Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #1
Did Jesus Christ create himself or was he begotten by someone else who existed Before him??
- For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
Thankful for Google transliterates יהוה in English as Jehovah. Visit JW.org about whom Jesus Christ calls the Only True God in (John 17:3)
Comments
-
The Father person generates the Son person, who is of the same indivisible substance as the Father, who together generate the Holy Spirit person of the same single substance. This is before God created time, space, and matter. So it is a constant static condition of the Godhead without a beginning or end.
Each verse mentions the three persons of the Godhead. Can you spot them?
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.
And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
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, whatsoever I have said unto you.
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me;
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
-
"Did Jesus Christ create himself or was he begotten by someone else who existed Before him??"
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)"
Immutability and μονογενής:
Given that the question above has the underlying assumption that there was a time when the Son did not exist, and was therefore created, or made, by God; I straight away want to point to the eternal unchanging nature of God (cf. Ps. 33:11, 102:27; Mal. 3:6; James 1:17) and how this relates to God as Father, and the Son as μονογενής (only-begotten).
In other words, were the Son created then as a result there would have been a period prior to that point of his creation when God was not a Father; but, this itself is completely at odds with the immutability of God. If God is a Father, then He has eternally never not been a Father according to His immutability – this will also, as a logical necessity, then require that eternally there is never not a Son in relation with his Father (cf. Jn. 1:1, 18).
Reasoning from God's attribute of immutability the resulting conclusion can be only that the Son is eternally (μονογενής) the only-unique Son of God the Father (cf. Jn. 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18; 1Jn. 4:9); and that means this eternal Sonship enjoyed by the (μονογενής) Son is truly by nature. The basis of which rules out the questioner's assumption that the Son is created or made - i.e., not being of the same nature.
In its historical use the Greek term μονογενής does not support the idea that it is conveying any meaning of biological begetting and birth; and, certainly not an idea of creating or making. This term is not derived from μόνος + γεννάω; rather, it is derived from μόνος + γένος.
μονογενής, from μόνος + γένος is defined as having the following lexical sense:
- 2. pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of someth. that is the only example of its category (BDAG, s.v. “ μονογενής,” 658.)
- 2 monogenēs only (one of its kind), unique (J. A. Fitzmyer, EDNT, s.v. “ μονογενής,” 2:439.)
- μονογενής, ες: pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class — ‘unique, only.’ (L&N, s.v. “ μονογενής,” 591.)
To complete an examination of μονογενής within NT use (9x) are these final four texts (cf. Lk. 7:12, 8:42, 9:38; Heb. 11:17) where, in context, the sense continues to be as described above.
In addition to the NT texts above we also have five examples (late 3rd to early 1st c. B.C.) of μονογενής from the LXX:
- “I am my father’s only child;” (Tob. 3:15 NRSV)
- "She was his only child;" (Judg. 11:34)
- "my only life" 2x (Ps. 22:20, 35:17) (LXX – 21:21, 34:17)
- "an only child," (Ps. Sol. 18:4)
And my last example comes just prior to the end of the 1st c. A.D. where the following is written of the Phoenix:
- “the only one of its species,” (1Clem. 25:2)
This last citation puts to complete rest the idea that μονογενής carries within it any meaning of biological begetting as the only unique one of a kind Phoenix had no parents from which it was begotten; nor was it considered as having been created or made.
From the preceding journey of discovery into meaning and sense for μονογενής, what is readily apparent is twofold: first, it is clear that there is not a biological sense of begetting within the context and use of this word; secondly, it is again clear that not a single text in its context treats μονογενής as a lexical stand in for created or made.
On the positive side however, the texts cited above do give straightforward evidence that in its use μονογενής does in fact express the sense of uniqueness and singular status.
We do get the sense of birth (beget) in texts for Jesus where a form of γεννάω (Matt. 1:16, 2:1; Jn 18:37) and γίνομαι (Ro. 1:3; Gal. 4:4) is used; not surprisingly, since Jesus is fully human, though for some of us not just merely human (cf. Jn. 1:14 ἐγένετο a form of γίνομαι is also used for the Word becoming flesh). On the other hand, μονογενής as witnessed above is descriptive of what the Son eternally is by nature – the only-unique (begotten, if you prefer) Son of God.
So, I want to direct attention back to the second and third paragraphs above as contained in them is the substance of my answer to the OP's question, "...or was he begotten by someone else who existed Before him??", which I will summarize below.
In summary, it is in accordance with His own immutability that the eternal God, as Father, has eternally then never not been the Father to His only-unique Son; therefore eternally, there has then never not been the only-unique Son in relation with his Father. In other words, just as the Father is eternal, so too is His Son eternal (cf. Jn. 1:1, 18).
-
Sorry, but this sees ridiculous to me. God creating a son does not change God. He can create anything he wants. That doesn't change him. He is still the same immutable God, as you say, but with a son. This seems convoluted to me. Why can't you just accept the fact that he was the firstborn of all creation which makes him a creation. The firstborn one.
-
@Pages wrote "In summary, it is in accordance with His own immutability that the eternal God, as Father, has eternally then never not been the Father to His only-unique Son; therefore eternally, there has then never not been the only-unique Son in relation with his Father. In other words, just as the Father is eternal, so too is His Son eternal (cf. Jn. 1:1, 18)."
This summary is ridiculous and false. Claiming "there has then never not been the only-unique Son in relation with his Father" is a false rendering that has removed (only begotten) from scripture. If God is eternal and he is eternal, that would mean God always existed and has no beginning. To claim in the beginning was God is nothing more than scripture falsifying since God is eternal.
The English Lexham Bible has not only removed the words begotten but also god in John 1:18. Yet you blow by the introduction phrases "In the Beginning was the word" and "No one has SEEN God at any time".
- No one has seen God at any time; the one and only, God, the one who is in the bosom of the Father—that one has made him* known. Lexham John 1:18
- No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him. (John 1:18)
- In both John 1:1 and John 1:18 theon which refers to the eternal God and theos which refers to the begotten god is in the Greek text for ALL to SEE.
Simple trinitarian manipulation. I never came across an honest one. All are devious in their rejection of the Christ. On nooooooo.... Jesus is the only begotten god which means he came into existence by the Father. After all doesn't your Bible use the word Created?
22 “Yahweh createdh me, the first of his ways,
before his acts ⌊of old⌋.i
23 From eternity, I was set up from the first,
from the beginningj of the earth.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth,
when there were no springs of ⌊abounding⌋k water.
25 Before mountains had been shaped,
before hills, I was brought forth.
Post edited by Brother Rando on -
@Searching June 5 Sorry, but this sees ridiculous to me. God creating a son does not change God. He can create anything he wants. That doesn't change him. He is still the same immutable God, as you say, but with a son. This seems convoluted to me. Why can't you just accept the fact that he was the firstborn of all creation which makes him a creation. The firstborn one.
How are the phrases "the firstborn over all creation" & "the firstborn from the dead" related ? What is "firstborn" describing ?
Paul wrote a long sentence in Colossians 1:9-20 LEB (with Hebrew words usually translated by Jewish scholars in LXX: יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God) =>
Because of this also we, from the day we heard about it, did not cease praying for you, and asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual insight, so that you may live in a manner worthy of the יהוה Lord, to please him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good deed and increasing in the knowledge of אלהים God, enabled with all power, according to his glorious might, for all steadfastness and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you for a share of the inheritance of the saints in light, who has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins, who is the image of the invisible אלהים God, the firstborn over all creation, because all things in the heavens and on the earth were created by him, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things were created through him and for him, and he himself is before all things, and in him all things are held together, and he himself is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he himself may become first in everything, because he was well pleased for all the fullness to dwell in him, and through him to reconcile all things to himself, by making peace through the blood of his cross, through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
Note: Lexham English Bible (LEB) italicizes words added for smooth English: e.g. things. LEB design for use beside original language text includes showing sentence length. Paul penned a number of long sentences: e.g. Colossians 1:9-20, Ephesians 1:3-14
@Brother Rando June 5 * In both John 1:1 and John 1:18 theon which refers to the eternal God and theos which refers to the begotten god is in the Greek text for ALL to SEE.
Please explain @Brother Rando screen shots of John 1:1 and John 1:18 showing the same Strong's 2316 (e) definition for θεὸν (theon) and θεὸς (theos).
Another screen shot question: What does Greek morphology of N-AMS describe for θεὸν (theon) compared to N-NMS for θεὸς (theos) ?
Keep Smiling 😊
-
"Sorry, but this sees ridiculous to me. God creating a son does not change God. He can create anything he wants. That doesn't change him."
I agree that God's creative actions do not in the least change God in His nature; and, to argue so would, as you say, seem ridiculous. But that is a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the logical argument you were engaging with.
"He is still the same immutable God, as you say, but with a son."
This entirely misses the point of how the unchanging nature, or immutability, of God has upon this issue. For God to be a Father, He has always eternally been a Father; this is according to His unchanging nature – what makes God, God – which demands logically that His Son has always eternally been in relationship with his Father. God as an eternal Father requires a Son who does not come into existence at some point – as the Father is eternal, so must be the Son.
"This seems convoluted to me. Why can't you just accept the fact that he was the firstborn of all creation which makes him a creation. The firstborn one."
I disagree with the firstborn concept as presented above. Firstborn is not a lexical stand-in for either created, or made. πρωτότοκος carries a sense of priority, rank, and privilege, i.e. preeminence (cf. 1Chron. 5:1; Psa. 89:27; Rom. 8:29; Rev. 1:5); which is one reason for accepting the genitive of subordination for πάσης κτίσεως. That the creation is in subjection to its creator the Son (cf. Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2-3) who is over all.
-
"This summary is ridiculous and false. Claiming "there has then never not been the only-unique Son in relation with his Father" is a false rendering that has removed (only begotten) from scripture."
μονογενής has not been removed from scripture, it is still in the underlying Greek text; in more current translations it's gloss is reflecting the more exact lexical sense of only, only one, unique, one of a kind.
If God is eternal and he is eternal, that would mean God always existed and has no beginning."
God is certainly eternal, no argument there.
"To claim in the beginning was God is nothing more than scripture falsifying since God is eternal."
I certainly make no claim that God has a beginning – you're very mistaken.
"The English Lexham Bible has not only removed the words begotten but also god in John 1:18. Yet you blow by the introduction phrases "In the Beginning was the word" and "No one has SEEN God at any time"."
As previously stated, they haven't removed μονογενής from the text; they have used the lexical sense of μονογενής.
Not only do we disagree as to what "In the beginning" is in reference to in Jn. 1:1; but also, the impact of the imperfect active ἦν used in all three clauses of Jn. 1:1 has on the text.
"In both John 1:1 and John 1:18 theon which refers to the eternal God and theos which refers to the begotten god is in the Greek text for ALL to SEE."
In your writing you regard theon and theos as two different terms in dictionary meaning; one, for God, and the other for a created god – there is no such grammatical concept found within Greek grammar – θεός is θεός no matter which inflection is used in a text.
θεός is both the lexeme, and nominative form of this word; while, θεόν is the accusative form of the lexeme θεός. These two inflections of the same word serve in Greek to make known what grammatical function is to be understood for that word. In simple terms, θεός, the nominative would be used to imply generally that it is the subject; and θεόν, the accusative would be used to show that it is the object of a verb or preposition.
In the second clause of Jn. 1:1 (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) θεόν is used because it is the object of the preposition πρὸς; therefore, θεόν the accusative form of θεός is used. In Jn. 1:18, Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν, where Θεὸν is the object of the verb ἑώρακεν (seen) and the form is once again accusative.
I want to provide a pertinent written example from Ignatius c. AD 108 to help further demonstrate this:
- "I GIVE glory to Jesus Christ, the God who has thus given you wisdom;" "Δοξάζω Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν θεὸν τὸν οὕτως ὑμᾶς σοφίσαντα·"
(Clement I, P., Ignatius, S., Bishop of Antioch, Polycarp, S., Bishop of Smyrna, & Lake, K. (1912–1913). The Apostolic fathers (K. Lake, Ed.; Vol. 1, p. 252). Harvard University Press.)
In this text Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν is said to be τὸν θεὸν as τὸν θεὸν is acting in apposition to its referent Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν; and additionally, Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν θεὸν is also the object of the verb Δοξάζω (give glory) – therefore, it is written in the accusative.
Regarding Prov. 8:22, I am of the belief that Wisdom is presented as a personified attribute of God. As far as Wisdom is concerned, is it ever said that Wisdom, herself, creates the universe? I find that Wisdom says she stood by; while, it was God, Himself, who created all. And this is at odds with the NT where the Word, or Son, is said to have created the universe, i.e. all that there is that has been made was made by him (cf. Jn. 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16).
-
@Pages wrote "I disagree with the firstborn concept as presented above. Firstborn is not a lexical stand-in for either created, or made. πρωτότοκος carries a sense of priority, rank, and privilege, i.e. preeminence (cf. 1Chron. 5:1; Psa. 89:27; Rom. 8:29; Rev. 1:5); which is one reason for accepting the genitive of subordination for πάσης κτίσεως. That the creation is in subjection to its creator the Son (cf. Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2-3) who is over all."
The Greek word arche' used for beginning is attributed to the Word, not God, for God has no beginning. God is not preeminent for there is no other God. However, Jesus is preeminent because he has the priority because is ahead of the rest.
There is not such Bible verse that states creator the Son. Rather, the Word was exalted a given the Name (JESUS).
- For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.
"In the beginning was the Word" Gee, the words that describes the word are beginning and origin.
arché: beginning, origin
Original Word: ἀρχή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: arché
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khay')
Definition: beginning, origin
Usage: (a) rule (kingly or magisterial), (b) plur: in a quasi-personal sense, almost: rulers, magistrates, (c) beginning.
HELPS Word-studies
746 arxḗ – properly, from the beginning (temporal sense), i.e. "the initial (starting) point"; (figuratively) what comes first and therefore is chief (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").
Not to mention, that Jesus is Firstborn of All Creation means just that. By You claiming that Jesus is not Firstborn would has put you in a pickle by claiming someone else was Firstborn and preeminent is not accurate. Jesus is clearly ahead of the rest.
For instance you claiming the Jesus is the only son of God is a deceptive tactic. Especially when you just wrote. "In summary, it is in accordance with His own immutability that the eternal God, as Father, has eternally then never not been the Father to His only-unique Son; therefore eternally, there has then never not been the only-unique Son in relation with his Father. In other words, just as the Father is eternal, so too is His Son eternal"
That's just stupid, arrogant, and haughty. I see plenty of scriptures when Jesus addressing his God as Father.
Arche', Wisdom, and Hen are words to point to someone who was "brought forth". Angels are like hens that protect their chick from vipers. And he has his sword drawn for vengeance. He rejected your forefathers and told them, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”
Now you gonna remained blind and make the claim that Jesus is not the HEN after it states I.
"Behold I will send my angel, who shall go before thee, and keep thee in thy journey, and bring thee into the place that I have prepared. Take notice of him, and hear his voice, and do not think him one to be contemned: for he will not forgive when thou hast sinned, and my name is in him. "
Sounds like the Word of God to me. Like Jesus told his opposers that you have sided with. "For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’
Jehovah give the one whose Name means who is godlike or who is like God? His very name within him. How? Jesus when translated means "Jehovah is Salvation"
I have no problem you using the Hebrew Name Yahweh for Yeshua means "Yahweh is Salvation"
-
@Pages wrote Regarding Prov. 8:22, I am of the belief that Wisdom is presented as a personified attribute of God. As far as Wisdom is concerned, is it ever said that Wisdom, herself, creates the universe? I find that Wisdom says she stood by; while, it was God, Himself, who created all. And this is at odds with the NT where the Word, or Son, is said to have created the universe, i.e. all that there is that has been made was made by him (cf. Jn. 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16).
What's interesting, even though Wisdom is spoken through Proverbs 8 as feminine noun, there is one scripture that states, "29 ⌊when he assigned⌋o his limits to the sea,
that waters shall not transgress his ⌊command⌋,p
⌊when he marked⌋q the foundations of the earth,
30 I was ⌊beside⌋r him, a master workman,
and I was delighting day by day,
rejoicing before him ⌊always⌋,s
31 rejoicing in the world of his earth,
and my delight was with the children of humankind.
Jesus, however, said: “Let the young children alone, and do not try to stop them from coming to me, for the Kingdom of the heavens belongs to such ones.”
-
@Searching June 5 Sorry, but this sees ridiculous to me. God creating a son does not change God. He can create anything he wants. That doesn't change him. He is still the same immutable God, as you say, but with a son. This seems convoluted to me. Why can't you just accept the fact that he was the firstborn of all creation which makes him a creation. The firstborn one.
@Brother Rando June 7 Not to mention, that Jesus is Firstborn of All Creation means just that.
How are the phrases "the firstborn over all creation" & "the firstborn from the dead" related ?
What is "firstborn" describing about יהוה Lord Jesus in these phrases within one sentence ?
Paul wrote a long sentence in Colossians 1:9-20 LEB (with Hebrew words usually translated by Jewish scholars in LXX: יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God) =>
Because of this also we, from the day we heard about it, did not cease praying for you, and asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual insight, so that you may live in a manner worthy of the יהוה Lord, to please him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good deed and increasing in the knowledge of אלהים God, enabled with all power, according to his glorious might, for all steadfastness and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you for a share of the inheritance of the saints in light, who has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins, who is the image of the invisible אלהים God, the firstborn over all creation, because all things in the heavens and on the earth were created by him, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things were created through him and for him, and he himself is before all things, and in him all things are held together, and he himself is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he himself may become first in everything, because he was well pleased for all the fullness to dwell in him, and through him to reconcile all things to himself, by making peace through the blood of his cross, through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
Note: Lexham English Bible (LEB) italicizes words added for smooth English: e.g. things. LEB design for use beside original language text includes showing sentence length. Paul penned a number of long sentences: e.g. Colossians 1:9-20, Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 1:15-23, Ephesians 2:11-18, Philippians 2:5-11
How do phrases "because by him created the all in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible," relate to "the firstborn over all creation" & "the firstborn from the dead" ?
Phrase "because by him created the all in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible," is a literal translation of "ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα," without things. The Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament has inline interlinear display options (Alpha & Omega menu): screen shot shows Greek Manuscript and English Literal Translation with note about [things]
@Brother Rando June 7 The Greek word arche' used for beginning is attributed to the Word, not God, for God has no beginning.
How are sentences " Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν." and " Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." related ?
How are sentences "In beginning the God made the heaven and the earth" and "In beginning being (was) the Word, and the Word being (was) with the God, and God being (was) the Word" related ?
FYI: Greek sentences are Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint (LXX) and John 1:1 in the New Testament.
By the way, learning the rest of Koine Greek language (beyond word studies) gave me new meaning to the phrase "That's Greek to me" as I can read a number of Greek sentences while others are Greek to me (with the ability to do my own literal translation). Arius wrote in Greek about the Son "ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν" "being (was) that not being (was)" so learning Koine Greek language can coexist with personal belief (albeit pondering Greek grammar & words may provide reason to reconsider/modify belief). To me, The Word (a voice in One eternal God) became The Son physically by leaving God's Throne to take on human flesh (conceived in Mary by Breath The Holy, another voice in One eternal God), which also had The Will (a voice in One eternal God) become The Father, which fulfilled prophecy written in Psalm 2 (was in Holy God's plan before physical realm creation). Three in one thought for me is awareness of three sources for my thoughts: Holy God, me, spiritual adversary (has happened simultaneously many times). 🙏 My desire is to Be Holy as God is Holy 🙏
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote "How are the phrases "the firstborn over all creation" & "the firstborn from the dead" related ?"
Firstborn over All Creation is when Jehovah begot his Son. Begotten, brought forth, created or born.
- Jehovah's first and last creation - then all things were through his son. (John 1:3)
- “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)
- Yahweh created me before his acts ⌊of old⌋. (Proverbs 8:22)
Firstborn of the dead is when Jehovah begot his Son through a resurrection. Begotten again, brought forth again, became a New Creation or born again.
- But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” (Hebrews 1:6)
- and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things; (Colossians 1:18)
- Therefore, if anyone is in union with Christ, he is a new creation; the old things passed away; look! new things have come into existence. (2 Corinthians 5:17)
- Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born from God, and everyone who loves the one who caused to be born loves him who has been born from that one. (1 John 5:1)
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote "FYI: Greek sentences are Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint (LXX) and John 1:1 in the New Testament."
You have your scriptures backwards. Genesis 1:1 cannot be the beginning of creation since (John 1:3) reads "All things came into existence through him" So John 1:1 is actually the Beginning of All Creation starting with the Word.
Co-equal or co-existence are absent from the Bible. Nor is there a three in one concept of God in the Scripture.
-
@Pages posted:
This entirely misses the point of how the unchanging nature, or immutability, of God has upon this issue. For God to be a Father, He has always eternally been a Father; this is according to His unchanging nature – what makes God, God – which demands logically that His Son has always eternally been in relationship with his Father. God as an eternal Father requires a Son who does not come into existence at some point – as the Father is eternal, so must be the Son.
I'm not swayed by your argument as to the logical Christological consequences of God's immutability, but that might be because I'm missing something about it. So, this post.
As I read it - and please correct me if I'm mistaken! - your argument is that since God is immutable, God has ALWAYS been Father to the Son; i.e. there has never been a time when God wasn't Father to the Son. Here are my questions about that argument:
- In support of your conception of God's immutability, in an earlier post you cited Ps. 33:11, 102:27; Mal. 3:6; and James 1:17. As I read them, none of those texts speaks to the immutability of God's relationships. Psalm 33.11 refers to God's plans and intentions. Psalm 102.27 asserts God's sameness and eternal nature, but without reference to either eternity past or the relationships contained therein. Malachi 3.6 contains God's self-declaration of immutability, but again without reference to those to whom God has been related. James 11.17 identifies God as OUR Father who never changes. I contend those texts indeed say that God doesn't change, but they say nothing about the immutability of God's relationships (e.g. with the Son). Where in those texts or any others do you find support for your belief that God's immutability refers also to God's relationships? Specifically, on what textual basis do you contend that God's immutability means God has always been Father to the Son?
- The James 11 text raises my second area of questions. By my count, thirteen times in Matthew's Gospel Jesus calls God OUR Father, perhaps most boldly in Matthew 23.9, where Jesus directs his followers to address no earthly being as "Father" because "only God in heaven in your Father" (NLT). If in your view our immutable God as Jesus' Father means there was never a time when Jesus wasn't the Son, does that also mean that since our immutable God is also OUR Father, there has never been a time when any of us wasn't God's child? i.e. All of us are also co-eternal with God?
Thanks for your consideration of this post. FWIW, I remain in awe of your original language skills. Personally, last week for the first time I successfully defined the difference between "there," "their," and "the hair." No need to applaud.
-
"The Greek word arche' used for beginning is attributed to the Word, not God,
As I previously stated we disagree on "In the beginning" due to the imperfect active ἦν that does not substantiate the claim that there was once a time when the Word was not in existence.
"for God has no beginning. God is not preeminent for there is no other God."
I agree whole-heartedly that God has no beginning; as for there being no other gods, there are numerous texts differing on that.
- Prohibition of serving and worshiping other gods (cf. Ex. 15:11, 18:11, 20:3, 23, 23:24; Deut. 5:7, 11:16, etc.).
- That YHWH is God of gods and therefore worthy of service and worship (cf. Deut. 10:17; Psa. 95:3, 96:4, 97:9, 135:5, 136:2).
- In Deut. 29:26 it is YHWH who has given the nations their gods.
- "And they went and served other gods and bowed down to them, gods whom they did not know them and he had not allotted to them." (LEB)
YHWH is unique in that He is uncreated; which, distinguishes Him from all other gods and sets Him above them – I think this will qualify as a preeminence over all – gods, or not.
"However, Jesus is preeminent because he has the priority because is ahead of the rest."
I take it from this, that you are in agreement that πρωτότοκος is not a lexical stand-in for created, or made.
"There is not such Bible verse that states creator the Son."
Not in those exact words, but surely, you recognize that Col. 1:16 is speaking of the Son having created all things which was referenced along with Jn. 1:3, 10 and Heb. 1:2 in what I wrote.
"Rather, the Word was exalted a given the Name (JESUS). "
I would say that the Word was not exalted as He already had that status as the eternal Son of God (Jn. 17:5); on the other hand, Jesus, fully human – though not merely human – was exalted and given a "name above every name" (Phil. 2:9). Food for thought, as what name could be above the name YHWH? (cf. Psa. 148:13)
""In the beginning was the Word" Gee, the words that describes the word are beginning and origin."
I want to say at this point, that my post spoke to πρωτότοκος (firstborn) and you are responding in argument to an entirely different word ἀρχή. Thereby, all of your post is responding to a fictional belief and not interacting with what I actually wrote. But, I will continue.
Contrary to the above, the prepositional phrase is not describing the Word in Jn. 1:1; Ἐν ἀρχῇ does not modify λόγος. We continue to disagree with one another on this.
"Not to mention, that Jesus is Firstborn of All Creation means just that. By You claiming that Jesus is not Firstborn would has put you in a pickle by claiming someone else was Firstborn and preeminent is not accurate. "
I made no such claim; clearly a misunderstanding on your part. The discussion was on the lexical sense of πρωτότοκος which is not aligned with the meaning you want to give it.
"For instance you claiming the Jesus is the only son of God is a deceptive tactic. Especially when you just wrote."
- "In summary, it is in accordance with His own immutability that the eternal God, as Father, has eternally then never not been the Father to His only-unique Son; therefore eternally, there has then never not been the only-unique Son in relation with his Father. In other words, just as the Father is eternal, so too is His Son eternal"
"That's just stupid, arrogant, and haughty. I see plenty of scriptures when Jesus addressing his God as Father."
Not much of an argument presented here to support your opinion on this; perhaps you care to share something more of substance to consider. Yes, Jesus is the only (μονογενής) Son of God – as stated in scripture – and how exactly is that to be considered as deception?
"Arche', Wisdom, and Hen are words to point to someone who was "brought forth". Angels are like hens that protect their chick from vipers. And he has his sword drawn for vengeance. He rejected your forefathers and told them, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. 39 For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’”
Now you gonna remained blind and make the claim that Jesus is not the HEN after it states I.
"Behold I will send my angel, who shall go before thee, and keep thee in thy journey, and bring thee into the place that I have prepared. Take notice of him, and hear his voice, and do not think him one to be contemned: for he will not forgive when thou hast sinned, and my name is in him. "
Sounds like the Word of God to me. Like Jesus told his opposers that you have sided with. "For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’
Jehovah give the one whose Name means who is godlike or who is like God? His very name within him. How? Jesus when translated means "Jehovah is Salvation"
I have no problem you using the Hebrew Name Yahweh for Yeshua means "Yahweh is Salvation""
I'd like for you to take some time and explain to me how you see the above section as having relevance to the paragraph of mine you are supposedly responding to in this post.
-
"What's interesting, even though Wisdom is spoken through Proverbs 8 as feminine noun, there is one scripture that states, "29 ⌊when he assigned⌋o his limits to the sea,"
Yes, but Wisdom is still not said to create the world – it is God who creates.
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 7 "How are the phrases "the firstborn over all creation" & "the firstborn from the dead" related ?"
@Brother Rando June 7 Firstborn over All Creation is when Jehovah begot his Son. Begotten, brought forth, created or born.
@Brother Rando June 7 Firstborn of the dead is when Jehovah begot his Son through a resurrection. Begotten again, brought forth again, became a New Creation or born again.
How many begotten Son(s) ?
FWIW: New Creation comments is consistent with JW.org belief about creature ceasing to exist after life force departure. Related puzzle is how many incarnation(s) of Michael the archangel ?
What is "firstborn" describing about יהוה Lord Jesus within one sentence: Colossians 1:9-20 LEB (with Hebrew words usually translated by Jewish scholars in LXX: יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God) =>
Because of this also we, from the day we heard about it, did not cease praying for you, and asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual insight, so that you may live in a manner worthy of the יהוה Lord, to please him in all respects, bearing fruit in every good deed and increasing in the knowledge of אלהים God, enabled with all power, according to his glorious might, for all steadfastness and patience with joy, giving thanks to the Father who has qualified you for a share of the inheritance of the saints in light, who has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of sins, who is the image of the invisible אלהים God, the firstborn over all creation, because all things in the heavens and on the earth were created by him, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers, all things were created through him and for him, and he himself is before all things, and in him all things are held together, and he himself is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he himself may become first in everything, because he was well pleased for all the fullness to dwell in him, and through him to reconcile all things to himself, by making peace through the blood of his cross, through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
Note: Lexham English Bible (LEB) italicizes words added for smooth English: e.g. things.
Noticeably missing from my view of Colossians 1:9-20 LEB is @Brother Rando assertions about Son being born (created) & born again (new creation).
By the way, @Brother Rando firstborn comments reminded me about "The Impossibles" study by @Bill_Coley as personal belief about the nature of God causes intriguing interpretations. Different beliefs have different impossible views. Impossible for me to see יהוה Lord Jesus as a completely separate entity from אלהים God. Yet, my belief about the uniqueness of One God having three voices simultaneously is impossible for others to see: e.g. @Brother Rando firstborn comments.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 7 How are sentences " Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν." and " Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." related ?
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 7 How are sentences "In beginning the God made the heaven and the earth" and "In beginning being (was) the Word, and the Word being (was) with the God, and God being (was) the Word" related ?
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 7 "FYI: Greek sentences are Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint (LXX) and John 1:1 in the New Testament."
@Brother Rando June 7 You have your scriptures backwards. Genesis 1:1 cannot be the beginning of creation since (John 1:3) reads "All things came into existence through him" So John 1:1 is actually the Beginning of All Creation starting with the Word.
To me, Genesis 1:1 "In beginning the God made the heaven and the earth" is expanded by John 1:1-5 "In beginning being (was) the Word, and the Word being (was) with the God, and God being (was) the Word. This being (was) in beginning with the God. All through Him became, and without Him became not one, which had become. In Him life being (was), and the life being (was) the light of the humanity. And the light in the darkness shining (is), and the darkness it not comprehend."
Phrase "All things came into existence through him" in John 1:3 has English translation qualifier of "things" for Greek word πάντα (all), which reminds me of earlier Colossians 1:9-20 screen shot showing [things] note.
The Koine Greek verbs in John 1:1-2 are imperfect tense that expresses continuous kind of action "being" with secondary aspect of past time (was). Koine Greek & Hebrew perfect verbal expresses completed kind of action with ongoing results, but Greek perfect tense is NOT in John 1:1-2.
@Brother Rando June 7 Co-equal or co-existence are absent from the Bible.
John 1:1c phrase "καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος" "and God being (was) the Word" has Greek grammar quality statement of the Word continously being God along with God being more than the Word. What does phrase "did not consider being equal with אלהים God something to be grasped" describe about Christ Jesus in Philippians 2:5-11 LEB (with Hebrew words usually translated by Jewish scholars in LXX: יהוה as Lord & אלהים as God) =>
Think this in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of אלהים God, did not consider being equal with אלהים God something to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking the form of a slave, by becoming in the likeness of people. And being found in appearance like a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, that is, death on a cross. Therefore also אלהים God exalted him and graciously granted him the name above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and of those on earth and of those under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is יהוה Lord, to the glory of אלהים God the Father.
@Brother Rando June 7 Nor is there a three in one concept of God in the Scripture.
Rabbinic Biblical Commentary has Additional Comments about Deuteronomy 6:4 =>
Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. The oversized ע and ד in this verse are the only places where either of these two letters is written larger than normal (Masorah). The three divine names imply that God has existed for all time past, exists now, and will exist infinitely into the future (Hizkuni). “Hear” in this context means, “Believe and obey” and (not for the masses, but for those individuals who are capable) “understand.” But the last phrase is more correctly “the Lord is One” (OJPS); just as no other God can be named by the Tetragrammaton, so no other God shares the name “One” (Gersonides). He is “One” in the sense of being integral and complete (Abarbanel). The oversized ע (ayin) hints that one should open one’s eye (also ayin) and speculate (ayyen) profoundly about this verse; the ד (the fourth letter of the alphabet) implies that God is alone in the fourth level of reality (Sforno).
Michael Carasik, ed., Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, trans. Michael Carasik, The Commentators’ Bible (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2015), 47.
Deuteronomy 6:4 LEB with Hebrew words => Hear, Israel, יהוה Yahweh our אלהינו God, יהוה Yahweh is אחד unique.
The only Hebrew verb in Deuteronomy 6:4 is Hear (& obey) imperative.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus wrote "To me, Genesis 1:1 "In beginning the God made the heaven and the earth" is expanded by John 1:1-5 "In beginning being (was) the Word, and the Word being (was) with the God, and God being (was) the Word. This being (was) in beginning with the God. All through Him became, and without Him became not one, which had become. In Him life being (was), and the life being (was) the light of the humanity. And the light in the darkness shining (is), and the darkness it not comprehend."
I know that is why I corrected you. Actually John1:1-5 proves that "In beginning being (was) the Word, and the Word being (was) with the God, and God being (was) the Word. This being (was) in beginning with the God. All through Him became, and without Him became not one, which had become. In Him life being (was), and the life being (was) the light of the humanity. And the light in the darkness shining (is), and the darkness it not comprehend."
Therefore, it is John 1:1 that is expanded by Genesis 1:1. To claim the heaven and the earth came before the Son was begotten is error. For instance, it's the physical heaven and earth that was brought forth through the Son. All the angels existed way BEFORE the earth and its heaven. Matter of fact, according to Genesis 1:7-8, heaven was created on the second creative day.
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus June 7 How are sentences " Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν." and " Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος." related ?
@Brother Rando τὸν θεόν is a superior title never given to the son or anyone else. Only Jehovah carries the titles like Sovereign Lord, Almighty God, Adonay.
Jesus on the other hand is called Lord, Mighty God, and Adonai. He is Godlike, the divine messenger of the God in Deuteronomy 6:4. "His eyes are a fiery flame, and on his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself, 13 and he is clothed with an outer garment stained with blood, and he is called by the name The Word of God."
Jesus does not change, he is the Word of God from the beginning and defends his Father's Sovereignty to the death.
Another interesting scripture of the LEB is "From eternity, I was set up from the first, from the beginning of the earth." @ (Proverbs 8:23) Yes, the Word of God was set up from the God of eternity as the first Creation, but not from the beginning of the earth as Christendom teaches but rather from the Beginning of Creation.
- He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist, and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might become the one who is first in all things; because God was pleased to have all fullness to dwell in him,
-
-
Let's start with this: For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:8-11) The Name (Jesus) when translated means “Jehovah Is Salvation.”
Matter of fact, Jesus told his Opposers, "For I say to you, you will by no means see me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in Jehovah’s name!’” (Matthew 23:39)
@Pages wrote "Yes, but Wisdom is still not said to create the world – it is God who creates."
@Brother Rando "Jehovah founded the earth in wisdom. He solidly established the heavens in discernment." (Proverbs 3:19)
Whose the Builder of God's Temple? Read (Proverbs 9:1) Not only did Jesus invite guests to his Passover but told the Jews he would build the Temple in three days.
Proverbs 9:14 She sits at the door of her house, upon a throne at the high places of town, 15 in order to call to those who pass by the road, those who go straight on their way: Also (Psalms 69:9)
-
Thank you for the kind words and humor.
"As I read it - and please correct me if I'm mistaken! - your argument is that since God is immutable, God has ALWAYS been Father to the Son; i.e. there has never been a time when God wasn't Father to the Son. Here are my questions about that argument:"
I believe you have the gist of it, and should there be any issues with this I'm certain we will work through that.
"In support of your conception of God's immutability, in an earlier post you cited Ps. 33:11, 102:27; Mal. 3:6; and James 1:17. As I read them, none of those texts speaks to the immutability of God's relationships. Psalm 33.11 refers to God's plans and intentions. Psalm 102.27 asserts God's sameness and eternal nature, but without reference to either eternity past or the relationships contained therein. Malachi 3.6 contains God's self-declaration of immutability, but again without reference to those to whom God has been related. James 1.17 identifies God as OUR Father who never changes. I contend those texts indeed say that God doesn't change, but they say nothing about the immutability of God's relationships (e.g. with the Son). Where in those texts or any others do you find support for your belief that God's immutability refers also to God's relationships? Specifically, on what textual basis do you contend that God's immutability means God has always been Father to the Son?"
I sense from reading this response that immutability is not in question; but that the word relationship is not found in those texts. Those four texts are commonly used when speaking of God's immutability; there was no intent upon demonstrating relationship.
However, I do suggest that these texts carry a relational aspect to them. For instance, James 1:17 in its first section reads: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights," and that is relational, as is, I believe, the common thread of God's unchangeableness in those four texts.
Immutability covers the entirety of God's being, and God is relational with His creation and with His creatures. You find relationship with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, and many more throughout scripture. So, I believe that relationship is found both implicitly and explicitly in all of God's being and actions.
God being Father and relational presupposes a Father Son relationship with His Son. Fathers and Sons most usually have a relationship whether good, bad, or indifferent; and as scripture demonstrates God's interactions with His creation it would be impossible to deny Him a relationship with His own unique Son.
I consider the following texts to speak on the Father Son relationship: Matt. 3:17, 17:5, 2Peter 1:17; Jn. 1:1, 18, 5:19, 6:46, 14:9, 17:1-25, and any text that references the Son having come from God or sent by God also depict a relationship.
I believe even the FCCEM website expresses this relational characteristic of God in His desires and concerns for believers; which again presupposes relationship. "So we believe there is one God, who made us, loves us, wants great things for us, and expects great things from us."
"The James 11 text raises my second area of questions. By my count, thirteen times in Matthew's Gospel Jesus calls God OUR Father, perhaps most boldly in Matthew 23.9, where Jesus directs his followers to address no earthly being as "Father" because "only God in heaven in your Father" (NLT)."
Quite simply, the distinction is made in the address to God by believers as,"our Father", and the more personal address of the Son, "my Father" (cf. Matt. 18:10, Jn. 10:30).
As I see it, believers and the Son have a far different family relationship to the Father. Believers become a child of God by adoption as opposed to staying a child of wrath ( Jn. 1:12; Eph. 2:3); on the other hand, the Son is the only-unique Son of the Father and like his Father is eternal (Jn. 1:1, 14, 18; Phil. 2:9).
"If in your view our immutable God as Jesus' Father means there was never a time when Jesus wasn't the Son, does that also mean that since our immutable God is also OUR Father, there has never been a time when any of us wasn't God's child? i.e. All of us are also co-eternal with God?"
In my view, the answer to this question is no.
-
"Jehovah founded the earth in wisdom. He solidly established the heavens in discernment." (Proverbs 3:19)"
Yes, as I stated, it is God who created.
I can't tell from the writing if this is being disputed or not. If it is, then I'll provide the following. If it isn't then the following can be ignored.
Jehovah is the subject, founded is the verb, earth is the direct object, in wisdom is a prepositional phrase. The sense of this is that Jehovah, in His wisdom (attribute), founded the earth. This is restated in "He (Jehovah) solidly established the heavens in discernment."
-
@Pages wrote "Jehovah is the subject, founded is the verb, earth is the direct object, in wisdom is a prepositional phrase. The sense of this is that Jehovah, in His wisdom (attribute), founded the earth. This is restated in "He (Jehovah) solidly established the heavens in discernment."
True (he) is Jehovah Creator of Heaven and Earth but notice the pronouns I and Me and My ?
15 By me kings keep reigning,
And high officials decree righteousness.m
16 By me princes keep ruling,
And nobles judge in righteousness.
17 I love those loving me,
And those seeking me will find me.n
18 Riches and glory are with me,
Lasting wealth* and righteousness.
19 My fruitage is better than gold, even refined gold,
And what I produce is better than the finest silver.o
20 I walk in the path of righteousness,
In the middle of the pathways of justice;
21 I give a rich inheritance to those who love me,
And I fill up their storehouses.
22 Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way,p
The earliest of his achievements of long ago.q
23 From ancient times* I was installed,r
From the start, from times earlier than the earth.s
24 When there were no deep waters,t I was brought forth,*
When there were no springs overflowing with water.
25 Before the mountains were set in place,
Before the hills, I was brought forth,
26 When he had not yet made the earth and its fields
Or the first clods of earth’s soil.
27 When he prepared the heavens,u I was there;
When he marked out the horizon* on the surface of the waters,v
28 When he established* the clouds above,
When he founded the fountains of the deep,
29 When he set a decree for the sea
That its waters should not pass beyond his order,w
When he established* the foundations of the earth,
30 Then I was beside him as a master worker.x
I was the one he was especially fond ofy day by day;
I rejoiced before him all the time;z
31 I rejoiced over his habitable earth,
And I was especially fond of the sons of men.*
32 And now, my sons, listen to me;
Yes, happy are those who keep my ways.
33 Listen to disciplinea and become wise,
And never neglect it.
34 Happy is the man who listens to me
By coming early to* my doors day by day,
By waiting next to my doorposts;
35 For the one finding me will find life,b
And he receives approval from Jehovah.
36 But the one who ignores me harms himself,*
And those who hate me love death.”c
Notice the (he) is Jehovah as you correctly implied. Wisdom goes on and says "For the one finding me will find life,
And he receives approval from Jehovah." So before you do it, the (me) is not Jehovah. So who is this Master Worker that is beside Jehovah? Master Workman, Master Craftsman, Master Architect, Master Carpenter. Doesn't John 1:1-5 explain all these things?
Jesus explained to his disciples many things referring to himself as Master.
- Matthew 9:38 Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.”
- Matthew 10:24 “A student is not above his teacher, nor a slave above his master.
- Matthew 24:46 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so!
- Matthew 24:48 “But if ever that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’
- Luke 12:43 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so!
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus and @Searching
I just found a spiritual gem of Lazarus, Entitled "The Rich man in Hell; Lazuarus in Abraham's Bosom"
-
"True (he) is Jehovah Creator of Heaven and Earth but notice the pronouns I and Me and My?"
Which is consistent with Wisdom being the narrator of Prov. 8:4-36 and speaking of herself.
"Notice the (he) is Jehovah as you correctly implied. Wisdom goes on and says "For the one finding me will find life, And he receives approval from Jehovah."
Yes, Prov. 8:35. Which again is consistent with God's desire that His creatures actions are governed by using wisdom; acting in folly is of course not looked on with favor by God (Prov. 8:36)
"So before you do it, the (me) is not Jehovah."
Sorry, I'm not registering where this reference is.
"So who is this Master Worker that is beside Jehovah? Master Workman, Master Craftsman, Master Architect, Master Carpenter."
Wisdom, herself, says, depending on the translation used, she is a master-workman in her narration.
"Doesn't John 1:1-5 explain all these things?"
Unfortunately, I don't believe it does explain things in the way that you hope.
I believe we've agreed that Wisdom has stated in her narrative that it was Jehovah who created (Prov. 8:26-29). In Jn. 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2 the agency of creation is said to be of the Son. And it is the Son by his own word of power who sustains all of creation.
This is the perspective from which I see those things as being explained.
Also, I would refer to the JW.org Proverbs Outline in this case where it is stated: "Wisdom personified speaks", and I agree on this point that Wisdom is a personification of God's own attribute of wisdom and not an actual created being.
"Jesus explained to his disciples many things referring to himself as Master." (Matt. 9:38, 10:24, 24:46, 48; Lk. 12:43)
Yes, however, Jesus never speaks of himself using ἁρμόζουσα which is the LXX translation of the Hebrew term used in Prov. 8:30; with the lexeme κύριος being used in all the NT texts cited above. To build a case that there is a grammatical parallel to be found between those NT texts and Prov. 8:30 will, in my opinion, prove to be unfruitful.
-
Strong's definition of firstborn is as follows: πρωτότοκος prōtótokos, pro-tot-ok'-os; from G4413 and the alternate of G5088; first-born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively):—firstbegotten(-born). So as you can see and undoubted already knew there is no other interpretation except firstborn or first begotten.
It looks like the word firstborn is used in the Bible about 100+ times and in every case as far as I can tell it means first born, including when it is with reference to Jesus.
In John 3:16 Jesus is called the only begotten son of God. In this case the Hebrew word μονογενής is translated "only begotten. Strong's give this definition: μονογενής monogenḗs, mon-og-en-ace'; from G3441 and G1096; only-born, i.e. sole:—only (begotten, child).
Angels and men are both called sons of God in the Bible but only Jesus is called "firstborn" or "only begotten". So he is the only one that was "possessed" as Proverbs says in the KJV. In Strong's the first meaning for the word translated possessed is to erect, ie create.
I don't see how you can twist this into meaning anything else but first born, only begotten son created by God through whom all other things were created. Son of God, not God the son.
-
@Pages wrote "Yes, however, Jesus never speaks of himself using ἁρμόζουσα which is the LXX translation of the Hebrew term used in Prov. 8:30; with the lexeme κύριος being used in all the NT texts cited above. To build a case that there is a grammatical parallel to be found between those NT texts and Prov. 8:30 will, in my opinion, prove to be unfruitful."
If it is grammatical parallels that you're seeking then what about "Christ is the Wisdom of God" @ (1 Corinthians 1:24) ?
Another grammatical parallel @ (John 17:5) "So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was."
- From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth. (Proverbs 8:23)
- Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth, (Proverbs 8:25)
before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
Before the mountains were formed, before the hills, I was born—
Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth,
-
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
@Pages posted:
I sense from reading this response that immutability is not in question; but that the word relationship is not found in those texts. Those four texts are commonly used when speaking of God's immutability; there was no intent upon demonstrating relationship.
To be precise, the assertion that the four texts you cited in a previous post affirm God's immutability is not in question. As I read the biblical text, a strong argument can be made that God changes in consequential ways (e.g. as to the role/value of and the need for sacrifices as declared in the Pentateuch vs. the Psalms and prophetical books), but that's for another thread!
However, I do suggest that these texts carry a relational aspect to them. For instance, James 1:17 in its first section reads: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights," and that is relational, as is, I believe, the common thread of God's unchangeableness in those four texts.
I agree wholeheartedly that God is relational. I dispute only your contention that the God's immutability confirms God's relationship to Jesus as Father in eternity past.
Immutability covers the entirety of God's being, and God is relational with His creation and with His creatures. You find relationship with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, David, and many more throughout scripture. So, I believe that relationship is found both implicitly and explicitly in all of God's being and actions.
I agree with your assertion of God's relational connection to numerous biblical characters, but I disagree with your claim that God's immutability demonstrates God's "Father" connection to Jesus in eternity past. For example, the writer of Hebrews 7.5 repurposes what we call Psalm 2.7 and 2 Samuel 7.14 to give a chronological framework to Jesus' sonship: Either "today" God has begotten him or God "will" be his father and Jesus "will" be God's son. To my reading, such rhetoric does not point to eternity past.
God being Father and relational presupposes a Father Son relationship with His Son. Fathers and Sons most usually have a relationship whether good, bad, or indifferent; and as scripture demonstrates God's interactions with His creation it would be impossible to deny Him a relationship with His own unique Son.
I agree that God and Jesus have a Father-Son relationship. God says of Jesus, "This is my Son," at his baptism, and Jesus calls God "Father" on many occasions.
I consider the following texts to speak on the Father Son relationship: Matt. 3:17, 17:5, 2Peter 1:17; Jn. 1:1, 18, 5:19, 6:46, 14:9, 17:1-25, and any text that references the Son having come from God or sent by God also depict a relationship.
Again, I don't dispute the relationship. I dispute only your assertion of the existence of that relationship in eternity past - that is, your claim that there never was a time when God wasn't Jesus' Father. More specific to our exchange in this current thread, I dispute your assertion that God's immutability confirms God's eternity past relation to Jesus as Father.
I believe even the FCCEM website expresses this relational characteristic of God in His desires and concerns for believers; which again presupposes relationship. "So we believe there is one God, who made us, loves us, wants great things for us, and expects great things from us."
Thanks for the mention of our website. I promise to agree with everything you ever post from this day forward if you'll recruit a couple of hundred thousand people to visit fccem.org . . . that's fccem.org, visit today! . . . that's fccem.org; webpages are standing by. 😛
As to your point, I agree that God relates to all of us.
Quite simply, the distinction is made in the address to God by believers as,"our Father", and the more personal address of the Son, "my Father" (cf. Matt. 18:10, Jn. 10:30).
As I see it, believers and the Son have a far different family relationship to the Father. Believers become a child of God by adoption as opposed to staying a child of wrath ( Jn. 1:12; Eph. 2:3); on the other hand, the Son is the only-unique Son of the Father and like his Father is eternal (Jn. 1:1, 14, 18; Phil. 2:9).
In my view, the "my Father" / "our Father" distinction that Jesus makes is due primarily to the grammar required by the occasions in which it arises. To Jesus personally, God was always "my Father." To a group of listeners, the grammatically correct instruction was for them to pray to "our" Father.
In addition, note that in John 20.17 the resurrected Jesus directs Mary to tell his disciples that he is about to ascend to "THE Father" (UPPER CASE added), the one he then calls "my Father and your Father" and "my God and your God." To my reading of them, those words make clear that Jesus believes there is a profound and fundamental similarity between his Father/Son relationship to God and theirs. More expansively, I contend those words make clear Jesus' belief that God is OUR God and "Father" in ways profoundly and fundamentally similar to the ways God is God and "Father" to him. YES! Jesus is the "Son of God" in ways none of us can be!! But that doesn't rule out consequential similarity between God's relationships as "Father" to both us and Jesus.
Note also that in John 4.19-26 (esp. vv.21-23) Jesus speaks of himself as one of the Jews who do or will worship "the Father" "in spirit and truth." "WE worship what WE know," he tells the woman at the well (John 4.22; UPPER CASE added). I contend those words report Jesus' belief that his relationship to "the Father" is materially similar to others' relationships to "the Father."
In my view, the answer to this question is no.
I agree that none of us is co-eternal with God.
-
No Father/Son relationship? Maybe you should slow down a little and grasp the Word as to gain a deeper spiritual understanding?
Hebrews 5:4-6 LEB
And someone does not take for himself the honor, but is called by God, just as Aaron also was. 5 Thus also Christ did not glorify himself to become high priest, but the one who said to him,
“You are my Son, today I have begotten you,”
6 just as also in another place he says,
“You are a priest ⌊forever⌋ according to the order of Melchizedek,”
- There are always witness marks when deleting or changing scripture. Looks like the LEB translators left the word 'begotten' in Hebrews 5:5...
-
Yet, Jesus says when reasoning with others, "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a man who is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.” (Matthew 11:19)
More Father/Son Relationship:
John 5:20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him everything that he himself is doing. And greater works than these he will show him, so that you will be astonished. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and makes them* alive, thus also the Son makes alive whomever he wishes. 22 For the Father does not judge anyone, but he has given all judgment to the Son, 23 in order that all people* will honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly I say to you that the one who hears my word and who believes the one who sent me has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
25 “Truly, truly I say to you, that an hour is coming—and now is here—when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and the ones who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, thus also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself. 27 And he has granted him authority to carry out judgment, because he is the Son of Man. (John 5:20-26)
-
"No Father/Son relationship? Maybe you should slow down a little and grasp the Word as to gain a deeper spiritual understanding?"
I'm not certain why this is addressed to me as that is not my position at all. Perhaps a misreading or misunderstanding of something on your part.
"More Father/Son Relationship:"
Again, not my position.
-
"To be precise, the assertion that the four texts you cited in a previous post affirm God's immutability is not in question."
Thank you for the confirmation.
"As I read the biblical text, a strong argument can be made that God changes in consequential ways (e.g. as to the role/value of and the need for sacrifices as declared in the Pentateuch vs. the Psalms and prophetical books), but that's for another thread!"
"I agree wholeheartedly that God is relational. I dispute only your contention that the God's immutability confirms God's relationship to Jesus as Father in eternity past."
"I agree with your assertion of God's relational connection to numerous biblical characters, but I disagree with your claim that God's immutability demonstrates God's "Father" connection to Jesus in eternity past."
Okay, I understand – we are in agreement that God is relational. But, regarding your mentioned dispute to my position I must ask, what exactly is this disagreement grounded on – I believe that has not been disclosed as yet – perhaps alluded to in the "for another thread" mentioned above?
"For example, the writer of Hebrews 7.5 repurposes what we call Psalm 2.7 and 2 Samuel 7.14 to give a chronological framework to Jesus' sonship: Either "today" God has begotten him or God "will" be his father and Jesus "will" be God's son. To my reading, such rhetoric does not point to eternity past."
If I'm not mistaken I believe that Heb. 1:5 is the intended reference and not Heb. 7:5.
My understanding of Heb. 1:5 is one that this writer is using and applying the enthronement decree of Psa. 2:7 to the ascension and exaltation of Christ (cf. Heb. 1:3 b). And in the context of Heb. 1:1-5 this is the natural flow of thought certainly. While I agree with you that Heb. 1:5 points to a specific historical time, as I wrote above, I don't see it as having any impact upon the immutability of God.
"Again, I don't dispute the relationship. I dispute only your assertion of the existence of that relationship in eternity past - that is, your claim that there never was a time when God wasn't Jesus' Father. More specific to our exchange in this current thread, I dispute your assertion that God's immutability confirms God's eternity past relation to Jesus as Father."
I understand that you disagree with the position I've put forward and I accept that; but, I would very much like to read from you the positive argument for why you disagree with it. I think at this point we've exhausted the discussion without more information relative to your disagreement.
"In addition, note that in John 20.17 the resurrected Jesus directs Mary to tell his disciples that he is about to ascend to "THE Father" (UPPER CASE added), the one he then calls "my Father and your Father" and "my God and your God." To my reading of them, those words make clear that Jesus believes there is a profound and fundamental similarity between his Father/Son relationship to God and theirs. More expansively, I contend those words make clear Jesus' belief that God is OUR God and "Father" in ways profoundly and fundamentally similar to the ways God is God and "Father" to him. YES! Jesus is the "Son of God" in ways none of us can be!! But that doesn't rule out consequential similarity between God's relationships as "Father" to both us and Jesus."
I really don't find much at all to be in disagreement with here. And yes, as you state, "Jesus is the "Son of God" in ways none of us can be!!".
"Note also that in John 4.19-26 (esp. vv.21-23) Jesus speaks of himself as one of the Jews who do or will worship "the Father" "in spirit and truth." "WE worship what WE know," he tells the woman at the well (John 4.22; UPPER CASE added). I contend those words report Jesus' belief that his relationship to "the Father" is materially similar to others' relationships to "the Father.""
Yes, I agree, and it is perfectly inline with my belief of Jesus being fully human, though not merely human. And, as you recognize above "Jesus is the "Son of God" in ways none of us can be!!", there is a difference in that believers come only into God's family by adoption; where the Son is a natural Son of the same essence as the Father.
