, who is a seperate person from God the Father.


Philo. The Jewish philosopher Philo was a contemporary of Jesus and the author of several philosophical and historical works. Philo calls Wisdom (which he also refers to as the logos) the &quot;image (eikon) of God,&quot; refers to the Wisdom of God as the one through whom the universe came into being, and describes Wisdom as God's &quot;firstborn son,&quot; as neither unbegotten like God or begotten like men, as Light and as &quot;the very shadow of God.&quot; He regarded the logos as one of several attributes of God which he referred to collectively as &quot;powers,&quot; with the logos as the chief power in the hierarchy.


This sounds much like 1 Cor 1:24, but it does not disagree with anything I have thus far stated.


Now keep this in mind: What these writers said of Wisdom, the authors of the New Testament also said about Christ. There existed in Judaism certain set motifs about Wisdom with which the writers of the New Testament worked, and that, as Hurtado (44, 46) puts it, &quot;ancient Judaism provided the first Christians with a crucial conceptual category&quot; that was applied to the risen and exalted Jesus. Examples:
The Gospel of John identifies Jesus with Wisdom in a number of ways. Jesus speaks in long discourses characteristic of Wisdom (Prov. 8, Sir. 24, Wisdom of Solomon 1-11). John's emphasis on &quot;signs&quot; mirrors that of the Wisdom of Solomon, and John uses the same Greek word for them (semeion). Finally, John's overwhelming use of the term &quot;Father&quot; (115 times) matches the emphasis on that title in the late Wisdom literature.
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The prologue to John's gospel makes a precise identification of Christ with Wisdom, describing the Logos' Christological role (1:3), its role as the ground of human knowledge (1:9) and as the mediator of special revelation (1:14) -- the three roles of the pre-existent Logos/Wisdom. In calling Jesus God's Logos, John was affirming Jesus' eternality and ontological oneness with the Father by connecting him with the Wisdom tradition.


This is a lot of personal theology mixed into the actual text. You state, for example, that "John was affirming Jesus' eternality and ontological oneness with the Father by connecting him with the Wisdom tradition."

First and foremost, you have not shown this personified Wisdom to be eternal. Rather, quite the opposite has been seen. I, rather hold the view that John's initial use of Jesus as the LOGOS in John 1:1a shows the LOGOS coming into being with the use of the inceptive HN.



The two wisdom &quot;theory&quot; is hardly a theory, but a reality proven by Proverbs 8.

A theory is all it is, and is not found in Prov. 8, and is completely contradicted by the above, and is entirely makeshift.

It absolutely is. An attribute does not possess itself, it is itself. Yet, Wisdom Personified in Jesus is said to possess the attribute of Wisdom. This is seen in Proverbs 8:14 and Col 2:3. So you have two here, not one.


Actually, there is a temporal implication within the verbs themselves. If one is created, the temporal aspect is implied.

Mere denial does not answer the point whatsoever. You are merely re-asserting your original position without any answer to my own.

Well it is hard to answer something when you are simply providing an opinion. The simply fact that inexistance is implied within the word created, because only uncreated things that exist have eternally existed.

Further, Proverbs 8 relates this creation to actually being birthed. If one is birthed, there is a time when this even takes place, that being the persons origin.

Once again, only if you import the same semantic freight of temporality as with the other verbs. You have not gotten over this point, and never will.

Why should I? It is a valid position and one that holds solid ground.



Context is wonderful, but read what the context actually says.

I did -- all contexts, not just the one you read in English and devoid of the background.

My position is totally maintained by context and on examination, is actually significantly stronger than yours. Especially on examination of the original text.


You err in assuming KTISEWS is limted to living beings. There is no basis for such an assumption. There is nothing to rule out it including rocks, for example.

Um --

1 Tim 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving...

Have a Rock McMuffin?

Rev. 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Wow, talking rocks!

Rev. 8:9 And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed.

Hey, rocks that die!

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Have you told that rock the Gospel yet?



Actually, Jesus said the rocks would cry out. :) However, that aside, you still do not understand the full range of the use of KTISEWS. That said, rocks fit within the meaning of the word itself, like it or not.

Why is he not firstborn of rocks? I would say he certainly is!

You can figure from the above. Meanwhile how about Philo?

What about Philo. You've not even come close to making any point with your discussion of Philo.

Actually, it is very cut and dry. Jesus is not removed from the realm of creation even thought it says that through him all was created, because the way the Greek grammar functions.

You just say it and spray it, but I still don't see any actual response to Heyler. Maybe you have none. Maybe you just copied this material from someone else?

Having looked into the actual function of PAS, I've completely refuted his point. This doesn't surprise me though. You simply act as though I never stated a single word. Address what I previously stated on PAS, with the subject (here, it is Christ) not being removed from PAS-GROUP constructions. This simple fact of grammar does not remove Jesus from the realm of creation. So please address what I have stated on this construction and its relation to Col 1:15, 16 and the other examples I cited.



Actually, you haven't. A clear distinction is made in Proverbs 8.

I have shown that it isn't, more than 200 billion times.


As shown, you've not really demonstrated a single solid point.


Then why does the one personified as Wisdom possess the attribute? There are two cases of Wisdom, one as a person and one as an attribute.

Gee, wouldn't personified Wisdom BE wise? :huh:

An attribute is an attribute, a person possess an attribute. The personification in Proverbs 8 possess.


Origin is an implied part of creation, and further it speaks of it being birthed, thus requiring an event to have taken place.

Again, only if you load semantic freight illegally.

Oh. Now is illegal? How so?


[i]I don't need a verb to express eternality, you do.

I don't need one at all, because temporal adjectives serve the purpose. You need to prove that one did NOT exist that could have been used, otherwise you're treading air.

Huh? The simply use of EKTISEN proves my point completely. Try as you might, there is no escaping this fact. The burden of proof is on you, not me, because the text states exactly as I believe it. According to Church creeds, Jesus is not created. Yet, the word created is directly used.

-Tony

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** wussay cool man Dan?

Hope you're having a great day, Phantaz.

**7** really?

I probably read your posts more than anyone else's on theologyweb.

**8** i guessed as much--you be obsessed with me in an unhealthy way.

Do they say that in Carolina? Really? Never knew that. Do you mean South Carolina or North Carolina?

**7** heard it from mr. edgar.

The move you make here serves as further evidence that you're now a little desperate and know that I am right.

**8** that you'd write as much shows your inability to follow the point ...

Everytime I bring up evidence that shows the Nicene Council deemed the term "creature" to be out of bounds when referring to the preexistent Son, you say, "Hey! Look at the ante-Nicenes."

**7** for the 14th time, it is meaning that i'm talking about; there is not a one-one correspondence between a word and a meaning throughout the course of history, and that i need to repeat myself this many times shows you up for the history-of-the-Nicene-era toper that you are.

We're not talking about the ante-Nicenes though. I know what they believed and how they interpreted Proverbs 8:22.

**7** i doubt that seriously.

Can we focus on the Nicenes now? I know you can do it, Phantaz. ;-)

**8** can we focus on the word's meaning in its various contexts, G1?

That is nice to know, but ultimately irrelevant. Who's arguing that the ante-Nicenes did not use "creation" or "to create" to describe God's productions? This usage by the early fathers also implied that the thing "created" or "generated" also had a beginning or ab initio.

**8** re quotes in previous post; the point is that there was a recognized distinction between [I]the sense in which Wisdom was "created", and "creation" was "created".

But Nicea, which we're supposed to be discussing, said this practice is not in line with orthodoxy. The Son was begotten, not created, that council declared.

**7** bogus--the terminology in Nicea (325) itself was sufficiently vague, and affirmed no more than that (1)the Son takes his origin from God the Father, and (2)the Son is not contingent, and is intrinsic to the being of the Father. the word "created" was indeed falling out of style, but this because of the new meaning it had gained within the context of early 4th century theology. anything beyond this is to jump about 30 years ahead.
your comments regarding the connotations of the word "created" in the ante-Nicene era are utterly impotent, as you haven't the foggiest on what Nicenes mean by asserting that the Son is "generated", and as you also can't not read a passage without loading it with your own understandings.

Holding, however, continues to use theological language pertaining to the Son in the manner of the ANF (not really, the ANE)

**7** Dan, wake up! Holding's point of departure is the meaning of such words in Scripture according to the theological and historical context in which they were written. this is the context according to which his statements must be judged, and therefore according to a transcontextual meaning, not the meaning that you yourself wish to load his words with.
you would have registered the same complaint regarding his use of "hypostasis" had you been conscious of the fact that you could have.
anyways, regarding the ANE and the ANF, there is overlap between the two on this point. Holding's point is that the word "created" doesn't necessarily mean "created" in the sense of contingency; rather, it can simply denote "generation" in a vague and unspecified manner which is clarified by the object to which it refers.
the same can be said, and is said, of the word in the AN(icene) era. Holding's research on this word, however, has its point of departure in the cultural/theological context of the ANE.

while claiming to be a Nicene defender. But one or the other claim has to go, if he is going to be in line with the decision of 325 CE.

**8** or, you should take a class on hermeneutics ... or actually listen to a person explain himself on certain points, and understand his words in accordance with the context that such an explanation constitutes, or ...

These words coming from Trinitarians, who have cut and stretched texts to suit their fancy for years?

**7** these words coming from a Trinitarian who would and does say the same thing to Trinitarians who make the same error (check the "Trinitarian Language" thread).

Tell me it ain't so.

**8** tell me that G1 will one day learn how to make it through an argument without unbuckling himself from the point (and crack jokes that are actually funny).

No matter how much precision "create" gained, it was never really used to refer to an entity that was generated continuously or without beginning.

**7** the "continuous" generation found in Origen is due not to his being a theological innovator, but to his portraying the eternal relationship of the Son to the Father in dynamic images. as for the others, you're placing the cart in front of the horse. Ignatius explicitly spoke of the a-temporality and unbeginningness of the Son; Justin Martyr made a point of distinguishing the Logos from "the creatures"; Theophilus, if not giving a description of a "double procession" (one from the Father ,the other for the sake of creation), certainly held to a doctrine that maintains the eternality of the Logos and his being "produced"/created for the sake of creation; and Irenaeus explicitly says that the Son has always been with the Father. Tertullian speaks of the eternal Word, and the created Son; Novatian speaks of the eternality of the Son based on the fact that "Father" and "Son" are co-relative words; Dionysius of Alexandria can, according to his own words, speak of the Son being both eternal and created, alongside affirming his being proper to the Father; Gregory Thaumaturgus' creed was the object of Arius' attack (according to some).
what the evidence suggests is a basic identity of thought manifesting itself irrespective of specific symbols.

It always impled that the thing created (ktisis) had a starting point or inceptive moment.

**7** even granting as much, there is a sense in which such talk is fine.

Even Origen's use of the word allows for this understanding.

**8** as regards this point, Origen was a proto-Nicene par excellence.

Furthermore, the ancient Hebrews knew nothing about an eternal generation or creation.

**7** placing the cart in front of the horse again; and even if true, it wouldn't matter. they didn't know anything about a suffering messiah, or that his role would be cosmic, either. the only thing that could overturn our argument would be if they did affirm a doctrine which definitely excluded the possibility of it.

They believed that "create" meant to bring something into being from non-being,

**7** you were fine up until the "from non-being" part, at which point you read with ease your own thought into the text.

in the case of the divine activity (Proverbs 8:22-31). Whether using the verbs bara or qanah[/], the Bible writers made it clear that anything God "created" had to pass into existence from non-existence.

**8** like his own Wisdom, which is intrinsic to God, not identical with God, and generated by him? how would that work?

I'm not collapsing two distinct meanings under a single word and thereby confusing meanings.

**7** :smile: ...

I am speaking from the vantage-point of Nicea.

**8** :rofl:

Something Holding claims to be doing, but clearly does not put into practice. If he did, he would not speak of an eternal creation.

**7** Holding is demonstrating continuity of meaning between Proverbs (one theological context) and Colossians (another theological context) and the Nicene era (yet another theological context) as affirmed by trinitarians today.
you're like those against whom Origen wrote--always getting stuck at the symbol, and never penetrating to the meaning.

What individuals continued to do after Nicea is not as important as what the church decided in 325 afterwards. Athanasius may have "ultimately accepted" Basil's usage.

**8** and Basil was after 325--the fact that he could use the word without necessarily being considered unorthodox proves that you're talking out of your loop.

But he did his best to distance himself from ever calling the Son a creature as far as his deity is concerned. Athanasius himself applied the word "creature" to the humanity of the Son.

**7** in my review of Holt, i provide an instance wherein Athanasius applies Prov. 8:22 to the Son qua divine.

A point that JP Holding-defender of Nicene orthodoxy-would do well to keep in mind.

**8** yo G1, print out the below sentence, paste it to a mallet, and pound it on your head:
HOLDING IS WRITING ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE WORD IN A SPECIFIC CONTEXT, AND DEMONSTRATING THE CONTINUTITY OF MEANING BETWEEN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS AND WORDS.

The word "create" could have become sharper. But it never implied that the entity created did not begin at some point in time.

**7** give me a break. not even Arius, according to his own words, thought that the Son began "at some point in time". the debate was over contingency (check out Widdicombe's constant noting that Athanasius refers to the Son as "the Father's own Son", etc.)

If Origen used the term in a way that did not imply the Son had a beginning, he was simply wrong.

**8** Origen was a genius and is way over your head; stick with Morey contra Stafford and Schmitz vs. Straw-man.

I feel like I'm talking with Humpty Dumpty 1 and 2.

**7** you may well be--it would certainly explain your inability to follow the conversation you're supposed to be having with me.

You can't arbitrarily assign any old meaning to a term and then say, "I know the word normally means this, but when I use a word, it means whatever I want it to mean. Yet, I'm still in harmony with orthodoxy."

**8** he's not arbitrarily doing anything; he's explaining what the word meant in its original context, demonstrating its equivalence with other words in other contexts, and using it in that sense.

That is like me using the term "Trinity" to describe the God I worship, the filial figure that I follow, and the force that unfailingly accomplishes God's will and then claiming that I'm still a faithful JW.

**8** and ... so? you would.
"trinity" by itself means nothing until it is explained; if you had special reasons for so expressing yourself, you couldn't be deemed unorthodox outright. if you were, it would prove only that the people doing it, like yourself, aren't extremely perceptive, and lack the intellectual sensitivity to investigate deep things that can't be grasped at the theological drive-thru.

It won't work and is completely insane.

**7** you're the one talking to Humpty Dumpty and seeing double.

The fact is that bara or qanah were never used in the OT to speak of eternal creations. The ancient Hebrews would have been utterly befuddled hearing such language.

**7** thus spake zarathustra.

Should they not be, how fer can ya tale?

**8** i can del the funky homosapien.

Swinburne has already been charged with being a tritheist.

**7** so? not by anyone who matters.

Think I'll deal with that topic later.

**8** oh joy, look out Sarah Coakley and Brian Leftow!

Since you're being so vague about this article and not providing the appropriate context, I'll have to check this out myself.

**7** uh huh, uh huh ...
Faith and Philosophy, 5, 1988, pgs. 225-241.

Either way, Swinburne's language seems to be clearly at odds with the language of Nicea.

**8** knowing the intent of Nicea, and having talked with Swinburne over this specific point, i'm certain that what Swinburne intends (which, be it noted, is not in any sense identical with "what G1 takes him to be saying") is fine by the standards of Nicea.

A display of displaced confidence? That does not make sense to me.

**7** try leaving humpty-humpty land before you write your responses :teeth:

In any event, I have nothing to be sorry about, sir. I was right not to put trust in your word alone. I still don't trust your reading of Swinburne here and I'm going to track the article myself. Something is woefully missing in your presentation of this point.

**8** etc., etc.
you're in denial :rofl:

I can't just sit on my rump all day and type emails to those who are not interested in truth anyway.

**8** idea: you could save time if you dropped all the garbage that you include in your posts.
i imagine that the amount of time you spend trying to be clever is probably unnecessary as well :cheers:

Can't put food on the table that way.

**7** idea: have dumpty #2 put food on the table for you. :joy:

Phantaz has spoken, let us acquiesece!

**8** was this a group vote between you and the Humpty-Dumpty posse? and if so, does this imply that they do your research for you? that would explain some things ...

My mama learnt me how to read at a very early age.

**7** out of curiousity, does your monitor have crayon marks all over it?

Where did I equate the Father with the power of the Father.

**8** implicitly, with Ambrose, in your second post.

You'll have to excuse me,

**7** no i won't.

but I'm used to debate opponents proving their every assertion

**8** such as humpty and dumpty?

[G1]
Since when do we interpret or exegete persons?

**7** since when they're writing, genius.

Is this another shining example of your intellectual prowess, terminological precision and world class education?

**8** no, its another shining example of your lack of all of the above :thumb:

My name does not necessarily come from Lactantius.

**7** i never said it did.

you flatter yourself if you thinkj I've been badgering you.

**7** re "Phantastic Articles". swingin' baby!

I've also heard that you and JP Holding are the same person and that JP Holding's name is actually R***** T*****.

**8** so have i.

I've told you my name is Dan and that is what I expect to be called on theologyweb.

**7** show ya right!--thems that wants isn't always thems that gets.
di'n't yo' mama teach ya 'dat?
quit cryin' little man--its not my fault that you're not very good at insults (despite consistent efforts).

It shows something of your character to try and "out" someone on a forum where Holding insists on not revealing his name.

**8** whatever could you mean?

Hey, my name is Dan and if you don't like it, not really a whole lot I can do about it. This is my last reply in this thread.

**7** good thing that you decided to bail out afor you'd have to back up all that jazz you popped off. say hey to humpty and dumpty for me.
rock on cool man dan :thumb:

[GodisonePerson]

Howdy Phantaz

We're no longer arguing about "created" and "begotten," so I'm gonna bow out of this thread. My bowing out has nothing to do with you supposedly besting me, however. Some people are always winners in their own minds. I allow such ones to enjoy their mental victories.

**7** out of curiousity, does your monitor have crayon marks all over it?

[G1]
Only when I'm reading your posts. :smile:

[G1]
Where did I equate the Father with the power of the Father.

**8** implicitly, with Ambrose, in your second post.

[G1]
Ah, implicitly. I see! I went back and read my second post and there is no intimation whatsoever that I am equating the Father with the power of the Father. That is a misrepresentation of my view and a scurrilous utterance that is designed to denigrate my actual knowledge of the fathers. I always know something is up when you simply assert and don't point to specific evidence to back up your claims. But thanks for providing the exact location of the Swinburne quote.

[G1]
but I'm used to debate opponents proving their every assertion

**8** such as humpty and dumpty?

[G1]
Yeah, unlike you and your alter ego, Holding.

[G1]
Since when do we interpret or exegete persons?

**7** since when they're writing, genius.

[G1]
Strictly speaking, we usually don't exegete persons. That is simply a misuse of the English language, though you're too proud to admit it. Besides, its kinda difficult to exegete somebody while they're writing. <nyuk nyuk> But I don't expect you to grasp this fine point of grammar and semantics.

[G1]
Is this another shining example of your intellectual prowess, terminological precision and world class education?

**8** no, its another shining example of your lack of all of the above :thumb:

[G1]
Good one. As I noted earlier, some people are always winners in their own mind. To use one of your faves, you have an "intake" mode only. Don't confuse me with the facts, madam.

[G1]
My name does not necessarily come from Lactantius.

**7** i never said it did.

[G1]
You certainly implied that it came from what you said was a Lactantius quote in E. Foster's sig line.

[G1]
you flatter yourself if you thinkj I've been badgering you.

**7** re &quot;Phantastic Articles&quot;. swingin' baby!

[G1]
So one thread about you constitutes badgering? Who is badgering whom? I addressed JP Holding in this thread and guess who shows up? His alter ego. I was preparing to debate Joelkaki and guess who challenged me to a debate in the gym?

[G1]
I've also heard that you and JP Holding are the same person and that JP Holding's name is actually R***** T*****.

**8** so have i.

[G1]
I'm beginning to believe it. But JP seems nicer, humbler, and more open to different viewpoints. :teeth:

[G1]
I've told you my name is Dan and that is what I expect to be called on theologyweb.

**7** show ya right!--thems that wants isn't always thems that gets. di'n't yo' mama teach ya 'dat?
quit cryin' little man--its not my fault that you're not very good at insults (despite consistent efforts).

[G1]
I'm glad I'm not good at insulting others, although the gift of insulting is certainly one of the spirit's fruitages. Right up there with love, joy, and peace. Besides, what does being unable to insult others effectively have to do with violating what I thought were this forum's rules? Why can JP Holding have a pseudonym, but when I use my actual name (Dan), I'm accused of being one of my friends (Edgar or Heinz)? Why does Holding get to use a pseudonym on this board, despite the fact that his name is well-known and posted on the internet elsewhere. And, I notice that you too hide behind a fake name. But I have never brought up the issue of you and Holding being self-identical until now, after you decided to resort to some very sad tactics, which threaten to put my friends in a negative light.

[G1]
It shows something of your character to try and &quot;out&quot; someone on a forum where Holding insists on not revealing his name.

**8** whatever could you mean?

[G1]
See above.

[G1]
Hey, my name is Dan and if you don't like it, not really a whole lot I can do about it. This is my last reply in this thread.

**7** good thing that you decided to bail out afor you'd have to back up all that jazz you popped off. say hey to humpty and dumpty for me.
rock on cool man dan

[G1]
I'm not bailing out because you've somehow bested me. I've noticed your MO and I can say that at least you're consistent. No matter which opponent you're facing, they're always wrong and you're always right. They perpetually misread texts, but you exegete them with unmatched brilliance. Not! There is a way that seems upright to a man. I think you know the rest.

Good day, my dear Roman Catholic Byzantine rapping and dancing monk. :cheers:

Aidios
Dan

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** as the Crystal Method song sayeth, "youuuuuu, keep comin' back for morrrrrrre", ahhhh ha ha!

I'm gonna bow out of this thread.

**7** ya mean for reals this time? :rofl:

Some people are always winners in their own minds. I allow such ones to enjoy their mental victories.

**7** after taking the time to assert that it's merely "mental"????
so graceful, so discreet!

Ah, implicitly.

**8** yes, implicitly ...

I see!

**7** no you don't ...

I went back and read my second post and there is no intimation whatsoever that I am equating the Father with the power of the Father.

**8** you're probably so divorced from the text that you're unaware that such an equivication was even possible--that it would also be false may well require a capacity of perception that you lack.
G1 goeth on...

That is a misrepresentation of my view

**8** let's let the readers decide, eh ol' boy?
G1 attempts to summarize my argument (re functional subordination, in the orthodox sense), stating that--

Your argument is that the Son is subordinate to the Father in that he is logically consequent to or dependent upon the Father.

**7** leaving aside the fact that G1 most likely loads the word "subordinate" (etc.) with connotations that i wouldn't acknowledge, let us turn our attention once again to G1, who doth quote Ambrose--

Now Ambrose by arguing,
"Is His divine Life then to be regarded as depending upon the power of another, when His bodily life was subject to no other power but His own? For it would have been the power of another, but for the Unity of power. But just as He gives us to understand that His laying down His life was done of His own power, and of His free Will, so also He teaches us, in laying it down in obedience to His Father's command, the unity of His own with the Father's Will" (ibid, 4.122)

**7** G1, is here trying to counter my claim that, according to Ambrose, the Father is the cause and source of the Son.
note G1's "proof" that i am wrong--

speaks directly to your view of christological subordination. He plainly says that the Son does not depend upon the power of another as respects his "divine life." How is this quote not relevant to our debate?

**7** in passing, not G1's confusion over my thinking his citation irrelevant.
back to the text, G1 then quotes one of my previous posts in our debate, which he intends to prove wrong.
i had said that--

[Phantaz]
**7** in De Incarnationis Ambrose explicitly states that Christ is "eternally from the Father" (5: 35), not to mention the fact that in the beginning of the very work Dan mentions (The Faith), Ambrose states that the reason the Father and Son are not identical is because of "the explicit distinction involved in generation". (1:2:16) Thus Ambrose recognizes a priority of the Father over the Son--neither chronological nor ontological--but logical. Dan has offered nothing that overturns my claim regarding the Nicenes.

**8** now, a brief recap. my argument was that, according to Ambrose, the Father is the source and cause of the Son in a such a way that the Father is the cause of the Son in a way that the Son is not the cause of the Father (an asymmetrical relationship). G1 claim's that this is not so. his proof for this was the above cited quote from Ambrose, wherein Ambrose stated that the Son was not dependant upon the POWER OF the Father as regards his divinity. Ambrose said nothing regarding the Father not being the cause of the Son; he said that the Father's power is not the cause of the Son.
now, let us see how G1 summarizes his argument--

[G1]
Neither one of the quotes you cite above subvert anything that I've argued regarding Ambrose and the Trinity. You assume that Ambrose thinks like you and believes that the Son's eternal generation from the Father entails that the first person of the Trinity is logically prior to the second person. But that is not what he says at all. For, if what you say were true, Ambrose would not have written that the Son is not dependent on the Father with respect to his divine life.

**7** ouch!
let's return back to this thread, and see G1's commentary regarding my claim, completely vindicated in the above word for word citation of the thread in question, that he equivocated the Father as Father with the power of the Father.
G1 claims that my assertion that he equates "the power of the Father" with "the Father" is ...

a misrepresentation of my view and a scurrilous utterance that is designed to denigrate my actual knowledge of the fathers.

**8** :rofl:

I always know something is up when you simply assert and don't point to specific evidence to back up your claims.

**7** yeah, something is "up" alright. your head is "up" the humpty dumpty if you can't see that you're wrong here. implicitly equivocating "the Father" with "the power of the Father" is exactly what you did.
don't blame me for your inability to see key themes in the fathers' writings and keep track of the nonsense you toss up.
admit your error
and be a man
if you can,
dan :teeth:

Yeah, unlike you and your alter ego, Holding.

**8** nice. let's insult him too? was that humpty-humpty's idea? or big daddy dumpty? or is G1 the whiphand in this dynamic trio?

Strictly speaking, we usually don't exegete persons.

**7** mebbe not, but you don't need to worry about people knocking on your door talking about doomsday and suchlike :smile:

But I don't expect you to grasp this fine point of grammar and semantics.

**8** i "grasp" when someone is trying to hide behind them :smile:

As I noted earlier, some people are always winners in their own mind.

**7** keep noting it--maybe you'll manage to trick someone into thinking you haven't been trounced on this thread :rofl:

Don't confuse me with the facts, madam.

**7** ooh la la, Dan goes for a walk on the wild side! G1, i never would have guessed!
does talking with me excite you, ol' boy?
enter the dragon (queen), :rubia: ahhh ha ha.

You certainly implied that it came from what you said was a Lactantius quote in E. Foster's sig line.

**8** whatever could you mean? what do you and E Foster have to do with eachother? am i missing something?

So one thread about you constitutes badgering?

**7** i admit that "badgering me since you've been here" was an overstatement on my part.
aside from that--yes, one thread making fun of my name and accusing me of "hiding the evidence" does constitute badgering. i wasn't the only person under the impression that the only reason you came to TWeb was to kick up dust with me.
speaking of which, i'm sorry you wound up choking on it :teeth:

I addressed JP Holding in this thread and guess who shows up? His alter ego.

**8** check TWeb--i show up on several threads dealing with the Trinity. it had nothing to do with you, it had everything to do with what was said by you.

I was preparing to debate Joelkaki and guess who challenged me to a debate in the gym?

**7** i tossed that challenge out well before you were talking with Joel (as far as i know--i trust you'll understand if i don't think your posts exciting enough to "track"). i did it the minute i saw you talking patristic nonsense in your debate with JP, in the beginning of April.

JP seems nicer, humbler, and more open to different viewpoints.

**8** he may be, but you'd probably be getting the thumping you deserve from him had you initiated contact with him the way you did me.
thus sayeth G1 ...

I'm glad I'm not good at insulting others

**7** thus sayeth G1 three lines later...

you exegete them with unmatched brilliance. Not!

**8** :rofl:
...but i turn the other cheek. :pray:

Besides, what does being unable to insult others effectively have to do with violating what I thought were this forum's rules?

**7** nothing at all. but considering your lack of content in your posts, one would expect the "color" aspect to make up for it, and this especially given the number of attempts.
you came here making fun of my name, and by this point, everyone can tell that you're ranting within, while doing your best to put up a clean outer-image (and failing miserably ... composure ol' boy!) a weekend with Holden Caulfield would do you well.

Good day, my dear Roman Catholic Byzantine rapping and dancing monk.

**8** :teeth:

[GodisonePerson]

I moved my bout with phantaz to the locker room.

Dan

[Reasonable]

Someone forwarded the following quotes to me about Col 1:15. Does anyone know if these are legit? I don't have any means to verifying them. Thanks
___________________________________________
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; 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.

'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:

'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:

"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.

[Tsmith]

Well I haven't actually checked, but they do look authentic. If you would like to check for yourself, just go to http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

-Tony

[jpholding]

Hee hee, this is getting more amusing by the moment,

And I am allowed to do that. There is no rule that says otherwise.

Yes I am not allowed to import eternality? No rule against it! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :brow:

Because it is the person that is speaking. The person is saying that he was created, that he was the masterworker.

And for the 150,000th time, there is no temporal implication in "created" by itself no mater how many times you claim otherwise and say nothing that shows otherwise.

We know the master worker was Jesus (Col 1:16), not an attribute.

Sadly for your position, as shown the Colossian hymn is full of allusions to the Wisdom tradition -- about Wisdom, the master worker, a hypostatic attribute of God.

Because you said QEOS is just a title, and I said it carries much more weight than that.

What weight other than that already carried by the title?

I find it of interest that this same phrase "from everlasting" is used also in Proverbs 8:23. We note, however, that this phrase also means "from ancient times." Literally, it denotes an indefinite amount of time into the past. Knowing that this was originally written in Hebrew, it is an important fact to consider. So you can get nothing eternal out of this, but the use of create has an semantic implication of origin.

Hee heee ----

1) The translator of Ecclesiasticus chose a Greek word that means eternity, which indicates that HE understood Prov. 8 to mean the same.
2) So "from everlasting" is not eternality? Hmmm ---

Ps. 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Hey, so God was not God at some time in the past! Didn't know you were a Mormon. :teeth:

Ps.93:2 2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

Dang. You're Mormonizing again!

Ps. 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD.

Nope! We don't want blessings on God forever, that's too much!

Is. 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

God's name was "Fred" before "everlasting".

Nice try!

Well, going to the Greek, we find AIWNOS, which just as with the Hebrew does not have a definite implication.

Bzzzt. Barr's definitive study in Biblical Words for Time shows that AIWNOS absolutely means "eternity" unlike 'olam. Got an answer for Barr, do let us know!

The force of KTIZO denoting origin is so strong that it cannot be ignored.

The force of wind repeatedly asserting temporal meaning for KTIZO won't import any such meaning to it even repeated 100,000,000 times.

Actually, according to the Nicene Creed, this is a direct contradiction:

How?

Further, the Athanasian Creed is even more directly contradicted.

Only if you assume temporal value on the word "created" (again!).

Actually, the second one is verse 9 and I think there are two key words here. First, we again find EKTISEN, which is of course created. But also, we have APO, which, translated from, denotes an actual point of origin.

Yep. The eternal hypostasis has a point of origin in the Father. **applause** Thanks for the support! :thumb:

That is really weak. Job is more about man's inability vs. God's ability.

Nice try at a squeeze-out. But there's no indication that the events of 38:4 were at the same time as 38:7 and that the angels were present for 38:4's events. Nice try, but too desperate.

And he we must distiguish between the attribute of wisdom and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, wisdom personified, who is a seperate person from God the Father.

I.e., here you must add your completely artificial distinction to escape the inevitable conclusion. :teeth: Which is why you have no actual answer.

This sounds much like 1 Cor 1:24, but it does not disagree with anything I have thus far stated.

Pfft! Philo refers to the Logos as an attribute of God (therefore, by implication inescapable, ETERNAL) and the same language he uses is used of Christ in the NT (image of God, universe came into being, firstborn son). You're sinking deeper and have no idea what to do about it.

First and foremost, you have not shown this personified Wisdom to be eternal. Rather, quite the opposite has been seen.

You have done no such thing other than by equivocating on "from everlasting", claiming (against perhaps the leading semantic scholar in the field) that AIWNOS does not mean "eternal" (and giving no substantiation) and by bypassing the rest with non-addressing comments.

I, rather hold the view that John's initial use of Jesus as the LOGOS in John 1:1a shows the LOGOS coming into being with the use of the inceptive HN.

Unfortunately again, LOGOS implied an eternal attribute of God, per Philo. However, do feel free to prove that HN is inceptive here -- we have a Greek expert on board (Jaltus) who will be glad to check your work.

It absolutely is.

It simply isn't. :teeth:

An attribute does not possess itself, it is itself.

It is not saying it possesses "itself" but that it possesses the trait with which it shares a name -- the use is the same as "counsel".

Yet, Wisdom Personified in Jesus is said to possess the attribute of Wisdom. This is seen in Proverbs 8:14 and Col 2:3. So you have two here, not one.

We have one person, one attribute. Simple enough and you have yet to explain otherwise other than with arbitrary designations.

Well it is hard to answer something when you are simply providing an opinion

It is easy to simply call something an "opinion" in order to avoid making a direct answer to it. :teeth: I.e., you have none.

The simply fact that inexistance is implied within the word created, because only uncreated things that exist have eternally existed.

The simple fact is, the implication only comes of this because of the objects "created" and you can never get around this and never will.

Why should I? It is a valid position and one that holds solid ground.

It is a desperate position that denies the data and makes excuses for it.

My position is totally maintained by context and on examination, is actually significantly stronger than yours.

Your position is complete refuted by context and no such examination worth a cent has taken place, as noted above, leaving your position actually significantly in the dust.

Actually, Jesus said the rocks would cry out. :)

And you obviously do not think that was meant literally. ;)

However, that aside, you still do not understand the full range of the use of KTISEWS. That said, rocks fit within the meaning of the word itself, like it or not.

And where was your proof of that? It seems to be missing, rather conspicuously, or else is hidden behind yet another wall of bald assertion that seems to creep up on you often.

What about Philo. You've not even come close to making any point with your discussion of Philo.

Along with bare denial.

Having looked into the actual function of PAS, I've completely refuted his point.

You haven't even TOUCHED any of his points and your arguments about PAS have no bearing on anything he wrote. You stated words, all right, but may as well have just stated "hi diddle diddle" for all the relevance they had.

So please address what I have stated on this construction and its relation to Col 1:15, 16 and the other examples I cited.

I have already done so.

As shown, you've not really demonstrated a single solid point.

As shown, repeated denial is your main tactic. :thumb:

An attribute is an attribute, a person possess an attribute. The personification in Proverbs 8 possess.

That's not an answer to my question. Again: Would not Wisdom personfied, BE a wise person and have the attribute of Wisdom? You're avoiding an answer.

Oh. Now is illegal? How so?

The punishment is 400 lashes with Barr's book.

Huh? The simply use of EKTISEN proves my point completely

Say it, don't spray it. You are avoiding the issue because you know that this point makes your theories unfalsifiable and therefore worthless. If there is no verb showing eternal temporality of production that COULD have been used, then only a verb plus a temporal adjectival modified will do the job. So the burden is yours to show that the writers were not "locked in" to a limited vocabulary and that they did have other ways of expressing that the begotten/created attribute of Wisdom was eternal.

[Jem_SixDays]

For starters, if we compare Col 1:15 to verse 16, we find that the ALL discussed is not the same. In Col 1:15 we find that Paul used the feminine of PAS, where verse 16 contains the neuter. Thus, the all of creation he is firstborn of is not the same as that which was created through him.

I'm not any kind of grammar expert, especially Greek. But when I looked up verses 15 and 16 in Strong's, the "all" in 15 is the same as "things" in verse 16. Both seem to be pas. This is also the same word used in Revelation 4:11, among other places.

As with any scripture, we cannot get bogged down by one verse and base our doctrine off it. We must look at all of scripture as a whole to establish our doctrine. It seems plain to me that as a whole, scripture tells us pretty clearly that Jesus is God, and is the creator of all things, and that He is not a created being Himself. John 1:3 strongly indicates that Jesus could not be a created being:

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

I'm new here, but I just thought I'd throw in my comments too.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 09:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131712#post131712)
jpholding:

Hee hee, this is getting more amusing by the moment,

And I am allowed to do that. There is no rule that says otherwise.

Yes I am not allowed to import eternality? No rule against it! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. :brow:

Actually, there is. The use of Wisdom with regards to it being EKTISEN prohibts your use of eternity.


Because it is the person that is speaking. The person is saying that he was created, that he was the masterworker.

And for the 150,000th time, there is no temporal implication in &quot;created&quot; by itself no mater how many times you claim otherwise and say nothing that shows otherwise.

Wrong. To create is an action. Every action takes place within a relative period of time. It is not an ongoing action. We are not being continually recreated, but something is created and that action is then finished.


We know the master worker was Jesus (Col 1:16), not an attribute.

Sadly for your position, as shown the Colossian hymn is full of allusions to the Wisdom tradition -- about Wisdom, the master worker, a hypostatic attribute of God.

You fail to grasp the second person outside of God functioning as an intermediate agent within Col 1:16.

Because you said QEOS is just a title, and I said it carries much more weight than that.

What weight other than that already carried by the title?

I don't think I follow your question. What I mean is that QEOS as a title carries the force of a proper name, directed to our one God, the Father (1 Cor. 8:6). For example, if I was to just say "The Boss," I could be speaking of anyone, but if we say "The God", we mean the generally mean the Father.

I find it of interest that this same phrase &quot;from everlasting&quot; is used also in Proverbs 8:23. We note, however, that this phrase also means &quot;from ancient times.&quot; Literally, it denotes an indefinite amount of time into the past. Knowing that this was originally written in Hebrew, it is an important fact to consider. So you can get nothing eternal out of this, but the use of create has an semantic implication of origin.

Hee heee ----

1) The translator of Ecclesiasticus chose a Greek word that means eternity, which indicates that HE understood Prov. 8 to mean the same.
2) So &quot;from everlasting&quot; is not eternality? Hmmm ---

You totally missed the point. The word, in and of itself does not have a definite meaning of eternity.

Ps. 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Hey, so God was not God at some time in the past! Didn't know you were a Mormon. :teeth:

Ps.93:2 2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.

Dang. You're Mormonizing again!

Ps. 106:48 Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD.

Nope! We don't want blessings on God forever, that's too much!

Is. 63:16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

God's name was &quot;Fred&quot; before &quot;everlasting&quot;.

Nice try!

Actually, it is more a nice attempt on your part, but one that fails. A person must contextually determine which way the word is being used. You theologically determine that it should mean eternal, rather than contextually. With the contextual use of Wisdom being created, your theological interpretation contradicts.

Well, going to the Greek, we find AIWNOS, which just as with the Hebrew does not have a definite implication.

Bzzzt. Barr's definitive study in Biblical Words for Time shows that AIWNOS absolutely means &quot;eternity&quot; unlike 'olam. Got an answer for Barr, do let us know!

Vincent's Word Studies:

"[AIWN] transliterated eon, is a period of time of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle ([PERI OURANOU], i. 9, 15) says: “The period which includes the whole time of each one's life is called the eon of each one.” Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one's life (AIWN) is said to leave him or to consume away (Il. v. 685; Od. v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millennium; the mytho-logical period before the beginnings of history. The word has not “a stationary and mechanical value” (De Quincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many eons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one eon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow's life, another of an oak's life. The length of the eon depends on the subject to which it is attached.

The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting. To deduce that meaning from its relation to a?e?´ is absurd; for, apart from the fact that the meaning of a word is not definitely fixed by its derivation, a?e?´ does not signify endless duration. When the writer of the Pastoral Epistles quotes the saying that the Cretans are always (a?e?´) liars (Tit_1:12), he surely does not mean that the Cretans will go on lying to all eternity. See also Act_7:51; 2Co_4:11; 2Co_6:10; Heb_3:10; 1Pe_3:15. ??e?´ means habitually or continually within the limit of the subject's life. In our colloquial dialect everlastingly is used in the same way. “The boy is everlastingly tormenting me to buy him a drum.”"


Strong's provides the following:

From the same as G104; properly an age; by extension perpetuity (also past); by implication the world; specifically (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future): - age, course, eternal, (for) ever (-more), [n-]ever, (beginning of the, while the) world (began, without end).

An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon states:

1. one’s lifetime, life, Homer and Att. Poets.
2. an age, generation,
3. a long space of time, an age
4. a definite space of time, an era, epoch, age, period,


The force of KTIZO denoting origin is so strong that it cannot be ignored.

The force of wind repeatedly asserting temporal meaning for KTIZO won't import any such meaning to it even repeated 100,000,000 times.

It is not forcing, it is a simple fact the word create includes a temporal aspect. You cannot get out of this fact.

Actually, according to the Nicene Creed, this is a direct contradiction:

How?

Further, the Athanasian Creed is even more directly contradicted.

Only if you assume temporal value on the word &quot;created&quot; (again!).

That has NOTHING to do with it. The Creeds state that Jesus was NOT made and NOT created, yet the word created is directly used for Jesus as Wisdom. A complete contradiction.

Actually, the second one is verse 9 and I think there are two key words here. First, we again find EKTISEN, which is of course created. But also, we have APO, which, translated from, denotes an actual point of origin.

Yep. The eternal hypostasis has a point of origin in the Father. **applause** Thanks for the support! :thumb:

That is a contradiction. Something cannot be eternal and yet have a point of origin. Why can't a Trinitarian ever say what they mean or mean what they say. Stop contradicting yourself. You either have a point of origin or you do not. It does not work both ways.

That is really weak. Job is more about man's inability vs. God's ability.

Nice try at a squeeze-out. But there's no indication that the events of 38:4 were at the same time as 38:7 and that the angels were present for 38:4's events. Nice try, but too desperate.

Not even a little.

Job 38:4 Where were you when I founded the earth? Declare if you know understanding. 5 Who has set its dimensions, for you know? Or who has stretched a line on it? 6 On what were its bases sunk? Or who cast its cornerstone, 7 when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

He is stating "Where were you [when these events took place]." One of these events is when the morning stars, the angels, sang together. So, yes, where was man when this event happened. Angels were there, but where was man?


And he we must distiguish between the attribute of wisdom and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, wisdom personified, who is a seperate person from God the Father.

I.e., here you must add your completely artificial distinction to escape the inevitable conclusion. :teeth: Which is why you have no actual answer.

There is nothing artificial about it. Let us see.

Pro 8:12 I, wisdom, dwell with sense, and I find knowledge of discretions. 13 The fear of Jehovah is to hate evil; I hate pride and loftiness, and the evil way, and the perverse mouth. 14 Counsel and sound wisdom are mine; I am understanding; I have strength.

So, in other words, "I wisdom... [have] wisdom." There is a definite distinction. There is no way around it. It is not artifical, but this simple fact destroys your position.

This sounds much like 1 Cor 1:24, but it does not disagree with anything I have thus far stated.

Pfft! Philo refers to the Logos as an attribute of God (therefore, by implication inescapable, ETERNAL) and the same language he uses is used of Christ in the NT (image of God, universe came into being, firstborn son). You're sinking deeper and have no idea what to do about it.

Yes, of course God has his own speech. However, Jesus is something seperate. Note what is stated in Revelation.

Rev 19:13 and having been clothed in a garment which had been dipped in blood. And His name is called The Word of God.

We find here, that it is a name GIVEN to him, a position given. This is made plainly evident by the use of KALEITAI, which denotes giving a name or calling one by a name, not having an idenity as someone. So LOGOS is a position held by Jesus as God's spokesman, mirroring God perfectly (Heb 1:1-3). He is not God's actual speech.

First and foremost, you have not shown this personified Wisdom to be eternal. Rather, quite the opposite has been seen.

You have done no such thing other than by equivocating on &quot;from everlasting&quot;, claiming (against perhaps the leading semantic scholar in the field) that AIWNOS does not mean &quot;eternal&quot; (and giving no substantiation) and by bypassing the rest with non-addressing comments.

Well, I have already provided information on significant evidence against your claim from VWS and Strong's. There is further information available, but I believe this to be sufficient.

I, rather hold the view that John's initial use of Jesus as the LOGOS in John 1:1a shows the LOGOS coming into being with the use of the inceptive HN.

Unfortunately again, LOGOS implied an eternal attribute of God, per Philo. However, do feel free to prove that HN is inceptive here -- we have a Greek expert on board (Jaltus) who will be glad to check your work.

You have not proven that from Philo even. Empty claims is all you seem to be able to provide.

If we look at John 1:10 we find EN TW KOSMW HN. Was he always in the world, or did he come into the World? He came into the world. We find the same thing with John 1:1. He wasn't eternally existant, but he came into existance at the time called the beginning. This agrees perfectly with Proverbs 8, where Wisdom(Jesus) is created as "the beginning" and Revelation 3:14 where Jesus is called "the beginning of the creation of God," which, as BDAG states, has the probable definition of first-created.

An attribute does not possess itself, it is itself.

It is not saying it possesses &quot;itself&quot; but that it possesses the trait with which it shares a name -- the use is the same as &quot;counsel&quot;.

You have just made the distinction yourself. You state "it possesses the trait with which it shares a name..." It shares a name. Exactly. To share, there must be more than one. So there are two. The person and the trait or attribute. This has been my very point.

Yet, Wisdom Personified in Jesus is said to possess the attribute of Wisdom. This is seen in Proverbs 8:14 and Col 2:3. So you have two here, not one.

We have one person, one attribute. Simple enough and you have yet to explain otherwise other than with arbitrary designations.

This is EXACTLY my point. We have one and one. We add them together and we get TWO.

Well it is hard to answer something when you are simply providing an opinion

It is easy to simply call something an &quot;opinion&quot; in order to avoid making a direct answer to it. :teeth: I.e., you have none.

No, you've provided an opinion. Anything you've attempted to prove, such as Wisdom being eternal, is based on a substance, which I have delt with.

The simply fact that inexistance is implied within the word created, because only uncreated things that exist have eternally existed.

The simple fact is, the implication only comes of this because of the objects &quot;created&quot; and you can never get around this and never will.

That is entirely false. It does not matter what is created. To create is to bring into being. To bring into being, one must BECOME being. Jesus came into being.

Why should I? It is a valid position and one that holds solid ground.

It is a desperate position that denies the data and makes excuses for it.

So please show me this data. I've yet to see it thus far.

My position is totally maintained by context and on examination, is actually significantly stronger than yours.

Your position is complete refuted by context and no such examination worth a cent has taken place, as noted above, leaving your position actually significantly in the dust.

What context? Your attempt to prove that Wisdom personified is somewhere shown to be eternal has thus far failed. Please provide some substance in your reply.


However, that aside, you still do not understand the full range of the use of KTISEWS. That said, rocks fit within the meaning of the word itself, like it or not.

And where was your proof of that? It seems to be missing, rather conspicuously, or else is hidden behind yet another wall of bald assertion that seems to creep up on you often.

Obviously you do not know much Greek. I had come into this discussion assuming you had at least a bit of a grasp on it, so I didn't feel I needed to provide sources for such basic points.

Thayer's
1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
1a) the act of creating, creation
1b) creation, i.e. thing created
1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
1b1a) anything created
1b1b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called)
1b1c) the sum or aggregate of things created
1c) institution, ordinance

Strong's
From G2936; original formation (properly the act; by implication the thing, literally or figuratively): - building, creation, creature, ordinance.

A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament:
feminine creation, what is created, created order, creature (of living beings); act of creation;

Is that enough or should I provide more?

What about Philo. You've not even come close to making any point with your discussion of Philo.

Along with bare denial.

Seriously, you provide this quote from him, but I failed to see any substance from it. Stop making lose claims and show what your point is in his writings.

Having looked into the actual function of PAS, I've completely refuted his point.

You haven't even TOUCHED any of his points and your arguments about PAS have no bearing on anything he wrote. You stated words, all right, but may as well have just stated &quot;hi diddle diddle&quot; for all the relevance they had.

Obviously your lack of understanding Greek is prohibiting you here. His arguement against a partitive genitive construction is that Col 1:16 states: EN AUTW EKTISQH TA PANTA. I demonstrated that his TA PANTA claim does not prove anything, and that often the reverse of his claim is actually true. Further, I asked for evidence from the use of PRWTOTOKOS + genitive to substantiate his point, as to my knowledge there is none. So yes, I delt with him quite completely, at least until you provide some examples that demonstrate his claim.

So please address what I have stated on this construction and its relation to Col 1:15, 16 and the other examples I cited.

I have already done so.

Where? Show me again.

As shown, you've not really demonstrated a single solid point.

As shown, repeated denial is your main tactic. :thumb:

I'm still waiting to see something....

An attribute is an attribute, a person possess an attribute. The personification in Proverbs 8 possess.

That's not an answer to my question. Again: Would not Wisdom personfied, BE a wise person and have the attribute of Wisdom? You're avoiding an answer.

Yes, of course, but that is exactly my point. The person is NOT the attribute, the person possess the attribute.


Huh? The simply use of EKTISEN proves my point completely

Say it, don't spray it. You are avoiding the issue because you know that this point makes your theories unfalsifiable and therefore worthless. If there is no verb showing eternal temporality of production that COULD have been used, then only a verb plus a temporal adjectival modified will do the job. So the burden is yours to show that the writers were not &quot;locked in&quot; to a limited vocabulary and that they did have other ways of expressing that the begotten/created attribute of Wisdom was eternal.

If wisdom were eternal, there would not be a temporal position placed on it. God is never given a temporal aspect, we therefore understand words that do not in and of themselves remove a temportal element to allow God to be without time. However, when something is placed within time with regards to coming into being, they are given a temporal element. My position would is entirely valid, and your position would be accurate were not a temporal element applied to Wisdom.

-Tony

[Tsmith]

Today @ 11:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=131791#post131791)
Jem_SixDays:



I'm not any kind of grammar expert, especially Greek. But when I looked up verses 15 and 16 in Strong's, the &quot;all&quot; in 15 is the same as &quot;things&quot; in verse 16. Both seem to be pas. This is also the same word used in Revelation 4:11, among other places.

The actual words in Col 1:15, 16 are KTISEWS, EKTISQH and EKTISTAI, respectively.


As with any scripture, we cannot get bogged down by one verse and base our doctrine off it. We must look at all of scripture as a whole to establish our doctrine. It seems plain to me that as a whole, scripture tells us pretty clearly that Jesus is God, and is the creator of all things, and that He is not a created being Himself. John 1:3 strongly indicates that Jesus could not be a created being:

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

I'm new here, but I just thought I'd throw in my comments too.

Actually, grammatically we have an intermediate agent. Showing that Jesus is not the source of creation, but he is the agent that the source (God) uses in creation. This is a grammatical thing, not theological.

Discussing John 1:3 is something we can do if you would like. There is significant information on this verse, including much regarding how the final part, hO GEGONEN historically is connected to verse 4, which significantly changes the overal meaning and does not remove Jesus from the element of creation. I'm headed out shortly though, so if you would like to discuss this in detail, it will have to wait for my return (unless Cal would like to go into it, as he is more than capable on this subject).

-Tony

[Jezz]

If we look at John 1:10 we find EN TW KOSMW HN. Was he always in the world, or did he come into the World? He came into the world. We find the same thing with John 1:1. He wasn't eternally existant, but he came into existance at the time called the beginning. This agrees perfectly with Proverbs 8, where Wisdom(Jesus) is created as "the beginning" and Revelation 3:14 where Jesus is called "the beginning of the creation of God," which, as BDAG states, has the probable definition of first-created.
Tony, you're making a distinction that simply isn't there. To claim that Wisdom was created in the beginning but not eternal is a contradiction.

You say Wisdom was not always in existence. Let us suppose, for a moment, that this was true.

1. Wisdom was not always in existence. (supposition)
2. A time existed when Wisdom did not exist. (consequence of 1).
3. Wisdom was created in the beginning (a point derived from the Biblical and inter-testamental literature that even you agree with).
4. Wisdom existed after it was created (by definition of "create").
5. Therefore, any time-point when Wisdom did not exist must be before the time point when it was created (from 4).
6. Therefore, any time-point when Wisdom did not exist must be before the beginning (combining 3, 5).
7. There are no time-points before the beginning (definition of "beginning").
8. Therefore, there is no time-point when Wisdom did not exist (6, 7).

8 is a contradiction to 2, and therefore the supposition at 1 must be false and its converse must be true. In other words, Wisdom always existed. In other words, Wisdom is eternal. I say it again: to claim that Wisdom was created in the beginning but is not eternal is a logical contradiction. No amount of grammatical argument about the meaning of the Hebrew/Greek/English words for "create" will change that fact. You're not trying to argue that the Bible contains a logical contradiction, are you?

[jpholding]

In runs tsmith, in circles:

Actually, there is. The use of Wisdom with regards to it being EKTISEN prohibts your use of eternity.

It doesn't in the least, otherthan by your same fallacious assumption that any verb offers temporal connotations by itself.

Wrong. To create is an action. Every action takes place within a relative period of time.

Ding dong, wrong. :teeth: Every action WE do takes place within a relative period of time. An action of God, an eternal being, particularly the action of production of an attribute, takes place eternally. Just keep chasing your tail, you'll eventually bite it.

You fail to grasp the second person outside of God functioning as an intermediate agent within Col 1:16.

I fail to grasp nothing. You fail to grasp that that person is a hypostasis of God, a separate ego but not outside the divine identity, and yes indeed an intermediate agent.

I don't think I follow your question. What I mean is that QEOS as a title carries the force of a proper name, directed to our one God, the Father (1 Cor. 8:6).

If you can't follow it, then you apparently don't understand where you're going wrong.

You totally missed the point. The word, in and of itself does not have a definite meaning of eternity.

Yet my examples showed that it was clearly used when things WE know to be eternal were described. And you flailed:

Actually, it is more a nice attempt on your part, but one that fails.

I.e., it sends you spinning for excuses, to wit:

A person must contextually determine which way the word is being used. You theologically determine that it should mean eternal, rather than contextually.

Bzzzt. Begged question on your part. You read your theology of a created being into the text; I, on the other hand, use not "theology" but the clear testimony of later literature which understood Wisdom as eteernal. And around you go!

With the contextual use of Wisdom being created, your theological interpretation contradicts.

With your abuse of verbs like "created" as though they had temporal connotation, your question begs. Arf!

&quot;[AIWN] transliterated eon, is a period of time of longer


AIWN is not AIWNOS. Irrelevant. You are wasting time trying to impress others with irrelevancies.

It is not forcing, it is a simple fact the word create includes a temporal aspect. You cannot get out of this fact.

It is repeated forcing, and a simple fact that verbs like create do NOT include any temporal aspect apart from their objects. There is no fact to get out of, but plenty of denial to dodge. :teeth:

That has NOTHING to do with it. The Creeds state that Jesus was NOT made and NOT created, yet the word created is directly used for Jesus as Wisdom.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, for the Creeds were in reaction to abuses of words like "created" of similar nature to the abuse you are now perpetrating.

That is a contradiction. Something cannot be eternal and yet have a point of origin.

It can indeed if the point of origin itself is eternal.

Why can't a Trinitarian ever say what they mean or mean what they say.

We do, but it tends to go overhead the less educated. :teeth:

Stop contradicting yourself.

Stop raging in denial. :teeth:

Not even a little.

A whole bunch!

He is stating &quot;Where were you [when these events took place].&quot; One of these events is when the morning stars, the angels, sang together. So, yes, where was man when this event happened. Angels were there, but where was man?

And no indication that the events of 4 and 7 were at the same time. Thank you.

There is nothing artificial about it. Let us see.

It is 100% artificial, no natural ingredients, all fillers.

So, in other words, &quot;I wisdom... [have] wisdom.&quot; There is a definite distinction. There is no way around it. It is not artifical, but this simple fact destroys your position.

WHAT? What you state is what *I* have been stating all along! :rofl: Wisdom has wisdom! Are you sure you know what you're stumping for?

Yes, of course God has his own speech. However, Jesus is something seperate.

Separate to what extent? Even a hypostatic entity is a separate personality (ego).

We find here, that it is a name GIVEN to him, a position given.

That's nice. As an eternal hypostasis, it would indeed be his eternal position and what he would be called. Your attempt is misguided, yet again, and fails on the same sort of wreck as your attempt to abuse the verbs.

This is made plainly evident by the use of KALEITAI, which denotes giving a name or calling one by a name, not having an idenity as someone.

Gee, wouldn't someone's identity sorta be reflected in what they were called?

Well, I have already provided information on significant evidence against your claim from VWS and Strong's.

You didn't touch one bit of it but rampaged on over AIWN, not AIWNOS.

You have not proven that from Philo even. Empty claims is all you seem to be able to provide.

Denial rather is your stock in trade.

If we look at John 1:10 we find EN TW KOSMW HN. Was he always in the world, or did he come into the World? He came into the world.

Uh, yeah, but the world isn't eternal. Thus, beside the point.

We find the same thing with John 1:1.

And how do we find that, exactly, other than by begging an enormous question and ignoring reams of literary parallels?

time called the beginning. This agrees perfectly with Proverbs 8, where Wisdom(Jesus) is created as &quot;the beginning&quot; and Revelation 3:14 where Jesus is called &quot;the beginning of the creation of God,&quot; which, as BDAG states, has the probable definition of first-created.

The same old abuse of verbs as before, and now of an adjective. The eternal hypostasis would be the first creation of God.

You have just made the distinction yourself. You state &quot;it possesses the trait with which it shares a name...&quot; It shares a name. Exactly. To share, there must be more than one. So there are two.

Two WHAT? This is a blatant category error. The is one person, one attribute of that person. And this is against what you have been arguing all this time. Either that, or you have no idea what you have been arguing and are trying to cover for it.

No, you've provided an opinion.

No, I've provided facts. You've provided denial. With a side of chips.

That is entirely false. It does not matter what is created.

It does 100% matter. Denial is not an answer.

So please show me this data. I've yet to see it thus far.

Temporary blindness? :rofl:

What context? Your attempt to prove that Wisdom personified is somewhere shown to be eternal has thus far failed.

The contexts listed above, which you do indeed do well to ignore or deny.

Obviously you do not know much Greek.

Obviously you know as much as I do -- what can be gotten out of lexicons and Bible software. :teeth: Thayer's and Strong's doesn't help you at all as it amounts to your same position without answering the matter of inserting temporal connotation arbitrarily.

Is that enough or should I provide more?

An actual answer would be nice.

Seriously, you provide this quote from him, but I failed to see any substance from it.

Whoops! Wanna borrow a cane and some dark glasses?

Stop making lose claims and show what your point is in his writings.

Stop ignoring his material and show why he his clear rebuttal to your position is wrong.

I demonstrated that his TA PANTA claim does not prove anything, and that often the reverse of his claim is actually true.

You demonstrated no such thing but went off on a skein about PAS, not even mentioning the TA PANTA clause.

Further, I asked for evidence from the use of PRWTOTOKOS + genitive to substantiate his point, as to my knowledge there is none.

None was needed. Thisi s an arbitrary demand made to look like you know more than you do, as if you have some secret knowledge behind the matter.

Where? Show me again. I'm still waiting to see something....

It's only 4 pages. You can see for yourself if you get the denial glasses off.


If wisdom were eternal, there would not be a temporal position placed on it.

There isn't, except by your arbitrary abuse of verbs with no temporal connotation in themselves. For the 1000000th time: With no verb that in itself connotes eternal production, the only semantic option is combo phrases like "eternally begotten" or "eternally created". Now answer this plainly: IF you agreed with my position, then what would the Nicean Creed have to say, what verb would it use to describe the relationship between the Father and His eternal hypostasis? You are not permitted to use the word "eternal" or any other adjective connoting eternality.

If you avoid this question, your position is proven bankrupt.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 05:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132353#post132353)
jpholding:

In runs tsmith, in circles:


Actually, there is. The use of Wisdom with regards to it being EKTISEN prohibts your use of eternity.

It doesn't in the least, otherthan by your same fallacious assumption that any verb offers temporal connotations by itself.


Denying a temporal element to the EKTISEN does not remove it. It is there, whether or not you choose to accept it.

Wrong. To create is an action. Every action takes place within a relative period of time.

Ding dong, wrong. :teeth: Every action WE do takes place within a relative period of time. An action of God, an eternal being, particularly the action of production of an attribute, takes place eternally. Just keep chasing your tail, you'll eventually bite it.

God does not create his own attributes, he always has them, uncreated. If he creates a new element of himself even in eternity, he has brought about a change to himself. This directly contradicts scripture where God says in no uncertain terms, "I change not."


You fail to grasp the second person outside of God functioning as an intermediate agent within Col 1:16.

I fail to grasp nothing. You fail to grasp that that person is a hypostasis of God, a separate ego but not outside the divine identity, and yes indeed an intermediate agent.

You make a claim that he is an eternal hypostasis of God, yet I'm waiting for proof. In scripture, there is no seperation between person and being. This is something you are doing, using post biblical language. Using the Bible alone, prove who God is and who Jesus is.


You totally missed the point. The word, in and of itself does not have a definite meaning of eternity.

Yet my examples showed that it was clearly used when things WE know to be eternal were described. And you flailed:

Your examples failed because they did not have a word providing a temporal element attached to it, as Wisdom does.

A person must contextually determine which way the word is being used. You theologically determine that it should mean eternal, rather than contextually.

Bzzzt. Begged question on your part. You read your theology of a created being into the text; I, on the other hand, use not &quot;theology&quot; but the clear testimony of later literature which understood Wisdom as eteernal. And around you go!

It says CREATED. That is not reading theology in, that is taking it for what it says. Your attempts at using later literature have not proven eternality either. Rather, they have shown a point of origin (APO) and that Wisdom was created (EKTISEN) at that point. If one has a point of origin, they are not eternal, because eternal does not begin, but APO shows a point of beginning.


With the contextual use of Wisdom being created, your theological interpretation contradicts.

With your abuse of verbs like &quot;created&quot; as though they had temporal connotation, your question begs. Arf!

I'm not abusing it. Even if you want to ignore the temporal element of EKTISEN, you cannot get out of the temporal element applied by the use of APO.

&amp;quot;[AIWN] transliterated eon, is a period of time of longer


AIWN is not AIWNOS. Irrelevant. You are wasting time trying to impress others with irrelevancies.

Again, you are showing your ignorance of Greek. AIWNOS is the singlular genitive of AIWN. So everything that was stated regarding AIWN completely applies.

It is not forcing, it is a simple fact the word create includes a temporal aspect. You cannot get out of this fact.

It is repeated forcing, and a simple fact that verbs like create do NOT include any temporal aspect apart from their objects. There is no fact to get out of, but plenty of denial to dodge. :teeth:

Yes they do, but even more so APO includes a temporal aspect. There is no getting around that.


That has NOTHING to do with it. The Creeds state that Jesus was NOT made and NOT created, yet the word created is directly used for Jesus as Wisdom.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it, for the Creeds were in reaction to abuses of words like &quot;created&quot; of similar nature to the abuse you are now perpetrating.

I'm not abusing it. I'm just taking it for what it means.



That is a contradiction. Something cannot be eternal and yet have a point of origin.

It can indeed if the point of origin itself is eternal.

That again is a contradiction, because there is no eternal point. Eternality never ends, it is perpetual. Thus, there is no specific point. Only when you move outside of eternity can you have a specific point in time.


He is stating &amp;quot;Where were you [when these events took place].&amp;quot; One of these events is when the morning stars, the angels, sang together. So, yes, where was man when this event happened. Angels were there, but where was man?

And no indication that the events of 4 and 7 were at the same time. Thank you.

Contextually, they are all paralleled, but it really is of no consequence, as my original point about angels being in existance still stands.


So, in other words, &amp;quot;I wisdom... [have] wisdom.&amp;quot; There is a definite distinction. There is no way around it. It is not artifical, but this simple fact destroys your position.

WHAT? What you state is what *I* have been stating all along! :rofl: Wisdom has wisdom! Are you sure you know what you're stumping for?

Yes, because the person of Wisdom (Jesus) was created, not the attributed possessed by the person, and thus by God. The attribute is eternal, the personification is not.


We find here, that it is a name GIVEN to him, a position given.

That's nice. As an eternal hypostasis, it would indeed be his eternal position and what he would be called. Your attempt is misguided, yet again, and fails on the same sort of wreck as your attempt to abuse the verbs.

The difference is him being the actual LOGOS (speech of God) verse being called it, for his representation of God (John 1:18).


Well, I have already provided information on significant evidence against your claim from VWS and Strong's.

You didn't touch one bit of it but rampaged on over AIWN, not AIWNOS.

And statements like this prove that much of what I'm saying is actually going entirely over your head, no offense. But this makes it understandable why you can't understand the temporal aspect of EKTISEN when used with APO.

You have not proven that from Philo even. Empty claims is all you seem to be able to provide.

Denial rather is your stock in trade.

I'm still waiting to see something. Are you ever going to show me? Please post it in your next reply.

If we look at John 1:10 we find EN TW KOSMW HN. Was he always in the world, or did he come into the World? He came into the world.

Uh, yeah, but the world isn't eternal. Thus, beside the point.

And the beginning isn't eternal either. The beginning is the start of something.

We find the same thing with John 1:1.

And how do we find that, exactly, other than by begging an enormous question and ignoring reams of literary parallels?

How do we find the inceptive HN? Just as the beginning was a point in time, so was the coming of Jesus into the world. Jesus is not said to be BEFORE the beginning, but in it. John could have easily said for him to be before the beginning.


time called the beginning. This agrees perfectly with Proverbs 8, where Wisdom(Jesus) is created as &amp;quot;the beginning&amp;quot; and Revelation 3:14 where Jesus is called &amp;quot;the beginning of the creation of God,&amp;quot; which, as BDAG states, has the probable definition of first-created.

The same old abuse of verbs as before, and now of an adjective. The eternal hypostasis would be the first creation of God.

Nice theory, but please give me some evidence of this.


[qupte]You have just made the distinction yourself. You state &amp;quot;it possesses the trait with which it shares a name...&amp;quot; It shares a name. Exactly. To share, there must be more than one. So there are two.

Two WHAT? This is a blatant category error. The is one person, one attribute of that person. And this is against what you have been arguing all this time. Either that, or you have no idea what you have been arguing and are trying to cover for it.[/quote]

My point is that Wisdom personified is a person that is created, where the attribute of Wisdom is something not ever created and always possessed by the unchanging God.

No, you've provided an opinion.

No, I've provided facts. You've provided denial. With a side of chips.

What fact? What scripture did you quote? What grammar did you cite? Please give me some reference. I see no fact in this.

So please show me this data. I've yet to see it thus far.

Temporary blindness? :rofl:

This is funny. I ask for data and you just blow the request off. One starts to think you don't have any data.


What context? Your attempt to prove that Wisdom personified is somewhere shown to be eternal has thus far failed.

The contexts listed above, which you do indeed do well to ignore or deny.

The context does not prove Wisdom is eternal. The information I posted on AIWN proves this completely.

Obviously you do not know much Greek.

Obviously you know as much as I do -- what can be gotten out of lexicons and Bible software. :teeth: Thayer's and Strong's doesn't help you at all as it amounts to your same position without answering the matter of inserting temporal connotation arbitrarily.

LOL. If you think my knowledge of Greek comes from simply Bible software, you've got another thing coming. I've spent significant time on the study of Greek, so I do have just somewhat of an idea of what I'm actually talking about here.


Seriously, you provide this quote from him, but I failed to see any substance from it.

Whoops! Wanna borrow a cane and some dark glasses?

Instead of rampling, why don't you actually submit some data for once?

Stop making lose claims and show what your point is in his writings.

Stop ignoring his material and show why he his clear rebuttal to your position is wrong.

Look. You keep making claims. Post what it is in his material that you think has a point, and then in your own words highlight that point.

I demonstrated that his TA PANTA claim does not prove anything, and that often the reverse of his claim is actually true.

You demonstrated no such thing but went off on a skein about PAS, not even mentioning the TA PANTA clause.

Oy vey. Do you not realize that TA is simply the definite article with PANTA is simply a form of PAS. My comments on PAS actually are directly connected to PANTA, and you should find in the scriptures I cited, different forms of PAS/PANTA are used.

Further, I asked for evidence from the use of PRWTOTOKOS + genitive to substantiate his point, as to my knowledge there is none.

None was needed. Thisi s an arbitrary demand made to look like you know more than you do, as if you have some secret knowledge behind the matter.

In other words, you have no evidence. My request is completely valid. I am actually fairly well versed in this matter.

Where? Show me again. I'm still waiting to see something....

It's only 4 pages. You can see for yourself if you get the denial glasses off.

Again, where? COPY AND PASTE IT.

If wisdom were eternal, there would not be a temporal position placed on it.

There isn't, except by your arbitrary abuse of verbs with no temporal connotation in themselves. For the 1000000th time: With no verb that in itself connotes eternal production, the only semantic option is combo phrases like &quot;eternally begotten&quot; or &quot;eternally created&quot;. Now answer this plainly: IF you agreed with my position, then what would the Nicean Creed have to say, what verb would it use to describe the relationship between the Father and His eternal hypostasis? You are not permitted to use the word &quot;eternal&quot; or any other adjective connoting eternality.

Again, EKTISEN APO. This completely ruins your position, adding your requested temporal element to the issue.

If you avoid this question, your position is proven bankrupt.

If I wanted to take your position, I would need to remove contradictory words like created and from. Once I did that, your position would have validity. But these words show your position false.

-Tony

[Tsmith]

Today @ 09:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132143#post132143)
Jezz:


Tony, you're making a distinction that simply isn't there. To claim that Wisdom was created in the beginning but not eternal is a contradiction.

You say Wisdom was not always in existence. Let us suppose, for a moment, that this was true.

1. Wisdom was not always in existence. (supposition)
2. A time existed when Wisdom did not exist. (consequence of 1).
3. Wisdom was created in the beginning (a point derived from the Biblical and inter-testamental literature that even you agree with).
4. Wisdom existed after it was created (by definition of &quot;create&quot;).
5. Therefore, any time-point when Wisdom did not exist must be before the time point when it was created (from 4).
6. Therefore, any time-point when Wisdom did not exist must be before the beginning (combining 3, 5).
7. There are no time-points before the beginning (definition of &quot;beginning&quot;).
8. Therefore, there is no time-point when Wisdom did not exist (6, 7).

8 is a contradiction to 2, and therefore the supposition at 1 must be false and its converse must be true. In other words, Wisdom always existed. In other words, Wisdom is eternal. I say it again: to claim that Wisdom was created in the beginning but is not eternal is a logical contradiction. No amount of grammatical argument about the meaning of the Hebrew/Greek/English words for &quot;create&quot; will change that fact. You're not trying to argue that the Bible contains a logical contradiction, are you?

You misunderstand my position. I am not saying that the attribute (Prov 8:14) is created, but that the personification in Jesus (Prov 8:12) was created (Prov 8:22 LXX).

-Tony

[Jezz]

Hey Tony,

Tsmith:
You misunderstand my position. I am not saying that the attribute (Prov 8:14) is created, but that the personification in Jesus (Prov 8:12) was created (Prov 8:22 LXX).
Nice try, but that won't work either. I didn't misunderstand your position, I just didn't think that the distinction was of any significance. The Bible makes it clear that both the Wisdom/Word and its personification existed in the beginning, and the two are one in the same.

John 1:1 says "In the beginning... the Word was God" (or "the Word was a God" if you use the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation).

The Word was always [a] God. Thus, the Word always had a personality (unless you think it's possible for a god to not have a personality...). It wasn't personified at some later time after the beginning - it was always personified. There exists no point in time when it wasn't personified. In short, it was eternally personified.

Sure, the Word was only made flesh at a point in time after the beginning. But it is eternally a person.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 03:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132759#post132759)
Jezz:

Hey Tony,


Nice try, but that won't work either. I didn't understand your position, I just didn't think that that was of any significance. There are also statements in the Bible that show that Wisdom/Word personified existed in the begIt is clear that the personification of the Word has been around as long as the Word itself.

John 1:1 says &quot;In the beginning... the Word was God&quot; (or &quot;the Word was a God&quot; if you use the Jehovah's Witnesses' translation).

The Word was always [a] God. Thus, the Word always had a personality (unless you think it's possible for a god to not have a personality...). It wasn't personified at some later time after the beginning - it was always personified. There exists no point in time when it wasn't personified. In short, it was eternally personified.

Sure, the Word was only made flesh at a point in time after the beginning. But it is eternally a person.

Where is "always" stated anywhere in this verse? You have to important additional words to arrive at your conclusion.

-Tony

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
Where is &quot;always&quot; stated anywhere in this verse? You have to important additional words to arrive at your conclusion.
As per the above logical argument, "always" is implied by the fact that the personified Word was in existence from the beginning of time. That means "always".

I'll cut and paste my original logical argument (slightly modified) to make this point:

You say that the personification of the Word was not always in existence. Let us suppose, for a moment, that this was true.

1. The Word was not always personified. (supposition)
2. A time existed when the Word was not personified. (consequence of 1).
3. The Word was personified in the beginning. (John 1:1, as per above).
4. Therefore, any time-point when the Word was not personified must have been before the beginning (combining 2, 3).
5. There are no time-points before the beginning (definition of "beginning").
6. Therefore, there is no time-point when the Word was not personified (4, 5).

6 is a contradiction to 2, and therefore the supposition at 1 must be false and its converse must be true. In other words, the Word was always personified. In other words, the Word was eternally personified. I say it again: to claim that the Word was personified in the beginning but is not eternally is a logical contradiction. No amount of grammatical argument about the meaning of the Hebrew/Greek/English words for "create" will change that fact. You're not trying to argue that the Bible contains a logical contradiction, are you?

[Tsmith]

Today @ 03:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132771#post132771)
Jezz:


As per the above logical argument, &quot;always&quot; is implied by the fact that the personified Word was in existence from the beginning of time. That means &quot;always&quot;.

I'll cut and paste my original logical argument (slightly modified) to make this point:

You say that the personification of the Word was not always in existence. Let us suppose, for a moment, that this was true.

1. The Word was not always personified. (supposition)
2. A time existed when the Word was not personified. (consequence of 1).
3. The Word was personified in the beginning. (John 1:1, as per above).
4. Therefore, any time-point when the Word was not personified must have been before the beginning (combining 2, 3).
5. There are no time-points before the beginning (definition of &quot;beginning&quot;).
6. Therefore, there is no time-point when the Word was not personified (4, 5).

6 is a contradiction to 2, and therefore the supposition at 1 must be false and its converse must be true. In other words, the Word was always personified. In other words, the Word was eternally personified. I say it again: to claim that the Word was personified in the beginning but is not eternally is a logical contradiction. No amount of grammatical argument about the meaning of the Hebrew/Greek/English words for &quot;create&quot; will change that fact. You're not trying to argue that the Bible contains a logical contradiction, are you?


Who is to say John 1:1 is talking about the beginning of time? What is your basis for this?

-Tony

[Jezz]

Hey Tony,

Tsmith:
Who is to say John 1:1 is talking about the beginning of time? What is your basis for this?
Gee, where do I start? :smile:

1. Because it doesn't explicitly say what it was "in the beginning" of. If it was in the beginning of something other than "everything", the author would have said what it was "in the beginning" of in order to avoid confusion.
2. The exact same phrase is used at the start of Genesis 1:1 (the LXX starts with "en arche", as does John 1:1) - I defy you to claim that that passage didn't mean in the beginning of time. The parallel that John is trying to draw with Genesis 1 is obvious.
3. John goes on to say that all things were made through the Word (John 1:3). Thus all things have their beginning in the Word. Time is a thing. Thus time had its beginning in the Word.
4. I can't find a commentator who ever interpreted it another way, and plenty who interpret it to mean "in the beginning of time".

I could go on and on, but I think that the above should give you enough to chew on for a while. :smile:

[Tsmith]

Today @ 04:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=132806#post132806)
Jezz:

Hey Tony,


Gee, where do I start? :smile:

1. Because it doesn't explicitly say what it was &quot;in the beginning&quot; of. If it was in the beginning of something other than &quot;everything&quot;, the author would have said what it was &quot;in the beginning&quot; of in order to avoid confusion.
2. The exact same phrase is used at the start of Genesis 1:1 (the LXX starts with &quot;en arche&quot;, as does John 1:1) - I defy you to claim that that passage didn't mean in the beginning of time. The parallel that John is trying to draw with Genesis 1 is obvious.
3. John goes on to say that all things were made through the Word (John 1:3). Thus all things have their beginning in the Word. Time is a thing. Thus time had its beginning in the Word.
4. I can't find a commentator who ever interpreted it another way, and plenty who interpret it to mean &quot;in the beginning of time&quot;.

I could go on and on, but I think that the above should give you enough to chew on for a while. :smile:


Genesis 1:1 is about the physical universe. Not the spirit realm... or were angels never created?

-Tony

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
Genesis 1:1 is about the physical universe. Not the spirit realm... or were angels never created?
Now who's importing their theology into the text? :smile: Show me where the phrase "spirit realm" is found in the Bible anywhere.

As for Genesis 1:1 being about the physical universe - well yeah, that's the whole idea. :smile: Time does not exist outside the physical universe. Therefore, Genesis 1:1 is about the beginning of time.

Because there was no time before the universe began, to talk about anything happening "before" the universe began is a logical contradiction (as I have now explained in painstaking detail twice). Either something is eternal, or it was created at some point after the universe was created. There are no other options.

As for when the angels were created - I make no comment one way or the other because I don't know of any Bible passages that talk about the creation of angels off the top of my head. I don't think there are any such passages, though I think there are one or two that indicate Satan was eternal.

[Reasonable]

Jezz,
Are you saying the universe is only 6,000 years old? I don't want to detract from this discussion but I can see an equally valid argument for "the beginning" refering to the history of man's existence with billions of planets etc., already in existence.

As far as angels being created, I would look for support on this at Col 1:16. Of course, I assume you do believe angels were created but then I am uncertain because you seem to think there is evidence Satan is eternal.

Also, I don't get the "no time" before the physical universe began theory. Not that I want to disrupt this thread but if God the Father spoke with God the Son, or did anything, did not time pass in the conversation? I assume there is a thread on this somewhere here. Maybe someone can point me to it?

[Jezz]

Hey Reasonable,

Reasonable:
Are you saying the universe is only 6,000 years old?
I'm not saying anything about the age of the universe in this argument - it has no bearing on it.

I don't want to detract from this discussion but I can see an equally valid argument for &quot;the beginning&quot; refering to the history of man's existence with billions of planets etc., already in existence.
I'm guessing this is part of a counter-argument to one of the YEC arguments regarding one of Jesus' comments about men and women being created in the beginning. It's an interesting possibility and an argument that might hold in that context. But in this context I can't see that it does. All things were created through the Word. Thus the Word existed before all things (including the universe, and including time).

As far as angels being created, I would look for support on this at Col 1:16. Of course, I assume you do believe angels were created but then I am uncertain because you seem to think there is evidence Satan is eternal.
I assume that they are created (and the verse you cite does indeed support this), I just don't know exactly when because I don't know of any Bible passages that tell us. I mentioned Satan because I remember one verse which said "he was a murderer from the beginning" (in John 8 somewhere).

Actually, that passage in Colossians adds weight to my argument - it again asserts that all things were created through Jesus. Again, this would imply that the universe was created through Him, which in turn implies that time was created through him.

Also, I don't get the &quot;no time&quot; before the physical universe began theory.
The idea that time began with the universe is an idea that is shared by both modern Big Bang cosmology and by Biblical commentators as far back as Augustine (and perhaps even earlier). Relativity tells us that time and space are intertwined - you can't have one without the other.

As for "not getting it" - that's not surprising. :smile: As beings who have spent all of our existence within a flow of time, existence without time is very difficult for us to comprehend. I don't really understand what there was if there was no time either... But one thing I have recently started to notice (and it is something that really intrigues me) is that despite all the logical and philosophical details that arise when discussing the beginning of the universe (and the beginning of time) that we time-dependent humans tend to struggle with, the Bible never make the logical error of talking about what happened before the beginning. This seems to me to be evidence of divine guidance.

Not that I want to disrupt this thread but if God the Father spoke with God the Son, or did anything, did not time pass in the conversation?
As someone who has spent all of his life within a flow of time, I couldn't hope to comment definitively on whether or not time passed in the conversation.

However, I would think that as timeless beings, they wouldn't necessarily need to have time in order to conduct a conversation (or do anything for that matter). Like you, I'm confused as to how this would work, but if it were not true I think the description "timeless" as applied to God would lose its meaning. What use is it being timeless if you can't do anything without a flow of time? If that's all timeless means, then we're all timeless...

I assume there is a thread on this somewhere here. Maybe someone can point me to it?
I am not aware of any such thread, though that's not to say that there isn't one. I'm not sure where would be the best place for it - a philosophy forum, perhaps?

[Tsmith]

Jezz,

The problem at this point is that you are getting into a lot of assumption. This is a bad way to determine theology. I believe Job 38 shows us that angels were already existant at the time of Gen 1:1.

-Tony

[jpholding]

Running in circles some more, tsmith scratcheth:

Denying a temporal element to the EKTISEN does not remove it. It is there, whether or not you choose to accept it.

It is NOT there, and claiming there is one does not add it to it.

God does not create his own attributes, he always has them, uncreated. If he creates a new element of himself even in eternity, he has brought about a change to himself.

Precisely why Wisdom, His attribute, MUST be eternal and proof positive that any temporal connotations to verbs of production can only be found by their object, not by the verb itself. I ask you again, since you refused at the end: If I am right, what verb would express, BY ITSELF, the production of the eternal hypostatic Wisdom?

You make a claim that he is an eternal hypostasis of God, yet I'm waiting for proof./i]

I gave it to you via the intertestamental lit (which you tried to excuse away, more below), and via cites from Bauckham (which you ignored).

[i] In scripture, there is no seperation between person and being.

There isn't? Show this from Biblical language and also don't forget to define "person" and "being" first.

Your examples failed because they did not have a word providing a temporal element attached to it, as Wisdom does.

In short, back to your same tail-chasing.

It says CREATED. That is not reading theology in, that is taking it for what it says. Your attempts at using later literature have not proven eternality either. Rather, they have shown a point of origin (APO) and that Wisdom was created (EKTISEN) at that point.

In short, back to your same tail-chasing.

I'm not abusing it.

You are abusing it so bad it's crying for it's momma :bawl: and is reporting you to the police.

Even if you want to ignore the temporal element of EKTISEN, you cannot get out of the temporal element applied by the use of APO.

If the point of origin is eternal, then that supplies the connotation for APO. It's the same game you've been playing all this time but with a different word.

Again, you are showing your ignorance of Greek. AIWNOS is the singlular genitive of AIWN. So everything that was stated regarding AIWN completely applies.

Actually, all I "showed" was that I trusted you when I shouldn't have with B Greek. The word I refer to is AIWNIOS, not AIWNOS. I do not normally use B Greek and assumed you were provided the correct version of the former with the latter. In any case it remains that your commentary on aion (I will no longer use B Greek) is irrelevant.

I'm not abusing it. I'm just taking it for what it means.

You are abusing it so bad the police want you.

That again is a contradiction, because there is no eternal point. Eternality never ends, it is perpetual. Thus, there is no specific point.

There isn't? If eternity is perpetual, it is above time and is considered, from our perspective, en bloc as a single point of origin, not of time, but of dimension. Hello?

Contextually, they are all paralleled, but it really is of no consequence, as my original point about angels being in existance still stands.

The only "parallel" is that they are in the same narrative thread and your point is laying down under a steamroller, unproven and unsubstantiated. :teeth: It was a contrivance to begin with.

Yes, because the person of Wisdom (Jesus) was created, not the attributed possessed by the person, and thus by God.

ROFL! Now you're skeedaddling again, good. You rolfed right over it -- Jesus IS identified WITH Wisdom directly in the quotes I provided -- no "one person, one attribute" -- and so if God had the attribute, and He never changes, you just made Jesus eternal. Excellent!

The attribute is eternal, the personification is not.

Nope! No arbitrary "two-wisdom" theory. You're cornered. No "two Logos" theory contrived from John 1, either. It's all one, by the Wisdom lit that the NT alludes to.

And statements like this prove that much of what I'm saying is actually going entirely over your head, no offense.

Only B Greek did. I haven't seen enough of it.

But this makes it understandable why you can't understand the temporal aspect of EKTISEN when used with APO.

Because there isn't one? Yep. It has to be imported wholesale. It comes from the context of the item created, not the verb itself. For the 678,867th time.

I'm still waiting to see something. Are you ever going to show me? Please post it in your next reply.

IOW you're still posturing with this "I didn't see it" routine to evade defeat. :teeth:

And the beginning isn't eternal either. The beginning is the start of something.

So it is. What of it? If you want to argue that John's "beginning" means the Logos was not there "before" the beginning, not only does the Wisdom/Logos connection in Philo and elsewhere refute that, it also is an attempt to read positive data into a neutral claim.

Jesus is not said to be BEFORE the beginning, but in it. John could have easily said for him to be before the beginning.

If he was mimesizing Genesis, he wouldn't anyway. Don't try to conclude from silence that this means that Jesus was NOT "before" the beginning, especially in light of the mirroring of Genesis.

Nice theory, but please give me some evidence of this.

Common sense is all the evidence needed to know that a produced attribute of God in eternity would exist as a creation before any other creation in time.

My point is that Wisdom personified is a person that is created, where the attribute of Wisdom is something not ever created and always possessed by the unchanging God.

I.e., the contrived "two Wisdoms" theory to get out of your jam. As I already saw.

What fact? What scripture did you quote? What grammar did you cite? Please give me some reference. I see no fact in this.

Check all the previous messages. It may help.

The context does not prove Wisdom is eternal. The information I posted on AIWN proves this completely.

Aion is not aionios. The latter is eternity. Your info on aion is irrelevant.

I've spent significant time on the study of Greek, so I do have just somewhat of an idea of what I'm actually talking about here.

Significant time with a software program, just like me. How about we devise a test from Jaltus that only someone degreed in Greek would be able to pass?

(Bypassing repeated issues of temporary blindness...)

Oy vey. Do you not realize that TA is simply the definite article with PANTA is simply a form of PAS. My comments on PAS actually are directly connected to PANTA, and you should find in the scriptures I cited, different forms of PAS/PANTA are used.

I was quite sure it was. Doesn't matter. You didn't touch a word Heyler said and show how he was wrong. Take his words point by point, refute them, then we'll submit it to Jaltus or someone else willing to look. You threw out comments about gender that didn't prove a thing. Logically Christ cannot be "before himself" and consist in himself, as would be required if "all things" in v. 17 included him.

(Bypassing more temporary blindness problems and repeats.)

If I wanted to take your position, I would need to remove contradictory words like created and from

Blatant evasion. I asked you for a word, not for what you would remove. As they say on Wheel of Fortune:

Bankrupt!

OWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

JP,
I just had to pause and complement you on such a great reply.

:cheers:

[Tsmith]

Today @ 08:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133381#post133381)
jpholding:

Running in circles some more, tsmith scratcheth:

Denying a temporal element to the EKTISEN does not remove it. It is there, whether or not you choose to accept it.

It is NOT there, and claiming there is one does not add it to it.

Well we can go back and forth on this all day and night, but I don't really need to. The use of APO provides plenty of temporal element.

God does not create his own attributes, he always has them, uncreated. If he creates a new element of himself even in eternity, he has brought about a change to himself.

Precisely why Wisdom, His attribute, MUST be eternal and proof positive that any temporal connotations to verbs of production can only be found by their object, not by the verb itself. I ask you again, since you refused at the end: If I am right, what verb would express, BY ITSELF, the production of the eternal hypostatic Wisdom?

I never once said the attribute is not eternal. I said the personification is not eternal.

You make a claim that he is an eternal hypostasis of God, yet I'm waiting for proof./i]

I gave it to you via the intertestamental lit (which you tried to excuse away, more below), and via cites from Bauckham (which you ignored).

You gave it to me, but a study of what was actually written proved that your point was not made by such.


[i] In scripture, there is no seperation between person and being.

There isn't? Show this from Biblical language and also don't forget to define &quot;person&quot; and &quot;being&quot; first.

A person is a being.

Joh 20:16 Jesus said to her, Mary! Turning around, she said to Him, Rabboni! (that is to say, Teacher).

See, two persons and two beings. See, the burden of proof is not on me here, but you. You have to show where the Bible allows for a different person to be the same being.


It says CREATED. That is not reading theology in, that is taking it for what it says. Your attempts at using later literature have not proven eternality either. Rather, they have shown a point of origin (APO) and that Wisdom was created (EKTISEN) at that point.

In short, back to your same tail-chasing.

No, its called reality. The fact is, it does say EKTISEN and the fact is you are using post-biblical language in attempting to explain it away.


Even if you want to ignore the temporal element of EKTISEN, you cannot get out of the temporal element applied by the use of APO.

If the point of origin is eternal, then that supplies the connotation for APO. It's the same game you've been playing all this time but with a different word.

Let us use a dictionary:

Perpetual; ceaseless; continued without intermission.

If you have a point in time, it exists at a point. It is not perpetual, but existing in a fixed location, removing the eternal element.


Again, you are showing your ignorance of Greek. AIWNOS is the singlular genitive of AIWN. So everything that was stated regarding AIWN completely applies.

Actually, all I &quot;showed&quot; was that I trusted you when I shouldn't have with B Greek. The word I refer to is AIWNIOS, not AIWNOS. I do not normally use B Greek and assumed you were provided the correct version of the former with the latter. In any case it remains that your commentary on aion (I will no longer use B Greek) is irrelevant.

Actually, in Sir 1:4 it is not an adjective, but is in fact AIWNOS. Even if it were the adjective, everything I have provided thus far remains entirely true. The fact that it is an adjective in this form does not change the meaning of the word.


That again is a contradiction, because there is no eternal point. Eternality never ends, it is perpetual. Thus, there is no specific point.

There isn't? If eternity is perpetual, it is above time and is considered, from our perspective, en bloc as a single point of origin, not of time, but of dimension. Hello?

You have a point in time, however, it is called ARXH. Wisdom is APO this point.


Contextually, they are all paralleled, but it really is of no consequence, as my original point about angels being in existance still stands.

The only &quot;parallel&quot; is that they are in the same narrative thread and your point is laying down under a steamroller, unproven and unsubstantiated. :teeth: It was a contrivance to begin with.

Not in the least. Angels are in existance and God says to Job, where were you when the angels shouted out. So my point is quite solid.


Yes, because the person of Wisdom (Jesus) was created, not the attributed possessed by the person, and thus by God.

ROFL! Now you're skeedaddling again, good. You rolfed right over it -- Jesus IS identified WITH Wisdom directly in the quotes I provided -- no &quot;one person, one attribute&quot; -- and so if God had the attribute, and He never changes, you just made Jesus eternal. Excellent!

You have a person and you have an attribute. You have the attriibute personified in the person, but the person does not BECOME the attribute.

The attribute is eternal, the personification is not.

Nope! No arbitrary &quot;two-wisdom&quot; theory. You're cornered. No &quot;two Logos&quot; theory contrived from John 1, either. It's all one, by the Wisdom lit that the NT alludes to.

Actually, you've already agree with me that there is two. You stated that the person possesses the attribute. So you have 1) the person and 2) the attribute possessed by the person. That is two, not one. Let us see what John Gill in his commentary says on personified Wisdom:

"I, a person, and not a quality; a person, and not a nature; the person of Christ as the Son of God..."

And statements like this prove that much of what I'm saying is actually going entirely over your head, no offense.

Only B Greek did. I haven't seen enough of it.

Obviously the Greek is over you. But it seems other stuff I'm saying is as well.

But this makes it understandable why you can't understand the temporal aspect of EKTISEN when used with APO.

Because there isn't one? Yep. It has to be imported wholesale. It comes from the context of the item created, not the verb itself. For the 678,867th time.

Yet, if something is eternal, it is not spoken of as created, because something eternal is uncreated (like God). God's attributes are not created either, because God does not change. Yet, people, within who things are personified (Jesus) are created.

I'm still waiting to see something. Are you ever going to show me? Please post it in your next reply.

IOW you're still posturing with this &quot;I didn't see it&quot; routine to evade defeat. :teeth:

Wow. This is truly amazing. I ask for him to provide some information and he totally blows off my request. I hope everyone reading this takes notice. Perhaps he does not have the information he claims to have posted, and is therefore lying through his teeth on the matter. If he has the information, it should be no issue for him to supply it.

[quute]And the beginning isn't eternal either. The beginning is the start of something.

So it is. What of it? If you want to argue that John's &quot;beginning&quot; means the Logos was not there &quot;before&quot; the beginning, not only does the Wisdom/Logos connection in Philo and elsewhere refute that, it also is an attempt to read positive data into a neutral claim.[/quote]

Where has Philo refuted it. It is actually a very solid claim. Since you agree that the beginning isn't eternal and that APO denotes a specific place in time (though you argue an eternal place). Let us put this together.

1Jo 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld, and what our hands touched, as regards the Word of Life.

Jeus is AP ARXE, or FROM the beginning. The beginning, a point not eternal, is the location where Jesus comes from.


Jesus is not said to be BEFORE the beginning, but in it. John could have easily said for him to be before the beginning.

If he was mimesizing Genesis, he wouldn't anyway. Don't try to conclude from silence that this means that Jesus was NOT &quot;before&quot; the beginning, especially in light of the mirroring of Genesis.

Well, 1 John 1:1, as I already pointed out, shows us that the ARXH that John alludes to is the location where Jesus comes from, going along with the idea of John 1:1 providing an inceptive HN.

Nice theory, but please give me some evidence of this.

Common sense is all the evidence needed to know that a produced attribute of God in eternity would exist as a creation before any other creation in time.

God does not produce his attributes from anything, as that would mean God has or does change. The Bible clearly states that God does not change. That said, as Gill points out, we are dealing with a person, not an attribute.

[qupte]
My point is that Wisdom personified is a person that is created, where the attribute of Wisdom is something not ever created and always possessed by the unchanging God.

I.e., the contrived &quot;two Wisdoms&quot; theory to get out of your jam. As I already saw.[/quote]

You already agreed with me that we have a person and an attribute. So I don't see anything to get out of. A person called Wisdom and an attribute. Where is the problem?

[qupte]What fact? What scripture did you quote? What grammar did you cite? Please give me some reference. I see no fact in this.

Check all the previous messages. It may help.[/quote]

I have and I still fail to see them. Please provide quotes. Though, if history repeats itself, you'll make a sarcastic remark because you are unable to provide anything.

The context does not prove Wisdom is eternal. The information I posted on AIWN proves this completely.

Aion is not aionios. The latter is eternity. Your info on aion is irrelevant.

Yes, it is actually the same. It is just the adjective form of it. However, as I pointed out, at least the one location I checked does not use the adjective.


I've spent significant time on the study of Greek, so I do have just somewhat of an idea of what I'm actually talking about here.

Significant time with a software program, just like me. How about we devise a test from Jaltus that only someone degreed in Greek would be able to pass?

Actually, I'm not aware of any software programs that teach Greek. I'd be interested in knowing of some though. That said, my knowledge of Greek comes from hard study. Grammars, papers, etc, related to the language. I don't see a need for a test, as I have sufficiently demonstrated a handle on the language.


Oy vey. Do you not realize that TA is simply the definite article with PANTA is simply a form of PAS. My comments on PAS actually are directly connected to PANTA, and you should find in the scriptures I cited, different forms of PAS/PANTA are used.

I was quite sure it was. Doesn't matter. You didn't touch a word Heyler said and show how he was wrong. Take his words point by point, refute them, then we'll submit it to Jaltus or someone else willing to look.

This word was the basis for his arguement in disproving a partitive genitive. The rest of his arguement was purely opinion without any grammatical backing. This is way I asked for data regarding PRWTOTOKOS + genitive, so that I would have something to reply to. However, without any actual data, he is providing nothing more than opinion, and I dismiss this opinion on the grounds that there are no grammatical examples to back it. However, my position is held by grammar, as I have demonstrated (though you may not be able to understand it, from a lack of Greek study).


If I wanted to take your position, I would need to remove contradictory words like created and from

Blatant evasion. I asked you for a word, not for what you would remove. As they say on Wheel of Fortune:

I have nothing to evade as I don't have anything to prove. The burden of proof is on you.


-Tony

[Jezz]

Hey Tony,

Tsmith:
The problem at this point is that you are getting into a lot of assumption. This is a bad way to determine theology.
I'm not making any assumptions whatsoever. All of my observations come directly from the text. If I'm making lots of assumptions, perhaps you would care to point out just one of them for me?

Meanwhile, speaking of making assumptions - I noticed that you ignored my request to show where in the Bible the phrase "spirit realm" is mentioned. Is the concept of a "spirit realm" that existed before the physical universe existed actually in the Bible? Or is that an assumption that you've imported in to your Biblical interpretation? :smile:

I believe Job 38 shows us that angels were already existant at the time of Gen 1:1.
Presumably, you mean these verses:

6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

Just for clarification :The "it" referred to in v6 is the Earth.

This does not tell us when the angels were created. It only tells us that the angels existed when the foundation of the Earth was laid. The foundation of the Earth was not laid in Genesis 1:1 - it was later.

Note: This does not prove that the angels weren't already created by the time of Genesis 1:1. But contrary to what you asserted, this passage does not prove that the angels were already created when universe began. They might have been, but this passage does not prove it one way or the other. Thus, I will not assume one way or the other.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 06:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133620#post133620)
Jezz:

Hey Tony,


I'm not making any assumptions whatsoever. All of my observations come directly from the text. If I'm making lots of assumptions, perhaps you would care to point out just one of them for me?

Meanwhile, speaking of making assumptions - I noticed that you ignored my request to show where in the Bible the phrase &quot;spirit realm&quot; is mentioned. Is the concept of a &quot;spirit realm&quot; that existed before the physical universe existed actually in the Bible? Or is that an assumption that you've imported in to your Biblical interpretation? :smile:


Presumably, you mean these verses:

6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

Just for clarification :The &quot;it&quot; referred to in v6 is the Earth.

This does not tell us when the angels were created. It only tells us that the angels existed when the foundation of the Earth was laid. The foundation of the Earth was not laid in Genesis 1:1 - it was later.

Note: This does not prove that the angels weren't already created by the time of Genesis 1:1. But contrary to what you asserted, this passage does not prove that the angels were already created when universe began. They might have been, but this passage does not prove it one way or the other. Thus, I will not assume one way or the other.

Dear Jezz,
What bible translation are you quoting at Job 38? I am particularly interested in the word "angels." The Hebrew is beneh Elohim or "sons of God.".

KJV Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof
fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When
the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God
shouted for joy? 8 Or who shut up the sea with doors,
when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?



In any event it says ALL the sons of God. That would include Jesus Christ. ALL means ALL, does it not?

He was not the creator, his Father was! He shouted in applause!

Kind Regards,
Cal

[Tsmith]

Today @ 02:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133620#post133620)
Jezz:

Hey Tony,


I'm not making any assumptions whatsoever. All of my observations come directly from the text. If I'm making lots of assumptions, perhaps you would care to point out just one of them for me?

Meanwhile, speaking of making assumptions - I noticed that you ignored my request to show where in the Bible the phrase &quot;spirit realm&quot; is mentioned. Is the concept of a &quot;spirit realm&quot; that existed before the physical universe existed actually in the Bible? Or is that an assumption that you've imported in to your Biblical interpretation? :smile:


Presumably, you mean these verses:

6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?

Just for clarification :The &quot;it&quot; referred to in v6 is the Earth.

This does not tell us when the angels were created. It only tells us that the angels existed when the foundation of the Earth was laid. The foundation of the Earth was not laid in Genesis 1:1 - it was later.

Note: This does not prove that the angels weren't already created by the time of Genesis 1:1. But contrary to what you asserted, this passage does not prove that the angels were already created when universe began. They might have been, but this passage does not prove it one way or the other. Thus, I will not assume one way or the other.

Well let us see.

Green's Literal- Job 38:4 Where were you when I founded the earth? Declare if you know understanding.

From BDB on "founded"-

1) to found, fix, establish, lay foundation

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;

So, when God "established" the earth was Genesis 1:1, and yes the angels were already here at this time.

-Tony

[Jezz]

Hey Cal,

Cal_Minian:
What bible translation are you quoting at Job 38? I am particularly interested in the word &quot;angels.&quot; The Hebrew is beneh Elohim or &quot;sons of God.&quot;.
NIV. It acutally contains a footnote saying exactly what you said. The KJV translates it sons of God. But I can work with either translation.

In any event it says ALL the sons of God. That would include Jesus Christ. ALL means ALL, does it not?
"All" doesn't necessarily mean "all" - it can be hyperbole, which was common among semitic writings. Or the phrase "sons of God" could mean angels, as translated by the NIV, in which case "all the sons of God" would mean "all the angels" and would not include Jesus.

But actually, this is completely irrelevant because even if Jesus was among those who were shouting in applause, then

He was not the creator, his Father was! He shouted in applause!
I don't see the contradiction. How does shouting in applause at creation proclude one from taking part in the creation event itself? Remember, all things were made through the Son - whatever it was that was made, it was made through the Son. Therefore, the Son must have existed before everything that God made.

Did God make time?

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
Well let us see.

Green's Literal- Job 38:4 Where were you when I founded the earth? Declare if you know understanding.

From BDB on "founded"-

1) to found, fix, establish, lay foundation

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;

So, when God &quot;established&quot; the earth was Genesis 1:1, and yes the angels were already here at this time.
You've taken that out of context, Tony. Read the very next sentence:

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void...

The fact that the earth was without form and void means that it wasn't formed yet. Obviously, that means that it wasn't formed until later.

Is this a contradiction with 1:1? No. AFAIK, Hebrew didn't have a word for "universe". The phrase "the heavens and the earth" is widely understood to be a merism (sp?), where two complements are put together to denote a whole (eg, "day and night" means 24-hour days). Thus, "the heavens and the earth" actually means "the universe" or "everything". So what Genesis 1:1 is really saying is "In the beginning, God created the universe." He created the building blocks from which he later formed everything else (including the earth).

So the foundation of the Earth was not created in Genesis 1:1, as you assert. Again, this does not prove that the angels weren't already in existence for Genesis 1:1 - but it does not prove that they were either. In the absence of conclusive evidence one way or the other, I refuse to make an assumption about whether or not they existed "in the beginning".

Speaking of assumptions, I noticed that you avoided my question about the "spirit realm" for the second time. So I'll ask a third time: can you show me where in the Bible the phrase "spirit realm" appears? Or will I be forced to assume by your silence that this doesn't actually appear in the Bible?

[Tsmith]

Today @ 06:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133760#post133760)
Jezz:


You've taken that out of context, Tony. Read the very next sentence:

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void...

The fact that the earth was without form and void means that it wasn't formed yet. Obviously, that means that it wasn't formed until later.

Is this a contradiction with 1:1? No. AFAIK, Hebrew didn't have a word for &quot;universe&quot;. The phrase &quot;the heavens and the earth&quot; is widely understood to be a merism (sp?), where two complements are put together to denote a whole (eg, &quot;day and night&quot; means 24-hour days). Thus, &quot;the heavens and the earth&quot; actually means &quot;the universe&quot; or &quot;everything&quot;. So what Genesis 1:1 is really saying is &quot;In the beginning, God created the universe.&quot; He created the building blocks from which he later formed everything else (including the earth).

So the foundation of the Earth was not created in Genesis 1:1, as you assert. Again, this does not prove that the angels weren't already in existence for Genesis 1:1 - but it does not prove that they were either. In the absence of conclusive evidence one way or the other, I refuse to make an assumption about whether or not they existed &quot;in the beginning&quot;.

Speaking of assumptions, I noticed that you avoided my question about the &quot;spirit realm&quot; for the second time. So I'll ask a third time: can you show me where in the Bible the phrase &quot;spirit realm&quot; appears? Or will I be forced to assume by your silence that this doesn't actually appear in the Bible?

I see no reason to agree with your assertion. If the earth was not created in verse 1, and it was simply the universe, I contend that the text would simply read that the heavens were created. The same word for earth is used in verses 1 and 2. If you actually notice, verse 2 does not say anything about the earth coming to be. However, verse 2 says that this void earth has waters that the spirit is moving over, obviously showing its already in existance.


Rather though, in verse 2 the word used for "without form," according to BDB means "wasteland" or "a place of chaos." So, while the Earth was created, it was a wasteland at this point. Not that is was non-existant.

As for the appearing of the spirit realm, it was clearly prior to the ARXH of Gen 1:1, as the Bible does not mention it. So clearly it was not an event within the creative days of Genesis.

-Tony

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 03:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133766#post133766)
Tsmith:

As for the appearing of the spirit realm, it was clearly prior to the ARXH of Gen 1:1, as the Bible does not mention it. So clearly it was not an event within the creative days of Genesis.

-Tony

The logical fallacy of "argument from silence." I will paraphrase Jaltus from another thread. "Men must not have kneecaps because they are never mentioned in scriptures." Or mankind is incapable of reproducing because reproductive organs are never mentioned in the Bible. All an argument from silence proves is silence! The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

[Jezz]

Hey Tony,

Tsmith:
I see no reason to agree with your assertion.
Ok. I still disagree, but because this is getting off-topic and not relevant to either of our points, I won't go into details now. I'll just note two points:

1. There is no word/phrase that connects "the waters" with "the earth" in verse 2. You called them "the waters of the earth" - this is merely an assumption on your part.

2. Gen 1:6-8 talks about the creation of the firmament/expanse on the second day, which God then calls "heaven" (shayim). If the heavens were created on this day, then what was created in verse 1, when the same word (shayim) is used?

As for the appearing of the spirit realm, it was clearly prior to the ARXH of Gen 1:1, as the Bible does not mention it.
So you've just admitted that the "spirit realm" is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

In other words, you have somehow come up with this idea of a "spirit realm" - an idea which you have just admitted is not mentioned in the Bible anywhere, and thus you've come up with the idea independently of the Bible. You have subsequently incorporated this idea into your theology. You then further assume that time as we experience it existed in this spirit realm, before the physical universe was created (again, with no Biblical support). You then use this theology (constructed independently from the Bible) to argue against the Bible, which says that the Word was personified for all time.

And you are accusing me of importing my own theology into the text? :shrug:

So clearly it was not an event within the creative days of Genesis.
Clearly, the Bible does not mention it at all, and therefore that it happened at all is merely an unsupported assumption on your part.

[jpholding]

More riding in circles from tsmith:

Well we can go back and forth on this all day and night, but I don't really need to. The use of APO provides plenty of temporal element.

Assertion as a sub for argument for the millionth time. Perhaps you are accustomed to fooling people in other forums with this, but not here. I'd ask for what preposition would connote eternal production, but you've evaded my answer about the verb three times now.

I never once said the attribute is not eternal. I said the personification is not eternal.

If the attribute is being PERSONIFIED, then you are creating a false distinction -- that same "two wisdoms" evasion.

You gave it to me, but a study of what was actually written proved that your point was not made by such.

(looking for the "how" and not seeing it)

A person is a being.

But not all "beings" are persons. There are three definitions for "being" relevant here:

1) A person: “The artist after all is a solitary being” (Virginia Woolf).
2) All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence.
3) One's basic or essential nature; personality.

I use "being" in sense 2. Which is not a "person".

You have to show where the Bible allows for a different person to be the same being.

I have to show no such thing. There is no explanation of Biblical anthropogy in the Bible; neither of us can show anything from that alone. Generally anthropologically, YOU have a burden, if you take such a route, of showing why a being (def. 2) cannot be constitiuted with more than one ego/person. I know of no physical, mental, or other barrier to this, but perhaps you can create one. :teeth:

No, its called reality.

No, it is called "fudging when you are cornered." As for being post-biblical, if you could so much as show that a verb existed that WOULD have connoted by point of view, you'd have a case, but you have none whatsoever and continue to illicitly import temporal connotations into a verb that has none. At best a verb by its context only tells us that an action is present or past -- and then, not how far in the past, and to what duration.

Let us use a dictionary:

You didn't for "being" -- why start now? :teeth:

If you have a point in time, it exists at a point. It is not perpetual, but existing in a fixed location, removing the eternal element.

And if you have eternity, you have an eternal existence at what to us is a fixed point and location in all places and at all times. Thank you.

Actually, in Sir 1:4 it is not an adjective, but is in fact AIWNOS.

In Sir. 1:4 WHAT is aionos? You seem to forget that I have 1:1-4 in view:

1 All wisdom cometh from the Lord, and is with him for ever. 2 Who can number the sand of the sea, and the drops of rain, and the days of eternity? 3 Who can find out the height of heaven, and the breadth of the earth, and the deep, and wisdom? 4 Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting.

You have three words here to deal with: "for ever", "eternity," "everlasting". And if "everlasting" is aionos, what is it in i.e., Ps. 90:2 in the LXX? If it is the same, then clearly you have no recourse for denying eternality. Even aionos allows pre-existence. And this is where Bauckham's comments truly slam your position, and since you ignored them, I'll repeat them:

Finally, Sirach says, "(God) searches out both the deep and the heart, and he perceives all their cunning devices. For the Most High knows all, and he sees the signs of the age. He declares changes that occur, and reveals the searching out of hidden things. He does not lack insight, and nothing escapes him. The might of his wisdom he measures out, He is the same from eternity. Nothing is added and nothing is withdrawn, and there is no need for anyone to instruct him." (42:18-21) Wisdom is an attribute of God, and is co-eternal with Him -- otherwise, Wisdom is a thing "added" to Him, or someone has "instructed" Him. Bauckham makes a similar observation concerning a much later passage: "2 Enoch 33:4, in an echo of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40:13), says that God had no advisor in his work of creation, but that his Wisdom was his advisor. The meaning is clearly that God had no one to advise him. His Wisdom, who is not someone else but intrinsic to his own identity, advised him." Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament , 21.

Be sure and ignore it again! :teeth:

The fact that it is an adjective in this form does not change the meaning of the word.

PFFFT! Pardon me if I believe James Barr, one of the most eminent linguistic Biblical scholars, above you:

This word, Barr tells us, is used in cases that "refer fairly uniformly to the being of God or to plans and realities which, once are established by Him, are perpetual and unchanging. Since the word is not used of more mundane realities like the flowering of fig-trees, one cannot argue that the same kind of temporality is attributed to these as to the being of God."

You have a point in time, however, it is called ARXH. Wisdom is APO this point.

We do NOT have a point IN time if we have eternity.

Not in the least. Angels are in existance and God says to Job, where were you when the angels shouted out. So my point is quite solid.

It's contrived balderdash, and merely reaffirming it doesn't relieve your argument of the inability to show that events of 4 and 7 were concurrent. You may as well say events of v. 8 and following were concurrent because they ask the same sort of questions. Agan, you may be used to getting away with this sort of contrivance and "Yes, it is!" assertion elsewhere, but not here.

You have a person and you have an attribute. You have the attriibute personified in the person, but the person does not BECOME the attribute.

You have a person IDENTIFIED WITH an attribute. The same thing. No distinction made. You have to insert it, and do freely!

Actually, you've already agree with me that there is two. You stated that the person possesses the attribute

Nice try at semantic trickery. The person who IS the attribute would also POSSESS the nature that attribute implies. I have said this several times now, and your attempt to squirm out of this point will not be tolerated.

Let us see what John Gill in his commentary says on personified Wisdom:

PFFT again! Are you serious? Using commentaries from the 18th century?? Ever tried any Witherington? (I don't have to ask why not -- you want to stick with stuff done before modern research that contradicts you.)

Obviously the Greek is over you. But it seems other stuff I'm saying is as well.

Obviously, B Greek in this case was. The rest is all smoke and mirrors from your end. How about that test from Jaltus, hmmm?

(more repeated blather about verbs, with the same error)


Wow. This is truly amazing. I ask for him to provide some information and he totally blows off my request. I hope everyone reading this takes notice.

Many people here know me well. They see you squirming and evading and not answering questions and pretending that the shoe is on the other foot. Where's my verb connoting eternality? Hmmm?

Where has Philo refuted it. It is actually a very solid claim.

I gave you a quote from Philo pages ago. Don't pretend lack of knowledge to put it off.

Since you agree that the beginning isn't eternal and that APO denotes a specific place in time (though you argue an eternal place).

No, if it is eternal it is OUTSIDE time. Not a specific place.

Jeus is AP ARXE, or FROM the beginning. The beginning, a point not eternal, is the location where Jesus comes from.

Which does not say anything about "before" the beginning in eternity, and in any event is a mirror of Gen. 1. Eternality is indicated by the contextual nature of the Logos. I am not surprised you avoided commenting on the parallel to Genesis.

God does not produce his attributes from anything, as that would mean God has or does change.

If God procides His attributes ETERNALLY, there is no change whatsoever.

(repeat of earlier semantic trickery and temporary blindness and claiming authority over Barr, etc on aionios)


That said, my knowledge of Greek comes from hard study. Grammars, papers, etc, related to the language. I don't see a need for a test, as I have sufficiently demonstrated a handle on the language.

I.e., you are scared you'll be shown up as a lexicon browser and a Strong's stroller like the rest of us here. :teeth:


This word was the basis for his arguement in disproving a partitive genitive.

The logic following from the word was his basis. The rest was far from "opinion" and your attempt to evade a direct answer by merely calling it "opinion," while politically correct, is mere evasion and fluff.

This is way I asked for data regarding PRWTOTOKOS + genitive, so that I would have something to reply to.

No, this was merely a diversion on your part from you inability to answer the logic behind Heyler's point.

I have nothing to evade as I don't have anything to prove. The burden of proof is on you.

And the evasion continues -- because no other choice is available. :teeth:

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 09:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133744#post133744)
Jezz:

Hey Cal,


NIV. It acutally contains a footnote saying exactly what you said. The KJV translates it sons of God. But I can work with either translation.


&quot;All&quot; doesn't necessarily mean &quot;all&quot; - it can be hyperbole, which was common among semitic writings. Or the phrase &quot;sons of God&quot; could mean angels, as translated by the NIV, in which case &quot;all the sons of God&quot; would mean &quot;all the angels&quot; and would not include Jesus.

But actually, this is completely irrelevant because even if Jesus was among those who were shouting in applause, then


I don't see the contradiction. How does shouting in applause at creation proclude one from taking part in the creation event itself? Remember, all things were made through the Son - whatever it was that was made, it was made through the Son. Therefore, the Son must have existed before everything that God made.

Did God make time?

Dear Jezz,
To use the word angels for beneh elohim is not a translation, it is an interpretation. To say that Jesus is a son of God is a literal fact. It is also a literal fact that ALL the sons of God shouted in applause. BDB on page 929 says tihs verb 'Ro)' means exactly that.

You said:
Q. How does shouting in applause at creation proclude one from taking part in the creation event itself?


A. The shouting in applause by ALL the sons of God which must include Jesus who is also called son of God was a joint expression of praise to the Amighty Creator. Either all of them were accepting credit for the event or they were all applauding the creator. One does not applaud oneself, unless on is patting themselves on the back!

Your arguments also appear to assume that everthing was created all at once.

Did God make time? I do not know. Did he, or is time an abstraction?

Regards,
Cal

[Tsmith]

JPHolding,

Since you refuse to fulfill my request to highlight specific points, I'm going to lay it all out in simple order for you.

In Proverbs 8:22 LXX we find it states:

KURIOS EKTISEN ME ARXHN ODWN AUTOU EIS ERGA AUTOU

Lord created me the beginning of his ways for his works.

So facts:

1) Wisdom personified is created
2) It was the beginning of God's ways where this happened

Within Sirach, AIWN in different forms, including as an adjective, are used regarding Wisdom. From the information we have found, this denotes an "age." It does not make a reference to eternity.

Vincent comments:

"The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting. To deduce that meaning from its relation to ἀεί is absurd; for, apart from the fact that the meaning of a word is not definitely fixed by its derivation, ἀεί does not signify endless duration. When the writer of the Pastoral Epistles quotes the saying that the Cretans are always (ἀεί) liars (Tit_1:12), he surely does not mean that the Cretans will go on lying to all eternity. See also Act_7:51; 2Co_4:11; 2Co_6:10; Heb_3:10; 1Pe_3:15. Ἁεί means habitually or continually within the limit of the subject's life. In our colloquial dialect everlastingly is used in the same way. “The boy is everlastingly tormenting me to buy him a drum.”"

Now we find this verse:

Sir 24:9 He created me from the beginning before the world, and I shall never fail.

The key Greek text actually reads:

PRO TON AIWNOS AP ARXHS EKTISEN ME

What we get here is that he was created before the age or the world, depending on how you want to translate it. But the key here is, AP ARXHS ESKTISEN. APO is showing the point of origin, and that point is called the beginning. So there is an actually place in time where wisdom was created.

Now this corresponds to 1 John 1:1 perfectly:

1Jo 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld, and what our hands touched, as regards the Word of Life.

hO HN AP ARXHS

Again, Jesus is from the beginning. Not before it, but from it. The place called the beginning is where Wisdom/Jesus had a point of origin. You already agreed that the beginning is not an eternal place in time, but a specific location. This location APO tells us is the origin of Jesus/Wisdom.

So the facts from here:

3) Wisdom is described as having a point of origin
4) That point of origin is not in eternity, but at a specific time called the beginning.
5) AIWN is used of Wisdom/Jesus, and while it is sometimes used to denote eternity, the word in and of itself does not mean that, especially when a temporal element is added by AP ARXHS.

So what do we have before us then:

We are told Wisdom/Jesus is created and when he is created. When he is created is not labled in eternity, but at the ARXH. Thus, there is a definite point of origin outside of eternity.


Now, that said, let us deal with some of your quotes:

Finally, Sirach says, "(God) searches out both the deep and the heart, and he perceives all their cunning devices. For the Most High knows all, and he sees the signs of the age. He declares changes that occur, and reveals the searching out of hidden things. He does not lack insight, and nothing escapes him. The might of his wisdom he measures out, He is the same from eternity. Nothing is added and nothing is withdrawn, and there is no need for anyone to instruct him." (42:18-21) Wisdom is an attribute of God, and is co-eternal with Him -- otherwise, Wisdom is a thing "added" to Him, or someone has "instructed" Him. Bauckham makes a similar observation concerning a much later passage: "2 Enoch 33:4, in an echo of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40:13), says that God had no advisor in his work of creation, but that his Wisdom was his advisor. The meaning is clearly that God had no one to advise him. His Wisdom, who is not someone else but intrinsic to his own identity, advised him." Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament , 21.

Buckham makes the statement: "Wisdom is an attribute of God, and is co-eternal with Him -- otherwise, Wisdom is a thing "added" to Him, or someone has "instructed" Him. "

Ok, so? We are not talking about the creation of an attribute. We are talking about the creation of a person. A person is speaking when he says he is created. Attributes cannot speak.


Barr tells us, is used in cases that "refer fairly uniformly to the being of God or to plans and realities which, once are established by Him, are perpetual and unchanging. Since the word is not used of more mundane realities like the flowering of fig-trees, one cannot argue that the same kind of temporality is attributed to these as to the being of God."


First, his comments are issolated to God himself as a person. This has no bearing to me on the person of Jesus Christ. That said, he deals here entirely with forward looking events. Nothing in his comments deal with prior events.

Now, some of your statements:

Assertion as a sub for argument for the millionth time. Perhaps you are accustomed to fooling people in other forums with this, but not here. I'd ask for what preposition would connote eternal production, but you've evaded my answer about the verb three times now.


You are dealing with contradictory terms. If something is eternal, it is not produced. There is no need to provide such a wording, and thus there is none in existance.

From Dictionary.com on Eternal: Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.

If one is without beginning, they are not created and they do not have a point of origin called the beginning. Having a point of origin that is directly identified places a person within a temporal realm.


It's contrived balderdash, and merely reaffirming it doesn't relieve your argument of the inability to show that events of 4 and 7 were concurrent. You may as well say events of v. 8 and following were concurrent because they ask the same sort of questions. Agan, you may be used to getting away with this sort of contrivance and "Yes, it is!" assertion elsewhere, but not here.

Verse 4 has no bearing on my point. However, let us see what it says.

Job 38:4 Where were you when I founded the earth? Declare if you know understanding.
5 Who has set its dimensions, for you know? Or who has stretched a line on it?
6 On what were its bases sunk? Or who cast its cornerstone,
7 when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Verse 4 asks a question about an event. Verse 5 asks a question of knowledge of that event. Verse 6 does something similar to verse 6. Verse 7 states that something occured at this event, as the use of "when." There is no in between.



You have a person IDENTIFIED WITH an attribute. The same thing. No distinction made. You have to insert it, and do freely!

No matter how you twist and turn, a person is a person and an attribute is an attribute. A person never becomes an attribute and an attribute never becomes a person.



I gave you a quote from Philo pages ago. Don't pretend lack of knowledge to put it off.

When you quote a person it is usually good to highlight the reason you are quoting someone so that the reader can understand the point you are trying to make.


No, if it is eternal it is OUTSIDE time. Not a specific place.

Sorry, you lose. APO + ARXH place it in the realm of time, showing perfectly that AIWN is NOT being used for eternity, as Vincent points out.

Which does not say anything about "before" the beginning in eternity, and in any event is a mirror of Gen. 1. Eternality is indicated by the contextual nature of the Logos. I am not surprised you avoided commenting on the parallel to Genesis.

EXACTLY. Because Jesus was not BEFORE the beginning, but he was FROM the beginning, as APO is showing the ARXH to be the point of origin. He existed after this point, but NOT before.

The logic following from the word was his basis. The rest was far from "opinion" and your attempt to evade a direct answer by merely calling it "opinion," while politically correct, is mere evasion and fluff.

No, this was merely a diversion on your part from you inability to answer the logic behind Heyler's point.

Whenever somebody makes a claim, there is not issue with requesting evidence of that claim. You THINK he had some great and wonderful point, but if you understood even a lick of Greek, you would know that his claims were not demonstrated, but simply made. So I am entirely within my right to request evidence. When evidence is provided I will reply.





-Tony

[Tsmith]

Today @ 08:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=133826#post133826)
Jezz:

Hey Tony,


Ok. I still disagree, but because this is getting off-topic and not relevant to either of our points, I won't go into details now. I'll just note two points:

1. There is no word/phrase that connects &quot;the waters&quot; with &quot;the earth&quot; in verse 2. You called them &quot;the waters of the earth&quot; - this is merely an assumption on your part.

It really doesn't have to. Gen 1:1 states the earth was created, while Gen 1:2 makes statements about the earth, but never about it being created again.


2. Gen 1:6-8 talks about the creation of the firmament/expanse on the second day, which God then calls &quot;heaven&quot; (shayim). If the heavens were created on this day, then what was created in verse 1, when the same word (shayim) is used?

"heaven" is used in different senses in the bible. One is the universe, the other is the sky. Birds are spoken of as flying in the heavens.


So you've just admitted that the &quot;spirit realm&quot; is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

In other words, you have somehow come up with this idea of a &quot;spirit realm&quot; - an idea which you have just admitted is not mentioned in the Bible anywhere, and thus you've come up with the idea independently of the Bible. You have subsequently incorporated this idea into your theology. You then further assume that time as we experience it existed in this spirit realm, before the physical universe was created (again, with no Biblical support). You then use this theology (constructed independently from the Bible) to argue against the Bible, which says that the Word was personified for all time.

You might checkout the book of Enoch, for example.


And you are accusing me of importing my own theology into the text? :shrug:

Not really. The Bible makes clear reference to a location where God dwells. Job 1 and 2, Daniel 7.

-Tony

[jpholding]

Pfft ha ha,

Since you refuse to fulfill my request to highlight specific points,

This from the guy who refuses to tell what words SHOULD have been used if my position was correct! :rofl:

I'm going to lay it all out in simple order for you.

I.e., you will use the cheap tactical method of repeating your argument endlessly, in order to foll any gullibles in the reading audience. Gotcha.

1) Wisdom personified is created
2) It was the beginning of God's ways where this happened

Oops. Facts:

1) We're still waiting for an answer to the point that verbs do not have temporal connotation, and for the word that WOULD be used if my position were right.
2) The beginning of God's ways? Oops. When did God BEGIN His ways? Hmm, God is eternal. That means he "began His way" in ETERNITY.

Do you prefer to shoot your foot with a .38 or a .45?

Within Sirach, AIWN in different forms, including as an adjective, are used regarding Wisdom. From the information we have found, this denotes an &quot;age.&quot; It does not make a reference to eternity.

Fact:

1) Apparently "from everlasting" IS used to connote eternal things, as shown in the OT parallels.
2) Therefore, either:
a) Anything described this way IS eternal
b) If it is not, it is your burden to explain why not, and as you tried above, you merely appealed to your other fallacious arguments as support. Weak reeds supporting weak reeds.

Vincent comments:

Vincent don't deal with spots where it clearly DOES mean eternal stuff with reference to God. Context tells us Cretans aren't eternal. Not so with Wisdom. If anything context (it is God's attribute, and God does not change) points oin the OTHER direction.

What we get here is that he was created before the age or the world, depending on how you want to translate it.

If it was BEFORE the world, that is the point of origin -- and that is ETERNITY. Before time.

Again, Jesus is from the beginning. Not before it, but from it.

Same old game as before with John 1:1. The mirror is Genesis 1:1 and this says zip about origins before the temporal beginning.

Correction of your "facts":

3) Wisdom is described as having a point of origin

In Sirach, before the beginning. In John, it is only said to be there at the beginning and says nothing about before.

4) That point of origin is not in eternity, but at a specific time
called the beginning.

Incorrect.

5) AIWN is used of Wisdom/Jesus, and while it is sometimes used to denote eternity, the word in and of itself does not mean that, especially when a temporal element is added by AP ARXHS.

A "temporal element" is only added if you beg the question of the point of origin being in temporality. Nice try at evasion. It fails.


Ok, so? We are not talking about the creation of an attribute. We are talking about the creation of a person. A person is speaking when he says he is created. Attributes cannot speak.

Round and round he goes in that circle! An attribute that IS a person CAN speak. You beg the question of all attribues being non-persons. It's the same game in different guise.

First, his comments are issolated to God himself as a person. This has no bearing to me on the person of Jesus Christ. That said, he deals here entirely with forward looking events. Nothing in his comments deal with prior events.

PLEASE! You're evading the issue. If Wisdom is anywhere described as AIONIOS you lose. If Wisdom is an attribute then it clearly has to be past as well as forward, since as you admit, God doesn't change. And you also don't acknowledge your error that he corrects.

You are dealing with contradictory terms. If something is eternal, it is not produced. There is no need to provide such a wording, and thus there is none in existance.

I.e., you evade for the 100000000th time and thus admit to no aswer.

Verse 4 has no bearing on my point.

This from the guy who used it and claimed it was concurrent with events of v. 7! :rofl:

Verse 4 asks a question about an event. Verse 5 asks a question of knowledge of that event. Verse 6 does something similar to verse 6. Verse 7 states that something occured at this event, as the use of &quot;when.&quot; There is no in between.

You may fool some people with this, but not those here. You're trying to wrest narrative concurrence into implying temporal concurrence, when there is no temporal marker present. In other words, you're BUSTED and contriving excuses after the fact will not save you.

A person never becomes an attribute and an attribute never becomes a person.

No matter how you squirm and giggle, you'll never stop begging the question and creating an artificial wall.

When you quote a person it is usually good to highlight the reason you are quoting someone so that the reader can understand the point you are trying to make.

When someone quotes someone, it is a good idea to pay attention so that the point does not have to be repeated over and over.

Sorry, you lose. APO + ARXH place it in the realm of time, showing perfectly that AIWN is NOT being used for eternity, as Vincent points out.

Sorry, you busted. If it is in the realm of eternity, an en bloc time from our perspective, I would expect the same words to be used. I'd ask for you to say what words would be used if I am right, but we know what we'll hear from that request:

" "

EXACTLY. Because Jesus was not BEFORE the beginning, but he was FROM the beginning, as APO is showing the ARXH to be the point of origin. He existed after this point, but NOT before.

You evade yet again. gain: John mirrors Genesis, and so makes no statement about existence before the beginning when he speaks of the beginning.

You THINK he had some great and wonderful point, but if you understood even a lick of Greek, you would know that his claims were not demonstrated, but simply made.

I KNOW he demonstrated, because:

1) He is a scholar who knows his stuff, whereas you clearly are not;
2) You have refused and ignored a challenge to have your knowledge tested by Jaltus, who is a seminarian specializing in Greek;
3) You have repeatedly refused to provide what language would be used in the text if my position were correct, thus refusing to subject your thesis to falsification;
4) You have ignored that it is a LOGICAL problem, not a grammatical one, that stares you in the face from Col. 1:15-18.

How amusing. :rofl:

[Tsmith]

Today @ 02:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=134910#post134910)
jpholding:

Pfft ha ha,

Since you refuse to fulfill my request to highlight specific points,

This from the guy who refuses to tell what words SHOULD have been used if my position was correct! :rofl:

I'm going to lay it all out in simple order for you.

I.e., you will use the cheap tactical method of repeating your argument endlessly, in order to foll any gullibles in the reading audience. Gotcha.

1) Wisdom personified is created
2) It was the beginning of God's ways where this happened

Oops. Facts:

1) We're still waiting for an answer to the point that verbs do not have temporal connotation, and for the word that WOULD be used if my position were right.
2) The beginning of God's ways? Oops. When did God BEGIN His ways? Hmm, God is eternal. That means he &quot;began His way&quot; in ETERNITY.

Do you prefer to shoot your foot with a .38 or a .45?

Within Sirach, AIWN in different forms, including as an adjective, are used regarding Wisdom. From the information we have found, this denotes an &amp;quot;age.&amp;quot; It does not make a reference to eternity.

Fact:

1) Apparently &quot;from everlasting&quot; IS used to connote eternal things, as shown in the OT parallels.
2) Therefore, either:
a) Anything described this way IS eternal
b) If it is not, it is your burden to explain why not, and as you tried above, you merely appealed to your other fallacious arguments as support. Weak reeds supporting weak reeds.

Vincent comments:

Vincent don't deal with spots where it clearly DOES mean eternal stuff with reference to God. Context tells us Cretans aren't eternal. Not so with Wisdom. If anything context (it is God's attribute, and God does not change) points oin the OTHER direction.

What we get here is that he was created before the age or the world, depending on how you want to translate it.

If it was BEFORE the world, that is the point of origin -- and that is ETERNITY. Before time.

Again, Jesus is from the beginning. Not before it, but from it.

Same old game as before with John 1:1. The mirror is Genesis 1:1 and this says zip about origins before the temporal beginning.

Correction of your &quot;facts&quot;:

3) Wisdom is described as having a point of origin

In Sirach, before the beginning. In John, it is only said to be there at the beginning and says nothing about before.

4) That point of origin is not in eternity, but at a specific time
called the beginning.

Incorrect.

5) AIWN is used of Wisdom/Jesus, and while it is sometimes used to denote eternity, the word in and of itself does not mean that, especially when a temporal element is added by AP ARXHS.

A &quot;temporal element&quot; is only added if you beg the question of the point of origin being in temporality. Nice try at evasion. It fails.


Ok, so? We are not talking about the creation of an attribute. We are talking about the creation of a person. A person is speaking when he says he is created. Attributes cannot speak.

Round and round he goes in that circle! An attribute that IS a person CAN speak. You beg the question of all attribues being non-persons. It's the same game in different guise.

First, his comments are issolated to God himself as a person. This has no bearing to me on the person of Jesus Christ. That said, he deals here entirely with forward looking events. Nothing in his comments deal with prior events.

PLEASE! You're evading the issue. If Wisdom is anywhere described as AIONIOS you lose. If Wisdom is an attribute then it clearly has to be past as well as forward, since as you admit, God doesn't change. And you also don't acknowledge your error that he corrects.

You are dealing with contradictory terms. If something is eternal, it is not produced. There is no need to provide such a wording, and thus there is none in existance.

I.e., you evade for the 100000000th time and thus admit to no aswer.

Verse 4 has no bearing on my point.

This from the guy who used it and claimed it was concurrent with events of v. 7! :rofl:

Verse 4 asks a question about an event. Verse 5 asks a question of knowledge of that event. Verse 6 does something similar to verse 6. Verse 7 states that something occured at this event, as the use of &amp;quot;when.&amp;quot; There is no in between.

You may fool some people with this, but not those here. You're trying to wrest narrative concurrence into implying temporal concurrence, when there is no temporal marker present. In other words, you're BUSTED and contriving excuses after the fact will not save you.

A person never becomes an attribute and an attribute never becomes a person.

No matter how you squirm and giggle, you'll never stop begging the question and creating an artificial wall.

When you quote a person it is usually good to highlight the reason you are quoting someone so that the reader can understand the point you are trying to make.

When someone quotes someone, it is a good idea to pay attention so that the point does not have to be repeated over and over.

Sorry, you lose. APO + ARXH place it in the realm of time, showing perfectly that AIWN is NOT being used for eternity, as Vincent points out.

Sorry, you busted. If it is in the realm of eternity, an en bloc time from our perspective, I would expect the same words to be used. I'd ask for you to say what words would be used if I am right, but we know what we'll hear from that request:

&quot; &quot;

EXACTLY. Because Jesus was not BEFORE the beginning, but he was FROM the beginning, as APO is showing the ARXH to be the point of origin. He existed after this point, but NOT before.

You evade yet again. gain: John mirrors Genesis, and so makes no statement about existence before the beginning when he speaks of the beginning.

You THINK he had some great and wonderful point, but if you understood even a lick of Greek, you would know that his claims were not demonstrated, but simply made.

I KNOW he demonstrated, because:

1) He is a scholar who knows his stuff, whereas you clearly are not;
2) You have refused and ignored a challenge to have your knowledge tested by Jaltus, who is a seminarian specializing in Greek;
3) You have repeatedly refused to provide what language would be used in the text if my position were correct, thus refusing to subject your thesis to falsification;
4) You have ignored that it is a LOGICAL problem, not a grammatical one, that stares you in the face from Col. 1:15-18.

How amusing. :rofl:

Sorry, the "because I said so" arguement doesn't hold any water. You rambled a lot, but you provided nothing to counteract what I said. Try again.

Anyway though, I don't think we'll ever agree, as I believe Proverbs 8:22 is specifically talking about a person that is created, where you believe it is talking specifically about a direct attribute of God that is uncreated.


-Tony

[AVmetro]

TS-

From scripture, demonstrate that God {the Father} is eternal.

Depending on the response, I'll make my point at a later time.

Thanks.

God bless

[Tsmith]

Today @ 01:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135647#post135647)
IronMetro:

TS-

From scripture, demonstrate that God {the Father} is eternal.

Depending on the response, I'll make my point at a later time.

Thanks.

God bless

Mal 3:6 For I, Jehovah, change not. Because of this, you sons of Jacob are not destroyed.

Jam 1:17 every act of good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom is no change or shadow of turning.

God does not and has not changed.

-Tony

[AVmetro]

Yesterday @ 10:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135684#post135684)
Tsmith:


Mal 3:6 For I, Jehovah, change not. Because of this, you sons of Jacob are not destroyed.

Jam 1:17 every act of good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom is no change or shadow of turning.

God does not and has not changed.

-Tony

The above doesn't serve to accomplish much as the same language is used of the Son. See:

Heb 1:10-12 And, "You, Lord, at the beginning founded the earth, and the heavens are works of Your hands. They will vanish away, but You will continue ; and they will all become old, like a garment, and You shall fold them up like a covering, and they shall be changed. But You are the same, and Your years shall not fail."

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and forever.

I need explicit scriptures which state that God {the Father} is eternal.

Thanks.

God bless

[Jezz]

Hey Cal,

Cal_Minian:
To use the word angels for beneh elohim is not a translation, it is an interpretation.
That is true. I'd argue that it's a valid interpretation, but you are correct nonetheless.

To say that Jesus is a son of God is a literal fact.
There is no such thing as a literal fact, without taking context into account. Whether or not Jesus is a son of God depends on what "son of God" means in a particular context. The phrase "son of God" is an idiom that has different meanings in different contexts. Sometimes it means angels, sometimes it means God's earthly followers. And sometimes it means Jesus.

Note that in John 3:16, Jesus is referred to as the monogenes son. The adjective "monogenes" is used 9 times, and in every case it refers to an only child. How does this mesh with references to other sons of God? Clearly, it shows that Jesus was really God's Son, whereas when the term "son of God" is used for angels/people it is used figuratively of beings who are not really God's sons. Thus, the phrase "sons of God" probably was never intended to include Jesus. But even if it does, the rest of your argument carries little weight.

It is also a literal fact that ALL the sons of God shouted in applause. BDB on page 929 says tihs verb 'Ro)' means exactly that.
See above re: literal facts. In this instance it seems you completely missed my point about hyperbole. Saying "all" does not always mean "all". It can often mean "almost all" or even "most", depending on context. It is perfectly within the bounds of the idioms of the language for the author to say "all the sons of God" when they meant "all of the sons of God except for Jesus". So even if Jesus is considered merely a son of God and not the son of God (and as I argued above, this is probably not the case), it does not necessarily follow that the phrase "all the sons of God" includes Jesus.

People use hyperbole all the time! (pun intended)

You said:
Q. How does shouting in applause at creation proclude one from taking part in the creation event itself?

A. The shouting in applause by ALL the sons of God which must include Jesus who is also called son of God was a joint expression of praise to the Amighty Creator. Either all of them were accepting credit for the event or they were all applauding the creator.
This is a false equivocation. Even if I grant your position that "all the sons of God" was meant to include Jesus (which I don't), it does not follow that they were all accepting credit for the event just because one of them was. It would be perfectly consistent with the text if all the sons of God (including Jesus) were giving praise to the Almighty Creator, while Jesus (but not the other sons of God) was applauding himself. And anyway, there wouldn't be anything preventing Jesus taking part in the creation, but cheering the Father along with the other sons of God. Your argument simply doesn't carry any weight.

One does not applaud oneself, unless on is patting themselves on the back!
If Jesus did take part in creation of the Earth (and the Bible clearly teaches he does, because it says all things were created through him), then why wouldn't he applaud himself? After all, he saw that everything he had made was very good.

Your arguments also appear to assume that everthing was created all at once.
I never assumed that at all. I've made a big point of making as few assumptions as possible. I challenge you to quote one of my statements which shows otherwise. :smile:

Did God make time? I do not know. Did he, or is time an abstraction?
Time is no more of an abstraction that space is. If God created space, then He created time. And because all things were created through Christ, this means that time was created through Christ. Which means that Christ was there when time began - ie, he has existed for eternity.

Cheers,
-Jezz

[Jezz]

Tsmith:
It really doesn't have to. Gen 1:1 states the earth was created, while Gen 1:2 makes statements about the earth, but never about it being created again.

&quot;heaven&quot; is used in different senses in the bible. One is the universe, the other is the sky. Birds are spoken of as flying in the heavens.
I still disagree, but as this is off-topic I won't bother to respond.

You might checkout the book of Enoch, for example.
That's working backwards. You shouldn't import ideas into Scripture from apochryphal works unless it is clear that the Scripture's inspired authors themselves did so (as is the case with Wisdom).

Not really. The Bible makes clear reference to a location where God dwells. Job 1 and 2, Daniel 7.
The mention in Daniel 7 is a vision, not a narrative. You can't really include that as an example.

As for the references in Job - sure, it makes reference to a location where God dwells. It doesn't give any indication where that location is - spirit realm or otherwise. It could have been the dark side of the moon, or Proxima Centauri for all I know.

And even if it is referring to a spirit realm (I'll grant you that this seems likely, though I realise this is an assumption that I am making, and not based on the text itself), there is still zero evidence that time exists in this spirit realm, or that all that is in it is not eternal. In fact, I can make a solid argument that there is no time in the spirit realm (because God is timeless), and hence everything in the spirit realm is eternal. So to say that Jesus was created in the spirit realm before the universe was created, does not mean that Jesus was not eternal.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 06:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=135736#post135736)
IronMetro:



The above doesn't serve to accomplish much as the same language is used of the Son. See:

Heb 1:10-12 And, &quot;You, Lord, at the beginning founded the earth, and the heavens are works of Your hands. They will vanish away, but You will continue ; and they will all become old, like a garment, and You shall fold them up like a covering, and they shall be changed. But You are the same, and Your years shall not fail.&quot;

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and today and forever.

I need explicit scriptures which state that God {the Father} is eternal.

Thanks.

God bless

Hebrews 13:8 is dealing with doctrine, not the person. Keep it in context. Hebrews 1:10-12 is applying of Christ towards the future, for he has already placed on his "spiritual body" (1 cor 15) where none others have at this writing.

As for the verse you request, it does not exist. We determine such facts from verses that do exist and statements made in the verses that I supplied.

[jpholding]

In rides tsmith, huffing, puffing,

Sorry, the &quot;because I said so&quot; arguement doesn't hold any water. You rambled a lot, but you provided nothing to counteract what I said. Try again.

In other words, you have no answer. :rofl: No I have one more large puff for your house of cards.

I have pointed out the Heyler's note on 1:16 is a LOGICAL problem, not a linguistic one. If "all things" were created BY Christ then clearly he cannot be part of the set of "all things"created. Now for the coup de grace.

As Bauckham notes:

(The phrase "all things") belongs to the standard rhetoric of Jewish monotheism, in which it constantly refers, quite naturally, to the whole of the created reality from which God is absolutely distinguished as its Creator and Ruler.

Now then:

Matt. 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Gee, did the Father deliver the Son onto himself?

John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

Did the Father give the Son to himself? This is even goofier than Trinitarianism being explained by Joe Wallack!

1 Cor. 15:27-8 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Gee! So is the Son subdued under himself? Now here's the kicker of all:

Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

WHOA! So if tsmith is right, then this is what Paul says:

16 For by him were all things (including Jesus himself -- he created himself BY himself!) created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things (including himself! he's BEFORE himself???), and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself (he even had to reconcile himself using himself! this is getting kookier by the minute!); by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

In short, the view being promulgated here has so many logical knots you need a flamethrower to unravel it. Now one last thing. Anyone think Wisdom and Christ as Wisdom is not called eternal, anywhere? Guess again. 2 +2 = 4.

1 Cor. 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Rom. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Whew! It sure takes a lot of thinking to connect the dots! :smile:





Hey, wait a minute! If tsmith is right then:

[Tsmith]

Today @ 07:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136026#post136026)
jpholding:

In rides tsmith, huffing, puffing,

Sorry, the &amp;quot;because I said so&amp;quot; arguement doesn't hold any water. You rambled a lot, but you provided nothing to counteract what I said. Try again.

In other words, you have no answer. :rofl: No I have one more large puff for your house of cards.

I have pointed out the Heyler's note on 1:16 is a LOGICAL problem, not a linguistic one. If &quot;all things&quot; were created BY Christ then clearly he cannot be part of the set of &quot;all things&quot;created. Now for the coup de grace.

As Bauckham notes:

(The phrase &quot;all things&quot;) belongs to the standard rhetoric of Jewish monotheism, in which it constantly refers, quite naturally, to the whole of the created reality from which God is absolutely distinguished as its Creator and Ruler.

Now then:

Matt. 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Gee, did the Father deliver the Son onto himself?

John 3:35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.

Did the Father give the Son to himself? This is even goofier than Trinitarianism being explained by Joe Wallack!

1 Cor. 15:27-8 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Gee! So is the Son subdued under himself? Now here's the kicker of all:

Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

WHOA! So if tsmith is right, then this is what Paul says:

16 For by him were all things (including Jesus himself -- he created himself BY himself!) created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things (including himself! he's BEFORE himself???), and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself (he even had to reconcile himself using himself! this is getting kookier by the minute!); by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

In short, the view being promulgated here has so many logical knots you need a flamethrower to unravel it. Now one last thing. Anyone think Wisdom and Christ as Wisdom is not called eternal, anywhere? Guess again. 2 +2 = 4.

1 Cor. 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Rom. 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Whew! It sure takes a lot of thinking to connect the dots! :smile:





Hey, wait a minute! If tsmith is right then:


Obviously everything I have stated on PAS has gone totally over your head, because you totally fail to grasp my point and my position. That is understandable though, because you admittedly don't really know any Greek. That said, stop trying to act like you understand what I said so that you can try to refute it. See, the "logical problem" you present, isn't an issue at all if you understand the language and how it functions. You can't refute what you don't even understand and in this case, you didn't even address my actual point.

-Tony

[AVmetro]

TSmith stated:

Hebrews 13:8 is dealing with doctrine, not the person. Keep it in context.

Yet similar could be argued for what you cited previously:
Mal 3:6 - "For I, Jehovah, change not. Because of this, you sons of Jacob are not destroyed."

Which is an allusion to God's covenant with Abraham. God does not renenge on His promises. Similar could be argued for James.

Hebrews 1:10-12 is applying of Christ towards the future, for he has already placed on his "spiritual body" (1 cor 15) where none others have at this writing.

Yet the context (which is nestled in a chapter concerning superiority) is dealing with creation et al. That is, the creation of Genesis. Secondly, the passage in it's original LXX usage in reference to YHWH, was used to denote what you intended to demonstrate with Mal and Jam. I see no reason to shift the meaning to the future based on an a priori assumption.

As for the verse you request, it does not exist. We determine such facts from verses that do exist and statements made in the verses that I supplied.

Are you stating that YHWH's eternality is simply to be inferred from scriptural harmonization at best? Why not cite some of these verses which "do exist"?

It is also a literal fact that ALL the sons of God shouted in applause. BDB on page 929 says tihs verb 'Ro)' means exactly that.

"All [other] creation" (?)

JPHolding cited:

Col. 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Rabbi Bechai - “God is the firstborn of the world” [Pent. fol. 124:4].

God bless

[jpholding]

In circles one more rides Don Quixote,

Obviously everything I have stated on PAS has gone totally over your head,

Obviously you realize your position is irrelevant to the logical problems caused by your interpretation and you are left with no choice but to pretend that your argument has any relevance. If the language WERE as you say, it would present a logical contradiction, not only in Col. 1 but everywhere else indicated. End of story. You have no answer and your evasion is as much as a concession in context.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 07:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=136837#post136837)
jpholding:

In circles one more rides Don Quixote,

Obviously everything I have stated on PAS has gone totally over your head,

Obviously you realize your position is irrelevant to the logical problems caused by your interpretation and you are left with no choice but to pretend that your argument has any relevance. If the language WERE as you say, it would present a logical contradiction, not only in Col. 1 but everywhere else indicated. End of story. You have no answer and your evasion is as much as a concession in context.


Wow. Ignorance. What you don't grasp is that only in English is there a seemingly logical problem. If you read the Greek text you find that there is no logical problem. I guess, as they say, you lose something in the translation. I've tried to explain the lost element. You just don't want to get a clue.



-Tony

[jpholding]

In rides tsmith, desperately looking to put it in shadow:

Wow. Ignorance. What you don't grasp is that only in English is there a seemingly logical problem. If you read the Greek text you find that there is no logical problem. I guess, as they say, you lose something in the translation

Wow. Dodgeball. You didn't explain dip. No amount of fudging will evade it. Linguistically and logically, there is no way around this. You are faking expertise in Greek, but we know the facts. Some of our friends have gone up against you before, friends who DO know Greek, and "horse puckey" was their kindest word for your claim to know it here.

So prove me wrong. Submit to a simple test from Jaltus, who has degrees in Greek. If you don't, we'll just assume your Greek comes from software and "Learn Biblical Greek in 30 Minutes a Day".

More logic problems for you:

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Sure would be hard for something to make itself! :rofl:

[o2bwise]

Mr. Holding,

Well, I see things differently than Cal Minion and Tony S on the point of Christ being created.

I was not created when born so I see no reason to assert Christ was created when born. I was created when Adam was created and so my birth aids in whether or not I am a created being by virtue of its assistance in tracing back my lineage. It traces back to a being the biblical record states was created.

Christ was begotten of God, perhaps in eternity past. His lineage traces back to a being who was not created, that being God. Thus, Christ was not created. Begotten? Yes. Created? No.


Just as an fyi, I do not see the offer to have Jaltus look at the Greek as foolproof, only insofar as the Trinitarian bias, at least potentially, can be huge (so huge that I would call it intoxicating wine).

That is at least a possibility. Bias, even extreme bias, is not without possibility.


God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137964#post137964)
o2bwise:

Mr. Holding,

Well, I see things differently than Cal Minion and Tony S on the point of Christ being created.

I was not created when born so I see no reason to assert Christ was created when born. I was created when Adam was created and so my birth aids in whether or not I am a created being by virtue of its assistance in tracing back my lineage. It traces back to a being the biblical record states was created.

Christ was begotten of God, perhaps in eternity past. His lineage traces back to a being who was not created, that being God. Thus, Christ was not created. Begotten? Yes. Created? No.

Just as an fyi, I do not see the offer to have Jaltus look at the Greek as foolproof, only insofar as the Trinitarian bias, at least potentially, can be huge (so huge that I would call it intoxicating wine).

That is at least a possibility. Bias, even extreme bias, is not without possibility.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

         At this link to the Early Church Fathers, can be found the writings of, The Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp¹, Ignatius¹, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus²

         ¹ Disciple of John the Apsostle, ² disciple of Polycarp.

and Fathers of the Second Century, Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria.

I am not suggesting that these writings are inspired, as are the scriptures, but they do give us a picture of how the early church interpreted and put the scriptures into practice and therefore can guide our understanding of the scriptures.

Link to Early Church Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/)

[Tsmith]

Yesterday @ 08:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=137910#post137910)
jpholding:

In rides tsmith, desperately looking to put it in shadow:

Wow. Ignorance. What you don't grasp is that only in English is there a seemingly logical problem. If you read the Greek text you find that there is no logical problem. I guess, as they say, you lose something in the translation

Wow. Dodgeball. You didn't explain dip. No amount of fudging will evade it. Linguistically and logically, there is no way around this. You are faking expertise in Greek, but we know the facts. Some of our friends have gone up against you before, friends who DO know Greek, and &quot;horse puckey&quot; was their kindest word for your claim to know it here.

So prove me wrong. Submit to a simple test from Jaltus, who has degrees in Greek. If you don't, we'll just assume your Greek comes from software and &quot;Learn Biblical Greek in 30 Minutes a Day&quot;.

More logic problems for you:

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Sure would be hard for something to make itself! :rofl:

Well you have clearly demonstrated a personal issue with egotism on your part.

I've already address of Col 1:16 and, actually I've briefly touched on John 1:3 in relation to the word connections and how the meaning changes when the connections change.

[jpholding]

O2bwise,

It seems to me that you impregnate thE word "created" with a specific range of meaning that is not warranted. As for "bias" that verges on insult to Jaltus.

Now for tsmith, dodging some more:

Well you have clearly demonstrated a personal issue with egotism on your part.

And you'll take any excuse not to answer, eh? :rofl:

I've already address of Col 1:16 and, actually I've briefly touched on John 1:3 in relation to the word connections and how the meaning changes when the connections change.

Nah, just more say it and spray it. Let's do the details again:
Your original EXCUSE was:

For starters, if we compare Col 1:15 to verse 16, we find that the ALL discussed is not the same. In Col 1:15 we find that Paul used the feminine of PAS, where verse 16 contains the neuter. Thus, the all of creation he is firstborn of is not the same as that which was created through him. With that said, when a subject is in view and PAS is used, the subject is not neccesarily removed from the group which he/it is spoken of in relation to. We can see this at Matthew 26:35; Mark 4:31; Luke 13:2, and Luke 21:29. So that said, grammatically, Jesus is not issolated from being created. We could go into this further, but I see no need as its rather cut and dry.

To which I said:

What difference does this make? The PAS of Col. 1:15 modifies "creature" does it not? All this tells us is that creatures enjoy a "feminine" relationship with respect to Christ -- whereas "all things" in v. 16 expands beyond creatures to all objects in the universe. This does nothing to defuse what Heyler offered and indeed has no bearing on the matter at all.

And so it doesn't. The tortuous explanation above would not solve the problem in ANY language. Matthew 26:35 et al do not create any logical contradictions if ALL includes the object of the passage. A THING CANNOT 'CREATE' ITSELF OR 'BEGET' ITSELF.
If ALL THINGS were created BY and FOR Christ then logically he is not part of "all" -- this is as illogical as the steady state theory of the universe's origins. That PAS is in neuter, feminine, whatever, doesn't address the point. PERIOD. It's one of two things:

1) PAS does NOT include Christ here, which is my position.

2) It DOES include Christ, and Paul wrote a logical contradiction.

If tsmith wants to go with #2, he's welcome to hide under the coverlet and do so. Most of us have better respect for Paul than that.

[Tsmith]

Today @ 08:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=138804#post138804)
jpholding:

O2bwise,

It seems to me that you impregnate thE word &quot;created&quot; with a specific range of meaning that is not warranted. As for &quot;bias&quot; that verges on insult to Jaltus.

Now for tsmith, dodging some more:

Well you have clearly demonstrated a personal issue with egotism on your part.

And you'll take any excuse not to answer, eh? :rofl:

I've already address of Col 1:16 and, actually I've briefly touched on John 1:3 in relation to the word connections and how the meaning changes when the connections change.

Nah, just more say it and spray it. Let's do the details again:
Your original EXCUSE was:

For starters, if we compare Col 1:15 to verse 16, we find that the ALL discussed is not the same. In Col 1:15 we find that Paul used the feminine of PAS, where verse 16 contains the neuter. Thus, the all of creation he is firstborn of is not the same as that which was created through him. With that said, when a subject is in view and PAS is used, the subject is not neccesarily removed from the group which he/it is spoken of in relation to. We can see this at Matthew 26:35; Mark 4:31; Luke 13:2, and Luke 21:29. So that said, grammatically, Jesus is not issolated from being created. We could go into this further, but I see no need as its rather cut and dry.

To which I said:

What difference does this make? The PAS of Col. 1:15 modifies &quot;creature&quot; does it not? All this tells us is that creatures enjoy a &quot;feminine&quot; relationship with respect to Christ -- whereas &quot;all things&quot; in v. 16 expands beyond creatures to all objects in the universe. This does nothing to defuse what Heyler offered and indeed has no bearing on the matter at all.

And so it doesn't. The tortuous explanation above would not solve the problem in ANY language. Matthew 26:35 et al do not create any logical contradictions if ALL includes the object of the passage. A THING CANNOT 'CREATE' ITSELF OR 'BEGET' ITSELF.
If ALL THINGS were created BY and FOR Christ then logically he is not part of &quot;all&quot; -- this is as illogical as the steady state theory of the universe's origins. That PAS is in neuter, feminine, whatever, doesn't address the point. PERIOD. It's one of two things:

1) PAS does NOT include Christ here, which is my position.

2) It DOES include Christ, and Paul wrote a logical contradiction.

If tsmith wants to go with #2, he's welcome to hide under the coverlet and do so. Most of us have better respect for Paul than that.

Your reply did not touch the primary weight of my arguement, which has nothing to do with the gender of PAS, but rather, it has to do with the use of PAS when a subject is in view related to pas a group.

Basically, as I demonstrated from the cited examples, when you have a subject in view that is set apart from PAS+group, the subject is not excluded from the group, and from this, [other] is an inherit part of PAS, as it does not exclude the subject in view.

-Tony

[o2bwise]

Mr Holding,

As for "bias" that verges on insult to Jaltus.

Well, I do believe the Whore is the papal system and I believe her wine is her doctrine and I believe the foundation of her faith is the Trinity. Where the latter is concerned, the papacy would most heartedly agree. Furthermore, the wine is described as intoxicating.

So, you sort of place me between a rock and a hard place. The rock being my sincere allegiance to the Word as I understand it, with its attendant consequences. The hard place being describing Jaltus as I did.

I'll just say that we all fall short of the glory of God, none of us are perfect, and in that sense, we are all "insulted." In a more generic sense, I will yoke myself with Jaltus where this is concerned.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[Jezz]

o2bwise:
Well, I do believe the Whore is the papal system and I believe her wine is her doctrine and I believe the foundation of her faith is the Trinity. Where the latter is concerned, the papacy would most heartedly agree. Furthermore, the wine is described as intoxicating.
The papacy would also agree that Jesus' life & resurrection was the foundation of their faith as well. Are you going to deny that doctrine because it is an "intoxicating doctrine of the RCC"? I doubt it. I therefore don't think you can use this line of reasoning to discard the Trinity - otherwise, you might find yourself with no resurrection either.

The one doctrine of the RCC which sets them apart from all other churches is the infallibility of the papacy (with the exception, perhaps, of the JWs who have their own equivalent - the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society). It is therefore this doctrine (if any) that is the wine that came from the Whore.

I'll just say that we all fall short of the glory of God, none of us are perfect, and in that sense, we are all &quot;insulted.&quot; In a more generic sense, I will yoke myself with Jaltus where this is concerned.
Amen to that, at least. :smile:

[Cal_Minian]

06-17-2003 @ 03:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=125327#post125327)
Tsmith:

Hello folks,

I thought I'd post this up here to see if anyone would care to discuss it with me.

Colossians 15 is a strong argument against the Trinity. Of course Trinitarians are quick to dismiss it, giving some weak arguments in an attempt to do so. However, an examination of this scripture and the grammar behind it actually provides stronger evidence against the Trinity than most non-Trinitarians realize, and it shows clearly how Trinitarian replies to it simply hold no ground.


Colossians 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation.

The image of God
The A part of verse 15 clearly states that Jesus is the &quot;image of the invisible God.&quot; To be an image of one, you are their representation or in their likeness. Strong’s defines the Greek work for image, EIKWN, as follows:

From G1503; a likeness, that is, (literally) statue, profile, or (figuratively) representation, resemblance: - image.

Thus, we use simple logic here. Who does it state that Jesus is in the image of? Well he is the image of God of course. Is he the one he is the image, or representation of? Not at all. He is representing God, so, therefore, he cannot be God.

Trinitarians will say that this reference to God is speaking only of the Father, but this is an example of the Trinitarian fallacy of equivocation: they do not say what they mean and they do not mean what they say. How so? Well QEOS, and more specifically hO QEOS are used throughout the Bible. For those unfamiliar with Greek, QEOS means God, while hO is the definite article (i.e. the). Trinitarians will not give a proper definition for God. They state that sometimes it just means the Father, sometimes it just means the Son and sometimes it just means the Holy Spirit. Other times, they will say it means all three in the Trinity. They base this determination on theology, not on context. In fact, they will change their definition of QEOS within single chapters of the Bible (Acts 10 is an example of such). How sound is such reasoning? Not very.

Therefore, the simply fact of the matter, is that Jesus is the image of God, ALL of God. If he was simply the image of the Father, the verse would say such, but it does not, it says God.

Firstborn
Our next key word here is firstborn. Trinitarians are quick to dismiss this argument as well, stating that it simply means preeminence. With what basis? They sight a few isolated examples of such (Jer 31:9; Psa 89:27) as their evidence.

Unfortunately for Trinitarians, their isolated examples are in the VAST minority. Overwhelmingly, firstborn (Greek: PRWTOTOKOS) is used simply as the one born first. Included with this is preeminence, as it is part of the birthright, but it also displays the order of birth.

Further evidence of this comes from considering every case of firstborn in the Bible. In doing this, we find that each case of firstborn that is then followed by a genitive (such as &quot;of&quot;) consistently means the one born first. We will consider the OT examples of this by looking in the LXX at each case. Keep in mind that this is not every example of firstborn meaning the one born first, but every example showing possession.


Genesis 4:4 And Abel also brought of the first born of his sheep and of his fatlings, and God looked upon Abel and his gifts,
Genesis 25:13 And these are the names of the sons of Ismael, according to the names of their generations. The firstborn of Ismael, Nabaioth, and Kedar, and Nabdeel, and Massam,
Genesis 35:23 The sons of Lea, the first-born of Jacob; Ruben, Symeon, Levi, Judas, Issachar, Zabulon.
Genesis 36:15 These are the chiefs of the son of Esau, even the sons of Eliphas, the first-born of Esau; chief Thaeman, chief Omar, chief Sophar, chief Kenez,
Genesis 38:7 And Er, the first-born of Judas, was wicked before the Lord; and God killed him.
Genesis 46:8 And these are the names of the sons of Israel that went into Egypt with their father Jacob- Jacob and his sons. The first-born of Jacob, Ruben.
Exodus 6:14 And these are the heads of the houses of their families: the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; Enoch and Phallus, Asron, and Charmi, this is the kindred of Ruben.
Exodus 11:5 And every first-born in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sits on the throne, even to the first-born of the woman-servant that is by the mill, and to the first-born of all cattle.
Exodus 12:29 And it came to pass at midnight that the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharao that sat on the throne, to the first-born of the captive-maid in the dungeon, and the first-born of all cattle.
Exodus 13:13 Every offspring opening the womb of the ass thou shalt change for a sheep; and if thou wilt not change it, thou shalt redeem it: every first-born of man of thy sons shalt thou redeem.
Exodus 13:15 And when Pharao hardened his heart so as not to send us away, he slew every first-born in the land of Egypt, both the first-born of man and the first-born of beast; therefore do I sacrifice every offspring that opens the womb, the males to the Lord, and every first-born of my sons I will redeem.
Exodus 22:29 Thou shalt not keep back the first-fruits of thy threshing floor and press. The first-born of thy sons thou shalt give to me.
Exodus 34:19 The males are mine, everything that opens the womb; every first-born of oxen, and every first-born of sheep.
Exodus 34:20 And the first-born of an ass thou shalt redeem with a sheep, and if thou wilt not redeem it thou shalt pay a price: every first-born of thy sons shalt thou redeem: thou shalt not appear before me empty.
Numbers 1:20 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel according to their kindreds, according to their divisions, according to the houses of their families, according to the number of their names, according to their heads, were- all males from twenty years old and upward, every one that went out with the host-
Numbers 3:40 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Count every first-born male of the children of Israel from a month old and upwards, and take the number by name.
Numbers 3:41 And thou shalt take the Levites for me- I am the Lord-- instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of all the first-born among the cattle of the children of Israel.
Numbers 3:45 Take the Levites instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel, and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle, and the Levites shall be mine; I am the Lord.
Numbers 3:46 And for the ransoms of the two hundred and seventy-three which exceed the Levites in number of the first-born of the sons of Israel;
Numbers 3:50 He took the silver from the first-born of the sons of Israel, a thousand three hundred and sixty-five shekels, according to the holy shekel.
Numbers 8:16 For these are given to me for a present out of the midst of the children of Israel: I have taken them to myself instead of all the first-born of the sons of Israel that open every womb.
Numbers 8:17 For every first-born among the children of Israel is mine, whether of man or beast: in the day in which I smote every first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified them to myself.
Numbers 18:15 And every thing that opens the womb of all flesh, whatsoever they bring to the Lord, whether man or beast, shall be thine: only the first-born of men shall be surely redeemed, and thou shalt redeem the first-born of unclean cattle.
Numbers 18:17 But thou shalt not redeem the first-born of calves and the first-born of sheep and the first-born of goats; they are holy: and thou shalt pour their blood upon the altar, and thou shalt offer the fat as a burnt-offering for a smell of sweet savour to the Lord.
Numbers 26:5 Ruben was the first-born of Israel: and the sons of ruben, Enoch, and the family of Enoch; to Phallu belongs the family of the Phalluites.
Deuteronomy 12:6 And ye shall carry thither your whole-burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your first-fruits, and your vowed-offerings, and your freewill-offerings, and your offerings of thanksgiving, the first-born of your herds, and of your flocks.
Deuteronomy 12:17 Thou shalt not be able to eat in thy cities the tithe of thy corn, and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thine herd and of thy flock, and all your vows as many as ye shall have vowed, and your thank-offerings, and the first-fruits of thine hands.
Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat it in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to have his name called there; ye shall bring the tithe of thy corn and of thy wine, and of thine oil, the first-born of thy herd and of thy flock, that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always.
Deuteronomy 15:19 Every first-born that shall be born among thy kine and thy sheep, thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord thy God; thou shalt not work with thy first-born calf, and thou shalt not shear the first-born of thy sheep.
Deuteronomy 33:17 His beauty is as the firstling of his bull, his horns are the horns of a unicorn; with them he shall thrust the nations at once, even from the end of the earth: these are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and these are the thousands of Manasse.
Joshua 17:1 And the borders of the tribe of the children of Manasse, (for he was the first-born of Joseph) assigned to Machir the firstborn of Manasse the father of Galaad, for he was a warrior, were in the land of Galaad and of Basan.
1 Chronicles 1:29 And these are their generations: the first-born of Ismael, Nabaeoth, and Kedar, Nabdeel, Massam,
1 Chronicles 2:3 The sons of Juda; Er, Aunan, Selom. These three were born to him of the daughter of Sava the Chananitish woman: and Er, the first-born of Juda, was wicked before the Lord, and he slew him.
1 Chronicles 2:25 And the sons of Jerameel the first-born of Esron were, the first-born Ram, and Banaa, and Aram, and Asan his brother.
1 Chronicles 2:27 And the sons of Ram the first-born of Jerameel were Maas, and Jamin, and Acor.
1 Chronicles 2:50 These were the sons of Chaleb: the sons of Or the first-born of Ephratha; Sobal the father of Cariathiarim,
1 Chronicles 4:4 And Phanuel the father of Gedor, and Jazer the father of Osan: these are the sons of Or, the first-born of Ephratha, the father of Baethalaen.
1 Chronicles 5:1 And the sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel (for he was the first-born; but because of his going up to his father's couch, his father gave his blessing to his son Joseph, even the son Israel; and he was not reckoned as first-born;
1 Chronicles 5:3 The sons of Ruben the first-born of Israel; Enoch, and Phallus, Asrom, and Charmi.
1 Chronicles 6:28 The sons of Samuel; the first-born Sani, and Abia.
Nehemiah 10:36 the first-born of our sons, and of our cattle, as it is written in the law, and the first-born of our herds and of our flocks, to bring to the house of our God, for the priests that minister in the house of our God.
Psalm 135:8 Who smote the first-born of Egypt, both man and beast.

The evidence speaks for itself. Firstborn is clearly used in the VAST majority as the one born first, and when followed by a genitive, it is consistently such.

Part of Creation
The next point of our consideration is the use of the Greek words PASHS KTESIWS. These are translated to &quot;of all creation.&quot; PASHS is the genitive form of PAS, where PAS means the whole, or all. This construction in grammar is saying that Jesus is the firstborn of the entire group of creation. So the question is, how can one be firstborn of a group and yet not be part of that group? Is there any example in scriptures, even when preeminence is used exclusively and one is firstborn of a group that they do not belong to? Well the simple answer is no.

The grammar here is what is defined as a part partitive genitive. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testiment defines this as being when a noun is &quot;defined by indicating in the genitive the whole of which it is a part.&quot; In this case, we clearly have the entire group of creation in consideration, and he is said to be the firstborn of that group. Having taken into consideration the simple fact that firstborn is never used of a member not belonging to a group; we have no choice but to conclude from a grammatical standpoint that Jesus belongs to the group of creation, him thus being a created being.


When First Born?
Some might argue that he became firstborn at his resurrection. By his dying for all, he was given this position of preeminence. However, the scriptures clearly show that he was firstborn prior to this.


Hebrews 1:6 And again, when He brought the First-born into the world, He said, &quot;And let all the angels of God worship Him.&quot;

Thus, even when Jesus came into the world, he was already God's firstborn. As he is called God's &quot;only-begotten&quot; (John 1:18), he truly is the firstborn.

Firstborn From the Dead
Some argue that Colossians 1:18 shows Jesus having preeminence in position only, because there were ones resurrected prior to him. However, is this really considered to be &quot;the resurrection of the dead&quot; that Jesus partook of? No it is not. Jesus became immortal, while these others died again. In the true resurrection of the dead, the bible tells us that ones become immortal.

1 Corinthians 15:42 So also the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption.

Jesus was truly the first to partake of this. Because of this, yes he was preeminent, but he was truly the one born first from the dead.

Wisdom or Jesus?
Jesus is called &quot;the firstborn of all creation&quot; and yet Proverbs 8 speaks of Wisdom as such. Of course, many link Jesus to the Wisdom in Proverbs (1 Cor 1:24). Here Wisdom is speaking of being the one that is created and born first. Let us consider this:

Proverbs 8:22 Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of His way, from then, before His works.

Here Jehovah is said to have possessed wisdom in the beginning of his way. This Hebrew word is QANAH. It literally means it possess by acquisition. Of course, God acquires things by means of creating them, which is why the LXX translates this to EKTISEN, which translates directly as created. Further reading, we find that Wisdom is spoken of as being brought forth, or brought to birth. The Bible in Basic English renders it here as &quot;given birth.&quot; If Wisdom is the one that Jehovah first acquired/produced/created/possessed and this was done by &quot;birth&quot; and Jesus is called firstborn of all creation and is linked to Wisdom here in Proverbs 8, we have even further evidence that Jesus is in fact the one born first.

First Created?
Finally, some will argue that if Jesus was the first created being the grammar would say PRWTOKTIZO or something of the like. Before they can claim this they need to find a single example of this word being used being any time prior to the late second or third century. The simple fact is that the word was not used in Bible times, so the word would not have been used for Christ. Beyond that though, Jesus is called MONOGENHS (only-begotten) and so born is much more appropriate.

Thus, in conclusion, the simple fact of the matter is that Colossians 1:15 clearly distinguish Jesus from God and place him within the group of creation.

-Tony

Great post, Tony.

Just as we were made in the image of God, so too was Christ, but he was the first one made in the image of God.

It is interesting that if one looks at the usage of the word "image" (Gr EIKWN), that which is the image is always later in time than that which one is an image of. It always works that way in EVERY instance of the word in Scripture.

Why should Col 1 be an exception? Those that argue that EIKWN does not have the same sense here bear the burden of proof ... and that has not happened in this thread.

Kind Regards,
Cal

[jpholding]

In rides tsnith, looking for a tbone to hold up his model t,



Basically, as I demonstrated from the cited examples, when you have a subject in view that is set apart from PAS+group, the subject is not excluded from the group, and from this, [other] is an inherit part of PAS, as it does not exclude the subject in view.



There is nothing whatsoever to reply to. The logical problem remains. You cannot include Christ in the group without creating a logical contradiction. You have no answer to this, and never will have any answer other than blowing smoke and flashing mirrors. Your view requires that Paul was a logical idiot.

o2bwise:

Thoughts of Catholicism being the whore of Revelation will do little to convince me you are capable of rational discussion. As Jezz pointed out, you put yourself under a far harder rock if you play that game. A good day to you. :smile:

Cal Minian,

You knowledge of the meaning of eikon and its OT antecedents could use some grease. The word refers to anything which acts as a representative of that of which it is the image. It speaks nothing of chronology.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 04:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139694#post139694)
jpholding:

In rides tsnith, looking for a tbone to hold up his model t,



There is nothing whatsoever to reply to. The logical problem remains. You cannot include Christ in the group without creating a logical contradiction. You have no answer to this, and never will have any answer other than blowing smoke and flashing mirrors. Your view requires that Paul was a logical idiot.

o2bwise:

Thoughts of Catholicism being the whore of Revelation will do little to convince me you are capable of rational discussion. As Jezz pointed out, you put yourself under a far harder rock if you play that game. A good day to you. :smile:

Cal Minian,

You knowledge of the meaning of eikon and its OT antecedents could use some grease. The word refers to anything which acts as a representative of that of which it is the image. It speaks nothing of chronology.

Dear jp,
The "logic" of Paul in this entire passage is that Christ is BOTH first in time AND the pre-eminent one of all creation.

In verse 15 Paul states that Jesus is the image of God, the firstborn in time. However Paul does not merely teach that the Christ possesses only a portion of the status which accompanies the image of God as firstborn. Certainly it would be possible for one to have temporal priority without being the most pre-eminence, but Paul inextricably links both attributes to the Christ in the entirety of this passage.

In verse 16 Paul argues for pre-eminence in addition to temporal priority because of the role of the Christ.

In verse 17 Paul teaches BOTH temporal priority and pre-eminence for AUTOS ESTIN PRO PANTWN.

In verse 18 he again combines the two attributes. The Christ is the first member of the Christian congregation and also the most pre-eminent part of it – the head. The Christ is also the firstborn of those who will be raised to heavenly life and also the most pre-eminent because he will raise the rest of the group. Yet he remains part of the group. The partitive theme is prominent.

Paul sums up this argument in the later part of verse 18 – hINA GENHTAI EN PASIN AUTOS PRWTEUWN –in order that he might become (GINOMAI) the one having first place in all things. PRWTEUWN in Lou-Nida is “to be in the first position, with the implication of high rank and prominence” in addition to having first place.

To argue that PRWTOTOKOS merely means pre-eminent one is to miss Paul’s argument, at least half of it!

There are two main attributes of PRWTOTOKOS, temporal priority and pre-eminence. Paul emphasizes one (15), then the other (16), then both (17-18) but BOTH are prominent in Paul’s argument. In addition it should be noted that it is not just 16 which follows 15. Verse 17 and 18 start with KAI so that those thoughts are ALSO included in his argument as to how the Christ is both first and pre-eminent.

I have outlined a number of ways that Paul describes the Christ as part of a group that he is pre-eminently a member. My view has the advantage of completely retaining the immediate context of verse 15 and a coherent view all the way to the end of the passage.



Kind Regards,
Cal

[AVmetro]

O2 stated:

Well, I do believe the Whore is the papal system and I believe her wine is her doctrine and I believe the foundation of her faith is the Trinity. Where the latter is concerned, the papacy would most heartedly agree. Furthermore, the wine is described as intoxicating.

This is something I had meant to inquire of earlier but was reminded with your above statement. Are you still associated with the SDA {Trinitarians}?

God bless you

[AVmetro]

TS stated:

Your reply did not touch the primary weight of my arguement, which has nothing to do with the gender of PAS, but rather, it has to do with the use of PAS when a subject is in view related to pas a group.

Basically, as I demonstrated from the cited examples, when you have a subject in view that is set apart from PAS+group, the subject is not excluded from the group, and from this, [other] is an inherit part of PAS, as it does not exclude the subject in view.

Bringing up an earlier point from JPH:
As Bauckham notes:

(The phrase "all things") belongs to the standard rhetoric of Jewish monotheism, in which it constantly refers, quite naturally, to the whole of the created reality from which God is absolutely distinguished as its Creator and Ruler.
You seem to ignore this as factoring in. What did Paul intend to imply by it's use in regards to Christ? The fact that all things would be created FOR Him is enough in itself to express His divinity {YHWH}. See Rev 5:13 where the same idea is expressed. God and the Lamb are delineated from all of creation (i.e. in the sea, land, air and all underneath etc.). This point further hits home when you realize that they are giving precisely, equal 'praise', 'honor', and 'glory' to both.

In one of my latter posts, I had cited an example of {the} God being identified as the "firstborn of the world" according to Jewish lit. See:
“God is the firstborn of the world” (Rabbi Bechai, Pent. fol. 124:4)
I believe Paul has a similar idea in mind. Especially in accord with Messianic prophetic fulfillment. See Ps89 ..cf..:
Rabbi Nathan said, “God said, as I made Jacob a firstborn (Cf..Ex. 4:22), so also will I make king Messiah a firstborn” (Rabbi Nathan, Shemoth Rabba 19 fol. 118:4)
Source for the latter two citations here (http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Keay.Col1_15.htm).

God bless

[o2bwise]

Hi Jezz,

The papacy would also agree that Jesus' life & resurrection was the foundation of their faith as well. Are you going to deny that doctrine because it is an "intoxicating doctrine of the RCC"? I doubt it. I therefore don't think you can use this line of reasoning to discard the Trinity - otherwise, you might find yourself with no resurrection either.

Jezz, would I be correct in assuming that you presumed the following?

A. o2 (me) believes papal system is the whore, which has intoxicating wine.

B. Therefore Tony dismissed the Trinity as being true for the above reason.


1. I do not see how your post has any merit unless the above was presumed.

2. The above is not true.

3. Therefore, your post (and holding's as well) has no merit.


I dismissed the Trinity based on years of study of the Word. I associate some things the papal system espouses as being her intoxicating wine and I do not so associate other things the papal system espouses as being intoxicating wine.

The above is a pretty basic principle, which is perhaps well described by the adage to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.


Take Care,

Tony (o2)

[Tsmith]

Today @ 07:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139876#post139876)
IronMetro:



Bringing up an earlier point from JPH:
As Bauckham notes:

(The phrase &quot;all things&quot;) belongs to the standard rhetoric of Jewish monotheism, in which it constantly refers, quite naturally, to the whole of the created reality from which God is absolutely distinguished as its Creator and Ruler.
You seem to ignore this as factoring in. What did Paul intend to imply by it's use in regards to Christ? The fact that all things would be created FOR Him is enough in itself to express His divinity {YHWH}. See Rev 5:13 where the same idea is expressed. God and the Lamb are delineated from all of creation (i.e. in the sea, land, air and all underneath etc.). This point further hits home when you realize that they are giving precisely, equal 'praise', 'honor', and 'glory' to both.

PANTA is the only word that could be used in this case, so to attempt to make such a direct connection is silly. When God is spoken of in regards to creation, the word EK is used, as creation is out of him. However, with Jesus, it is di autou with a passive verb, showing that he is but the intermediate agent of such. So the parellel is simply not there.

As for Revelatin 5:13, you add the word equal, it is not in the text.



In one of my latter posts, I had cited an example of {the} God being identified as the &quot;firstborn of the world&quot; according to Jewish lit. See:
“God is the firstborn of the world” (Rabbi Bechai, Pent. fol. 124:4)

I believe Paul has a similar idea in mind. Especially in accord with Messianic prophetic fulfillment. See Ps89 ..cf..:
Rabbi Nathan said, “God said, as I made Jacob a firstborn (Cf..Ex. 4:22), so also will I make king Messiah a firstborn” (Rabbi Nathan, Shemoth Rabba 19 fol. 118:4)
Source for the latter two citations here (http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Keay.Col1_15.htm).

A Rabbi's opinion isn't of too much value to me. I could find ones that say just about anything I wanted too, but that said, the Messiah was made firstborn (Col 1:18).

-Tony

God bless

[Cal_Minian]

Yesterday @ 04:14 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139694#post139694)
jpholding:



Cal Minian,

You knowledge of the meaning of eikon and its OT antecedents could use some grease. The word refers to anything which acts as a representative of that of which it is the image. It speaks nothing of chronology.

Dear jp,
I made a statement about the relationship between EIKWN, and that which servies as it's pattern, that can be substantiated by looking at every example of EIKWN in Scripture. ( cp EIKWN in the GNT - Matt. 22:20; Mk. 12:16; Lk. 20:24; Rom. 1:23; 8:29; 1 Co. 11:7;15:49; 2 Co. 3:18; 4:4; Col. 1:15; 3:10; Heb. 10:1; Rev. 13:14,15; 14:9,11;15:2;16:2; 19:20; Rev. 20:4)

That which the image represents precedes the image in time anad is distinguished from the image.

Therefore your statement, particularly in the absense of any real examples or substance, being merely your opinion, really carries no weight.

If your statement is true then show me an example where EIKWN does not fit the profile I outlined.

Regards,
Cal

[Jezz]

o2bwise:
Jezz, would I be correct in assuming that you presumed the following?

A. o2 (me) believes papal system is the whore, which has intoxicating wine.

B. Therefore Tony dismissed the Trinity as being true for the above reason.
If by "Tony" in B you meant yourself and not Tsmith, then yes - that is accurate.

1. I do not see how your post has any merit unless the above was presumed.

2. The above is not true.
I am pleased to hear that. But if this is the case, then I must say that I couldn't see the relevance of mentioning the papacy at all. If the papacy is not a reason that you reject the Trinity, then what place does it have in an argument about the Trinity? None that I can see. That is why I made the above presumption - I was assuming that your post was trying to make some point against the Trinity. It seems you have as good as admitted that you were not. Which makes me wonder, what was the point of your post?

3. Therefore, your post (and holding's as well) has no merit.
Only because the post I was responding to had no merit! :wink:

I dismissed the Trinity based on years of study of the Word.
As it should be. :smile: Of course, I disagree with where your study has led you, but I think if your belief is based on the Word then it is best to restrict your comments to arguments made from the Word to avoid confusion. If one concludes that the Trinity is false, I can see it as a logical extension to consider it a part of the "papacy's intoxicating wine". But when the Trinity itself is the topic under discussion, it is a best irrelevant and at worst a blatant appeal to emotional argument to even mention it.

I associate some things the papal system espouses as being her intoxicating wine and I do not so associate other things the papal system espouses as being intoxicating wine.

The above is a pretty basic principle, which is perhaps well described by the adage to not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Indeed, and a sound principle it is. But again, I could not see the relevance in mentioning the papacy at all, if (as you have effectively admitted) it has no bearing on the Trinity argument.

[o2bwise]

Hi Jezz,

The relevance was in stating that it is possible Jaltus is intoxicated with her wine.

Here is a logical flow:

1. Tony came to his non-Trinitarian views via the Bible, not because the papacy espouses it.

2. After coming to this view, Tony did come to see the Trinity as part of the papacy's intoxicating wine.

3. Thus, Tony sees it as at least possible that one who believes in the Trinity is intoxicated with the Whore's wine.

4. Someone observed that Jaltus would be an excellent Greek source where this subject is concerned.

5. Jaltus is Trinitarian.

6. Therefore Tony concluded that Jaltus may not be an excellent source because it is possible Jaltus is intoxicated with the wine of the Whore.

My point was made ONLY with respect to discussing how objective a source Jaltus might be.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[jpholding]

Dear CM,

The "logic" of Paul in this entire passage is that Christ is BOTH first in time AND the pre-eminent one of all creation.

Even a Trinitarian can agree that eternal Wisdom (Christ) is first in time. As the tool of God's creativity, Wisdom was the first and preceded time. But this does not resolve the logical problem I noted of including Christ in "all things" that were created BY him and FOR him. The same word was used of Philo's eternal logos (prototokos) who was described as "neither unbegotten like God or begotten like men" and also the eikon of God.

I made a statement about the relationship between EIKWN, and that which servies as it's pattern, that can be substantiated by looking at every example of EIKWN in Scripture.

You need to look back further than that. Eikon's preceding terms in the OT are "image" and "likeness". The word is used of idols, but also of kings who represented their gods on earth and acted as conduits for their authority. The use of the word and its ANE parallels confirms this. That that which the icon represents preceded the eikon is a matter of the nature of that which was the eikon and is not inherent in the meaning of the word itself.

Therefore your statement, particularly in the absense of any real examples or substance, being merely your opinion, really carries no weight.

:zzz:

Do cease with the "only your opinion" routine as it is quite amateurish. This "opinion" comes from studied experts in the field of ANE language and history. If you want documentation I will photocopy a chapter of my book on Mormonism and mail it to you -- it is rather much to type.

[Cal_Minian]

Today @ 10:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142039#post142039)
jpholding:

Dear CM,

The &quot;logic&quot; of Paul in this entire passage is that Christ is BOTH first in time AND the pre-eminent one of all creation.

Even a Trinitarian can agree that eternal Wisdom (Christ) is first in time. As the tool of God's creativity, Wisdom was the first and preceded time. But this does not resolve the logical problem I noted of including Christ in &quot;all things&quot; that were created BY him and FOR him. The same word was used of Philo's eternal logos (prototokos) who was described as &quot;neither unbegotten like God or begotten like men&quot; and also the eikon of God.

I made a statement about the relationship between EIKWN, and that which servies as it's pattern, that can be substantiated by looking at every example of EIKWN in Scripture.

You need to look back further than that. Eikon's preceding terms in the OT are &quot;image&quot; and &quot;likeness&quot;. The word is used of idols, but also of kings who represented their gods on earth and acted as conduits for their authority. The use of the word and its ANE parallels confirms this. That that which the icon represents preceded the eikon is a matter of the nature of that which was the eikon and is not inherent in the meaning of the word itself.

Therefore your statement, particularly in the absense of any real examples or substance, being merely your opinion, really carries no weight.

:zzz:

Do cease with the &quot;only your opinion&quot; routine as it is quite amateurish. This &quot;opinion&quot; comes from studied experts in the field of ANE language and history. If you want documentation I will photocopy a chapter of my book on Mormonism and mail it to you -- it is rather much to type.

Dear jp,
When you base your conclusions on proof that you have not presented and scholars that you have not named it is hard to give much weight to your argument.

As far as the logical problem that you see:

Why do you think that the "all things" (TA PANTA) in Colossians 1:15-20 has as it's reference the "all creation" of verse 15?

They are not the same gender in Greek. Do you have any proof for your assertion?


Kind Regards,
Cal

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 07:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142246#post142246)
Cal_Minian:

Dear jp,
When you base your conclusions on proof that you have not presented and scholars that you have not named it is hard to give much weight to your argument.

As far as the logical problem that you see:

Why do you think that the &quot;all things&quot; (TA PANTA) in Colossians 1:15-20 has as it's reference the &quot;all creation&quot; of verse 15?

They are not the same gender in Greek. Do you have any proof for your assertion?

Kind Regards,
Cal And of course JP if you quote any sources which contradict the teaching of the WBTS they are rejected outright as "not worthy of consideration"

[jpholding]

Yo CM,

When you base your conclusions on proof that you have not presented and scholars that you have not named it is hard to give much weight to your argument.

It's not much easier when you present only one whose primary virtue is his obscurity and you present only his conclusions. I'd be surprised if deBuhn had been published in any peer-reviewed journals of Biblical scholarship. In fact I'll check Thursday.

Why do you think that the &quot;all things&quot; (TA PANTA) in Colossians 1:15-20 has as it's reference the &quot;all creation&quot; of verse 15?

I don't. "All creation" is a subset of "all things". That's not my argument. I'd repeat it but I read where you're outta here, so what's the point, eh?

[Jezz]

07-07-2003 @ 06:15 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=141290#post141290)
o2bwise:

Hi Jezz,

The relevance was in stating that it is possible Jaltus is intoxicated with her wine.

[snip]

My point was made ONLY with respect to discussing how objective a source Jaltus might be.
If that was the relevance of your post, then it is still irrelevant. :smile:

The same logic could be applied against you, or against Tsmith, or against me, which makes it a useless argument. Isn't it your unitarian bias that is leading you to your conclusion that Jaltus might be biased? :smile:

It is also eminently plausible that Jaltus' trinitarian bias is the result of unbiased interpretation of the Greek, and not the other way around. After all, even if they were unbiased to start with, no scholar or student of Greek is going to remain so once they've investigated the texts themselves.

The problem is trying to answer the question "which came first, the bias or the conclusion"? There is actually an experiment that could be done to determine the answer to this question:
by comparing beliefs of people before they started their Greek/Hebrew studies, with their beliefs after Greek/Hebrew studies.

If, for example, we surveyed a number of Greek scholars who were atheist prior to commencing their study, and compare how many became unitarian with how many became trinitarian, if there was a significant differene then that would be good evidence to support that interpretation.

Also, if we compare how many "switched sides" (trinity->unity or vice versa) after Greek studies, that would be good evidence too.

I don't know any of these figures, but I don't think I'd be wrong in assuming that you don't either. Until we do, shouting claims of "bias" is not adding anything to the argument. Everyone is biased, so let their arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

God Bless,

-Jezz

[OldShepherd]

07-04-2003 @ 10:07 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139074#post139074)
o2bwise:

Mr Holding,

Well, I do believe the Whore is the papal system and I believe her wine is her doctrine and I believe the foundation of her faith is the Trinity. Where the latter is concerned, the papacy would most heartedly agree. Furthermore, the wine is described as intoxicating.

God Bless,

Tony (o2)

More hypocricy by our friend. Tube rants on and on about my posts being stench, towering inferno, etc. etc. but note it is perfectly alright for him to lump all Trinitarians under the Whore of Babylon umbrella.

Tube, I do not want to see any more infantile dog puke posts from you criticizing how I post unless I violate the rules of this forum, which I will not knowingly do.
2 Pet 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; [dog puke] and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

[jpholding]

I have found out from BeDuhn's own record that he has only one article published in a peer review journal (unless his list missed some). I also found out that his special area of study is the Manichean heresy. This doesn't sound like someone who ought to be used as an authority on Christology, and certainly not above others with far more experience and peer-reviewed publishing on the subject.

But any port in a storm if you have a grievance, no? :rofl:

[o2bwise]

Hi Jezz,

I did not say that Jaltus would be biased, I said there is a high probability that he would be biased.

I do not understand how you can reason that my bias would be similar to his.

I'll give a small tidbit of how I started becoming non-Trinitarian.

I grew up Catholic and so was Trinitarian to begin with. I became a Christian and was baptized into the Adventist denomination. SDA professes Trinitarianism.

So, with my background, there is not a single PRECONCEPTION I can come up with that would "lean" me in the direction of being (preferring out of bias) non-Trinitarianism.

At some point in time, I came to believe that salvation is God's work of changing the heart. With that in mind, I decided to go through the entire NT and to reference every text I noticed that specified WHY Christ came and what redemption was. I was testing this hypothesis that the heart-change IS redemption (rather than an alternative hypothesis that redemption is appeasign the wrath of God with blood and the heart-change being a BYPRODUCT of a salvation, already had).

Anyway, through the course of this effort, I came to observe that:

1. The word works effectively in he who believes.

2. We are saved by the implanted word.

3. It is the word that causes fruit to grow in the soil (parable of the sower).

4. The MESSAGE of the cross is the power of God unto salvation.

5. The truth is what sets us free.

6. God dwells in us via His word.

7. We are saved by the blood.

8. The Spirit transforms us.


I cannot stress the following strongly enough. I was with my best friend and it was at a time I just finished the above study. I said something to him that was entirely without being premeditated. I said, Sometimes I wonder if the Holy Spirit is a metaphor for the word. (NOTE: I believe this is inaccurate as I believe the Holy Spirit is a Divine Influence, inclusive of the Word and the Word is inclusive of telepathic communication from God to us.)

My friend replied, "AMEN!"

This caused me to recall an experience I had perhaps 10 years before. I had a book on the Holy Spirit and it advised praying to the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit is our friend.

So, I did. And every time I did, I felt weird.

I concluded the Holy Spirit is not a Person, but an influence.

But, how did I do so?

1. I grew up Trinitarian. This was my background and is the present tenets of the church I attend.

2 Whether rightly or wrongly, I uttered something, without premeditation, due to an innocent (wasn't even pondering the Trinity) reading of the entire NT.

3. With much trepidation because of the Trinity's traditional trappings, I was simply willing to investigate the matter. I was simply willing to ALLOW that truth might be something else.


With the above in mind, I have run into so many Christians who are Trinitarian and who have not really investigated the matter for themselves. I also know of many Christians whose background is inclusuve of not really being able to even question the doctrine.


So, again, I am not insisting Jaltus would be biased. I am looking, through my own albeit very human lenz, at a statistical population. Orthodox Christianity and simply having an intuitive sense that there is tremendous bias TOWARD the Trinity there.

In all candidness and honesty, even should I be wrong about my rendering of the Word, I do not see that my personal background, which led me to be non-Trinitarian, could be considered to have teh degree of bias that a Trinitarian background would generally have.

I just don't see it.


God Bless,

Tony (o2)

[OldShepherd]

Today @ 12:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145404#post145404)
o2bwise:

At some point in time, I came to believe that salvation is God's work of changing the heart. With that in mind, I decided to go through the entire NT and to reference every text I noticed that specified WHY Christ came and what redemption was. I was testing this hypothesis that the heart-change IS redemption (rather than an alternative hypothesis that redemption is appeasign the wrath of God with blood and the heart-change being a BYPRODUCT of a salvation, already had).

You argue about not having any bias or preconception then you say, "I came to believe that salvation is God's work of changing the heart." which evidently you arrived at, NOT from studying the scripture because AFTER you reach this conclusion, then you approach the scripture, with the presupposition, to validate what you have already decided to believe. "I decided to go through the entire NT and to reference every text I noticed that specified WHY Christ came and what redemption was." I didn't see any reference to examining scriptures which did not support your presupposition.

I concluded the Holy Spirit is not a Person, but an influence.
Why do Trinitarians refer to the Holy Ghost/Spirit as a person, distinct from the Father and the Son? Because the Holy Spirit does all the below listed individual, personal, activities, distinct from the Father and the Son!

The Holy Spirit independently; comforts, reveals, bears witness, helps, has a mind, loves, leads, makes intercession, speaks, anoints, gives utterance (causes to speak), can be tempted, bids (tells, instructs); approves, suffers (permits) and forbids actions; searches hearts and consciences, can be insulted, can be lied to, can be grieved, can be quenched, bears witness; can be blasphemed and spoken against, distinct from the son; teaches, thinks, witnesses, sanctifies, sends and is sent, and ordains to office.

These are all characteristics of a person, not an impersonal force, energy, power, etc.
Ro 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Ro 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities:

Ro 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit,

Ro 15:30 Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit,

Mt 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit

Mt 10:20 the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Lu 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted,

Ac 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Ac 5:9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?

Ac 8:29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip,

Ac 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him,

Ac 11:12 And the Spirit bade (told, instructed) me go with them

Ac 16:7 but the Spirit suffered them not.

Ro 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God,

Ro 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: the Spirit itself maketh intercession

1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things,

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly

Heb 10:29 and hath done despite (insult) unto the Spirit of grace?

Act 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God,

1Th 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness,

1 Jon 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Re 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches;

Re 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit,

Mt 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

Mt 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost,

Mr 13:11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.

Lu 2:26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost,

Lu 12:10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost

Lu 12:12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance

Ac 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Ac 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

Ac 16:6 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,

Ac 20:23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.

Ac 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,

Ac 21:11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost,

Ro 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offeri