Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #1
Comments
-
"If it is grammatical parallels that you're seeking then what about "Christ is the Wisdom of God" @ (1 Corinthians 1:24) ?"
It appears that by using this text you wish to confirm that Wisdom is really and truly a created being who you can say is the preexistence Christ. Unfortunately, just because the word wisdom is in this text, as it also occurs multiple times within the context of 1Cor. 18-25, does not automatically translate into saying an actual parallel to Proverbs 8 exists.
Since you take "wisdom of God" in a literal sense to mean a particular being is spoken of, I would ask for you to explain who then is this literal preexistence Power in "power of God" you neglect; for it is said, "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God". These are two separate and individual terms in apposition to Christ.
It is also worth noting that verse 24 is verb-less, it draws on the verb preach in 1Cor. 1:23 and "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" is the object of preach. It is God's attributes of power and wisdom that are revealed in the cross and then preached as stated in v. 23 "we preach Christ crucified".
So, in summary, the context of 1Cor. 1:18-25 does not lend any credible support for your belief that Christ is the created Wisdom in Proverbs 8.
"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)"
We agree on the Son having been with the Father and in his own glory before the world was; but, we part company at your belief of the Son having come into existence at some point prior to creation. My view is that the Son is eternal as is the Father.
Overall, none of this overcomes the significant issue of Wisdom's not creating anything which is in contradiction to the NT witness regarding the Son (cf. Jn. 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2, 10). Also, is the issue that Wisdom, herself, does not ever refer to Jehovah as Father, or my Father, in her narration.
-
If you don't mind my asking, are you one of Jehovah's witnesses? At times you sound like you are and at other times you seem to differ in you beliefs.
-
@Pages wrote "It appears that by using this text you wish to confirm that Wisdom is really and truly a created being who you can say is the preexistence Christ. Unfortunately, just because the word wisdom is in this text, as it also occurs multiple times within the context of 1Cor. 18-25, does not automatically translate into saying an actual parallel to Proverbs 8 exists. "
@Brother Rando What I trying to do is by drawing on scripture it would lead you to Christ, Thus, one could easily render that Jesus is Personification of Wisdom. Evidently I failed to convey to you that Scriptural thought.
Just as Grace is a feminine noun that points to Jesus Death. Jesus is the Personification of Grace. It was at great cost to extend this (underserved kindness) and sacrifice to others.
@Pages wrote "We agree on the Son having been with the Father and in his own glory before the world was; but, we part company at your belief of the Son having come into existence at some point prior to creation. My view is that the Son is eternal as is the Father."
@Brother Rando Somewhat. But Jesus prayed and asked his Father, "Glorify your Son, in order that your Son may glorify you—" (John 17:3) What do we see in the Book of Revelation?
- "After this I saw another angel descending from heaven with great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his glory." (Rev 18:1)
- Notice the Greek word used for Glory?
Strong's Concordance
doxa: opinion (always good in N.T.), hence praise, honor, glory
Original Word: δόξα, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: doxa
Phonetic Spelling: (dox'-ah)
Definition: opinion (always good in NT), praise, honor, glory
Usage: honor, renown; glory, an especially divine quality, the unspoken manifestation of God, splendor.
HELPS Word-studies
1391 dóksa (from dokeō, "exercising personal opinion which determines value") – glory. 1391 /dóksa ("glory") corresponds to the OT word, kabo (OT 3519, "to be heavy"). Both terms convey God's infinite, intrinsic worth (substance, essence).
@Pages wrote "Overall, none of this overcomes the significant issue of Wisdom's not creating anything which is in contradiction to the NT witness regarding the Son (cf. Jn. 1:3, 10; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2, 10). Also, is the issue that Wisdom, herself, does not ever refer to Jehovah as Father, or my Father, in her narration."
@Brother Rando If Jesus is the one and only begotten son of Jehovah God, then there cannot be any other begotten beings. Unless, it's same one the only. Case and point.
Wisdom at Creation
Proverbs 8:22-25
“Yahweh created me, the first of his ways,
before his acts ⌊of old⌋.
23 From eternity, I was set up from the first,
from the beginning of the earth.
24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth,
when there were no springs of ⌊abounding⌋ water.
25 Before mountains had been shaped,
before hills, I was brought forth.
At Prvbs 8:22 in the LXX the speaker is created with the Greek κτίζω but in verse 25 he is begotten with γεννά με. This speaks of the same event. According to advanced Hebrew lexicons like BDB and Halot qanah also means "created" at Proverbs 8:22. [2] At verse 25, the common rendering "brought forth" is from a Hebrew verb that Halot says means "to be brought forth (through labor pains)."
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,
-
@Searching posted:
If you don't mind my asking, are you one of Jehovah's witnesses? At times you sound like you are and at other times you seem to differ in you beliefs.
At least to me it's not obvious to whom you're addressing this post and its question. Could you please add that detail? Thanks.
-
I thought I included the quote. Anyway I was asking Brother Rando, but I since have seen that is a witness. Some of his comments were confusing to me.
-
@Pages posted:
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?
My apologies for not communicating my disagreement with your view more clearly.
The argument I discerned from one of your earlier posts in this thread was that God's immutability demonstrates that God has been Jesus' Father for all eternity. Specifically, in THIS POST you wrote (emphasis added),
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.
I read those paragraphs to argue that God's immutability requires Jesus to have been God's Son for eternity past because it is "completely at odds" with such immutability if ever there was a time in eternity past when Jesus was not the Son. I disagree with your assertion of a nexus between God's immutability and Jesus' Sonship. No text that you cited reported such a nexus, and in my view, Scripture does not contend that God's immutability extends to God's relationships.
- That you and I are children of God today doesn't mean there was never a time in eternity past when we weren't children of God. God's immutability doesn't mean God's relationship with us has always existed.
- That Jesus was the Son of God doesn't mean there was never a time in eternity past when he wasn't the Son of God. God's immutability doesn't mean -- or perhaps, doesn't necessarily mean - God's relationship with him has always existed.
I disagree with what I read to be your contention that there is a necessary connection between God's immutability and Jesus as God's co-eternal Son. 1) To my reading of them, none of the texts you cited declared such a connection; 2) In my view, God's immutability does not extend to God's relationships (God can be immutable and still enter into new relationships).
I hope I have now made my disagreement more clear.
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.
Yikes! You are not mistaken: I intended to refer to Hebrews 1.5, not 7.5. [On my keyboard, the "1" and the "7" look very much alike? or perhaps were mistakenly placed adjacent to each other by the manufacturer? (Please let me know when I approach plausible deniability for my error.)]
I didn't cite verses from Hebrews 1 to contend with your assertion of God's immutability. Rather, I cited them because of the relationship chronology they report:
- "Today I have become your Father," the writer quotes God as saying to Jesus (Hebrews 1.5, NLT), which means there had to have been a time (perhaps yesterday?) when God wasn't Jesus' Father.
- "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son," God also says of Jesus, language which in its original 2 Samuel 7.14 context referred to a son of King David's who had yet to be raised up (2 Samuel 7.12). So the fact that God "will" be the son's father, and the son "will" be God's son means there was a time when that relationship started -- i.e. a time before which it didn't exist. In Hebrews 1.5, I contend, the most natural rendering of the "will" declaration is that the writer believes there was a time when Jesus was not the Son of God.
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.
Additional information about my disagreement with your view provided above (I hope!)
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.
You and I disagree about Trinitarian theology and the same "essence" of which it asserts the Father and the Son are parts, but my disagreement with your view doesn't stop me from giving props to your phrase, "fully human, though not merely human." I think that's a descriptive and effective report of the view. Thanks.
-
Unfortunately in my previous post to you my summarization for 1Cor. 1:18-25 got intermixed with three quotes from your post I was replying to – so, that may have been confusing not only to you, but also anyone else reading it. The following should not have been a quote in that post. My apologies – user error.
- So, in summary, the context of 1Cor. 1:18-25 does not lend any credible support for your belief that Christ is the created Wisdom in Proverbs 8.
"What I trying to do is by drawing on scripture it would lead you to Christ, Thus, one could easily render that Jesus is Personification of Wisdom. Evidently I failed to convey to you that Scriptural thought."
Thank you for your concern and effort to provide scripture leading me to Christ; on the other hand, it is certainly my hope that from these discussions we have that you will recognize the picture of Christ painted by the WT is not consistent with scripture's portrait.
Obviously, I do not believe that the personified Wisdom is an actual created being; that being said, I do believe that Jesus is the reality and embodiment of God's attribute of wisdom for mankind.
"Just as Grace is a feminine noun that points to Jesus Death."
I'm not clear on what is to be understood by this; as noun gender does not function in the manner as described by your example, "that points to Jesus Death". Would you provide a link to an article on JW.org that explains this feminine noun concept?
"Jesus is the Personification of Grace. It was at great cost to extend this (underserved kindness) and sacrifice to others."
Where exactly is grace personified in scripture? It can be said that Jesus is full of grace (Jn. 1:14). I'll provide a definition below that I hope clarifies.
- "personification. n. A figure of speech in which human attributes are ascribed to objects, animals, abstract ideas or other nonpersonal things." (Pocket Dictionary For The Study Of New Testament Greek, s.v. “personification,” 97.)
"Somewhat. But Jesus prayed and asked his Father, "Glorify your Son, in order that your Son may glorify you—" (John 17:3) What do we see in the Book of Revelation?"
"After this I saw another angel descending from heaven with great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his glory." (Rev 18:1)
"Notice the Greek word used for Glory?"
I believe you meant Jn. 17:1 and not 17:3. And the use of this particular Greek word means, or implies, what exactly to you?
"If Jesus is the one and only begotten son of Jehovah God, then there cannot be any other begotten beings. Unless, it's same one the only. Case and point."
I apologize, I'm simply not following the point being made here.
"At Prvbs 8:22 in the LXX the speaker is created with the Greek κτίζω but in verse 25 he is begotten with γεννά με. This speaks of the same event. According to advanced Hebrew lexicons like BDB and Halot qanah also means "created" at Proverbs 8:22. [2] At verse 25, the common rendering "brought forth" is from a Hebrew verb that Halot says means "to be brought forth (through labor pains).""
Perhaps a keyboard mishap but an obvious error has occurred above at the end of the first sentence – "but in verse 25 he is begotten with γεννά με." – Wisdom is female, "...she is begotten..." more correctly; which, whether intentional or not, then presents the following issue for the recreation of the female Wisdom into the male angel Michael. Gender change?
Has the WT ever gone into this in any great depth that you're aware of? Is there at least one article written on JW.org that explains how the female Wisdom of Proverbs was recreated as the male archangel Michael?
In other words, does the WT teach that a created being, even a JW, might be recreated having the opposite gender (i.e. female to male, male to female) from the gender they were created with? If there is, it would make for an interesting read.
קנה (Pr. 8:22) is most usually expressing the sense of acquiring, possession, or ownership, which can include the idea of buying or purchasing something (cf. Pr. 1:5, 4:5, 7, 15:32, 16:16, 17:16, 18:15, 19:8, 20:14, 23:23); and yes, create is further down in the list of meaning range.
Translations are fairly evenly split on using either possessed or created for v. 22 and I'm certain the discussion will continue on as to which is the better choice for communicating the writers intended sense. It may be, in the end, a moot point as קנה may overlap in meaning when God is in view (cf. Gen. 14:19, 22) and again there is an even split here on possessor or creator used in translation; but, the overall sense is one of possession.
In my view Pr. 8:23 also plays a part in the understanding of 8:22-25 is the use of נסכתי or ἐθεμελίωσέν (LXX) which covers the range of meaning as the idea of shape, pouring out, lay the foundation, found, or establish; with translations ranging from founded, set up, established, and a few other. Though, once again, this may still entail a sense of create when God is in view (cf. Mt. 3:9 same sense).
You are correct that Pr. 8:25 uses חוללתי and Halot does indeed state "to be brought forth (through labor pains)" – חוללתי is also used in Pr. 8:24.
- "polal: pf. חוללת, חוללתי:—1. be brought to birth" (Holladay, W. L., & Köhler, L. (2000). In A concise Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (p. 102). Brill.)
- "The Hebrew word is in fact a comprehensive term for everything from the initial contractions to the birth itself. This state is characterized by recurring spasms of pain which are not subject to conscious control, during which the woman in labor writhes—a process that can be accompanied by a sense of fear or anxiety, screams, and groans." (Bauman, TDOT, s.v. “חיל חיל חילה חלחלה,” 4:345.)
I have no disagreement with what you have stated in this last paragraph above other than applying the wrong gender to Wisdom. It makes no difference to my view on this specific passage (8:22-25) in that I, as you know, take this as the personification of God's own wisdom and uses metaphorical language in a particular Hebrew proverb genre. I hope the above is useful to you and your consideration of this passage Pr. 8:22-25 in contrast to the WT's position.
However, before ending here, I want to pose some questions regarding this area of text under discussion based upon the absolute literal position of interpretation for it that you hold.
I believe it is your position that Wisdom is a real living breathing creature having been brought forth (birthed) by Jehovah. I believe it is also your position that personification and all imagery and figurative language found in Pr. 8:22-25 is to be understood as real in an absolutely literal manner regardless of this genre it is found within.
In light of the above I will now list my questions concerning what I consider to be problematic and at issue for this form of interpretive view.
Regarding Pr. 8:24-25 and חוללתי:
1) Do you then maintain that Jehovah, himself, was in labor, experiencing pain, writhing, and trembling to give birth to Wisdom?
2) Or would you suggest that Jehovah had a consort and this language is referring to the consort's experience.
3) If you reject the above two options; who then, was present and experiencing these labor pains? It was certainly not Wisdom, herself.
4) Prior to Gen. 3:16, how is it that חוללתי (pain, writhing, and trembling) existed in birth, "to be brought forth (through labor pains)" HALOT?
5) Did physical birth even exist before the world came to be (cf. Gen. 1:28)?
-
"I hope I have now made my disagreement more clear."
Yes, I believe so – thank you.
"I read those paragraphs to argue that God's immutability requires Jesus to have been God's Son for eternity past because it is "completely at odds" with such immutability if ever there was a time in eternity past when Jesus was not the Son."
I see what I believe to be the issue with what I thought I communicated and your reading of it. I am not perusing this from the view of the Son; but the Father and His unchanging nature. In other words, God the Father to be Father does require a child, in this case a Son – the only-unique Son – God in His nature, or essence, being unchanging, then has never not been Father to His only-unique Son; and therefore, as the Father is eternal so too is His one and only Son.
"I didn't cite verses from Hebrews 1 to contend with your assertion of God's immutability. Rather, I cited them because of the relationship chronology they report:
"Today I have become your Father," the writer quotes God as saying to Jesus (Hebrews 1.5, NLT), which means there had to have been a time (perhaps yesterday?) when God wasn't Jesus' Father."
"I will be his Father, and he will be my Son," God also says of Jesus, language which in its original 2 Samuel 7.14 context referred to a son of King David's who had yet to be raised up (2 Samuel 7.12). So the fact that God "will" be the son's father, and the son "will" be God's son means there was a time when that relationship started -- i.e. a time before which it didn't exist. In Hebrews 1.5, I contend, the most natural rendering of the "will" declaration is that the writer believes there was a time when Jesus was not the Son of God."
Immutability aside, I see from your perspective regarding Jesus how the above texts can be supportive for your view of there having been no eternal sonship. Completely understandable; however, from the perspective that I hold, these same texts do not in any way negatively impact the view of there being an eternal sonship.
Both texts cited above in your response are temporal as pointed out; the enthronement and exaltation of a king by YHWH does have in its original setting whereby YHWH enters into a father son relationship which did not exist prior. As these texts are applied to Jesus in Heb. 1:5 following Heb. 1:3 which intimates the cross, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus to the right hand of God the Father; this, of course, occurs at a set time within first century AD.
However, I'm not certain any of us can make the case that the writer of Hebrews believes there was a time when Jesus was not the Son of God based solely on his usage of two OT passages; especially in light of Heb. 1:2-3 which precedes the application of these two texts in Heb. 1:5, and then followed by Heb. 1:8-12 which is significant.
In Heb. 1:2 the writer places the Son at creation, and as the agent of the creation event; additionally, it is the Son who by the word of his power holds all of creation together in Heb.1:3 – neither of which commenced during the first century AD (cf. Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16).
And the first section of Heb. 1:3 expresses what is clearly recognized as an ontological statement regarding the glory and being of God attributed to the Son which carries the implication that the Son is eternal. To push the point, it is impossible to be an exact ontological representation of God's own Being and glory, which is eternal, and then not also be eternal. This is expressed by the writer's use of the verb ὢν having the sense of an exact quality of being.
Additionally, Lk. 2:49 expresses in Jesus' words that in his own self-awareness he knew his own Father was God many years prior to his vindicating resurrection, exaltation, and enthronement; also, the importance to the gospel message of him, Jesus, being the Son of God. Certainly not unknown to this writer of Hebrews.
I believe, and it may be worth noting at this point, that the writer of Hebrews, as other NT writers, regards Jesus as being "fully human, but not merely human – also fully divine". Obviously, this is contra the position to Jesus being fully human, and merely human – and not divine; which, as I would expect from your writing, is the position you embrace.
Overall, this certain and specific difference between us revolves on just this issue as stated above – the nature of being regarding Jesus.
It is certainly important, likely imperative, to consider what in these first five verses this writer has written regarding the Son, who is also known as Jesus. He has started with the temporal in Heb. 1:1, and for the first section of Heb. 1:2 continues in the temporal; but in the second section of v. 2 he changes to before the existence of time as we know it, and credits the Son with existence and as the agent of the creation event – a pre, or supra, temporal period.
It seems, to me, confirmation that the writer views the Son as existing prior to, and performing, the act of creation – an act the OT credits to God. However, the person Jesus physically came into being at a specific time far removed from when the universe came into being; in my view, reinforcing the position that the writer viewed Jesus as "fully human, but not merely human – also fully divine".
"You and I disagree about Trinitarian theology and the same "essence" of which it asserts the Father and the Son are parts, but my disagreement with your view doesn't stop me from giving props to your phrase, "fully human, though not merely human." I think that's a descriptive and effective report of the view. Thanks."
Yes, we do disagree on this area of theology; and, I also differ with the idea of partialism, "...the same "essence" of which it asserts the Father and the Son are parts", as being definitional of the trinity – it is incorrect, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not parts of the one Being of God.
Thank you for your accolade on the "fully human, though not merely human." turn of phrase; and, I agree that it is an accurate, and very descriptive, statement for the trinitarian view of Jesus. It has now become second nature as the basis for considering texts regarding Jesus as well as describing Jesus' nature.
And I'm very glad you liked it; though, it now appears to me unfortunately that I have assumed by whatever manner these words, and I am simply not the source of it. Therefore, I'll need to decline the "props" you have extended toward me.
After receiving your wonderful accolade, while working on some related research I stumbled across what seems to be the source for this. It seems that T. V. Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate, pg. 104 (1986, Cornell University Press) – which, reads in full, "He is fully human, but not merely human. He is also fully divine." – is to be credited for these insightful words.
So, in this case all "props" are to be extended to T. V. Morris. And as a side note, if you, or anyone reading this is aware of any earlier source for this please make it known to me.
-
@Pages wrote "I have no disagreement with what you have stated in this last paragraph above other than applying the wrong gender to Wisdom. . I hope the above is useful to you and your consideration of this passage Pr. 8:22-25 in contrast to the WT's position."
I get that all the time from trinitarians. They claim God created himself. And then I ask "I thought God is eternal?"
It's only then, they back track and claim they never said what they said.
So How is that (Proverbs 8:22) reads that God created himself which is against WT's position as we proclaim God is eternal?
- "Yahweh created me, the first of his ways, before his acts ⌊of old⌋"
- "In the Beginning was the Word"
- "Firstborn of All Creation"
- “This is what the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the originator of God’s creation" (Revelation 3:14)
- Footnote c states "Or “the ruler”; or “the beginning”; or “the source”
-
"I get that all the time from trinitarians. They claim God created himself. And then I ask "I thought God is eternal?""
I have no idea as to who these trinitarians are; but, there is nothing in trinitarian doctrine that states what you claim. God is eternal.
Your reply above is to a statement regarding Proverbs 8:22-25 I made which has nothing to do with "God creating himself". This, and the rest of your post, is just more of distraction and noise, with accusations, so that you may avoid having to give any meaningful account to support your position.
By the way, what are your answers to my five previous questions regarding Pr. 8:24-25 and חוללתי?
-
Your reply above is to a statement regarding Proverbs 8:22-25 I made which has nothing to do with "God creating himself". This, and the rest of your post, is just more of distraction and noise, with accusations, so that you may avoid having to give any meaningful account to support your position.
By the way, what are your answers to my five previous questions regarding Pr. 8:24-25 and חוללתי?
No, it's not my reply but rather the trinitarians stand that God created himself and or was begotten which means "brought forth" from a Hebrew verb that means "to be brought forth" as through labor pains.
Therefore, applying Proverbs 8:22-25 to God as you did is simply a dishonest attack against Jehovah's Sovereignty, for Jah is the Eternal God. To push ahead and use these verses as trinitarians often do is desperation that is easily exposed. It is used to convey that God created himself or beget himself is error.
For instance, God created the mountains, Mountains do not beget other mountains. Mountains being born or begotten is a metaphor to help the reader gain understanding. Therefore based on scripture and the quote from Jesus Christ that he is the only begotten son of God brings us to the conclusion that Jesus Personifies Wisdom. In 1 Cor Jesus is called the Wisdom of God.
Also, the feminine noun Wisdom later describes herself in the Masculine Sense, as a Master Workman In Proverbs 8:30... The scripture are clear, "God is not a man" Numbers 23:19
-
"No, it's not my reply but rather the trinitarians stand that God created himself and or was begotten which means "brought forth" from a Hebrew verb that means "to be brought forth" as through labor pains."
Trinitarians do not state "God created himself", that is not in any doctrine of the trinity. I believe you are referring to חוללתי in Pr. 8:24-25 which I agree HALOT states, "to be brought forth" as through labor pains.", just as I wrote in my previous post and also included additional information regarding this word from TDOT for you.
"Therefore, applying Proverbs 8:22-25 to God as you did is simply a dishonest attack against Jehovah's Sovereignty, for Jah is the Eternal God. To push ahead and use these verses as trinitarians often do is desperation that is easily exposed. It is used to convey that God created himself or beget himself is error."
You need to explain this more because what is written makes little, if any, sense of what exactly you are in disagreement with. Once again, God does not create himself.
"For instance, God created the mountains, Mountains do not beget other mountains. Mountains being born or begotten is a metaphor to help the reader gain understanding."
This is unrelated to our discussion as mountains begetting mountains isn't, and has never, been under discussion. Though I see you are using metaphor now – which is ignored in the Pr. 8:22-25 passage – since you consider it as absolutely literal, void of any figurative language.
"Therefore based on scripture and the quote from Jesus Christ that he is the only begotten son of God brings us to the conclusion that Jesus Personifies Wisdom. In 1 Cor Jesus is called the Wisdom of God."
I understand you believe this; but, to me, Jesus is the reality and embodiment of God's wisdom, an attribute. If, by this, "Jesus Personifies Wisdom", you mean to say that Jesus reflects this attribute, I agree; however, if that isn't the case, let me refresh your memory with what personification is defined as:
- "personification. n. A figure of speech in which human attributes are ascribed to objects, animals, abstract ideas or other nonpersonal things." (Pocket Dictionary For The Study Of New Testament Greek, s.v. “personification,” 97.)
We have discussed the 1Cor. 8:24 passage earlier in this discussion, I'll repeat myself below regarding that passage.
It appears that by using this text you wish to confirm that Wisdom is really and truly a created being who you can say is the preexistent Christ. Unfortunately, just because the word wisdom is in this text, as it also occurs multiple times within the context of 1Cor. 18-25, does not automatically translate into saying an actual parallel to Proverbs 8 exists.
Since you take "wisdom of God" in a literal sense to mean a particular being is spoken of, I would ask for you to explain who then is this literal preexistent Power in "power of God" you neglect; for it is said, "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God". These are two separate and individual terms in apposition to Christ connected by καὶ.
It is also worth noting that verse 24 is verb-less, it draws on the verb preach in 1Cor. 1:23 and "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" is the object of preach. It is God's attributes of power and wisdom that are revealed in the cross and then preached as stated in v. 23 "we preach Christ crucified".
So, in summary, the context of 1Cor. 1:18-25 does not lend any credible support for your belief that Christ is the created Wisdom in Proverbs 8.
"Also, the feminine noun Wisdom later describes herself in the Masculine Sense, as a Master Workman In Proverbs 8:30..." "
Okay, and...
Then you state this?
The scripture are clear, "God is not a man" Numbers 23:19"
I see, God is a woman, is that your point? If it is, point me to where on JW.org it is taught that God, Jehovah, is a woman.
Well, enough for now.
-
@Pages wrote
I understand you believe this; but, to me, Jesus is the reality and embodiment of God's wisdom, an attribute. If, by this, "Jesus Personifies Wisdom", you mean to say that Jesus reflects this attribute, I agree; however, if that isn't the case, let me refresh your memory with what personification is defined as:
""personification.. n. A figure of speech in which human attributes are ascribed to objects, animals, abstract ideas or other nonpersonal things." (Pocket Dictionary For The Study Of New Testament Greek, s.v. “personification,” 97.)
Getting closer but your still off.... Just "one word" needs to be specified. Rather than using the word embodiment, Jesus Personifies Wisdom in that he was being made in the Image of God and therefore is the Perfect Reflection of his God and Father JEHOVAH.
Therefore, Jesus is Godlike or who is like God and has Godlike attributes. (Colossians 1:15) So, in summary, the context of 1Cor. 1:18-25 does lend credible support for your belief that Christ is the created Wisdom in Proverbs 8.
- Christ is the Created Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8. Not only the Builder of God's House in Proverbs 9 but destroys the wisdom of the wise whom deny him.
- At that time Jesus answered and said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to young children.
- nor put Christ to the test, as some of them tested him, and were destroyed by snakes, 1 Corinthians 10:9
The word (destroy) is synonymous with the word perish which has a finality to it. Such ones are permanently destroyed. Jesus has many Names as the Word of God, King Abaddon, Apollyon, Sprout, Michael, to name just a few.
Strong's Concordance
apollumi: to destroy, destroy utterly
Original Word: ἀπόλλυμι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: apollumi
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ol'-loo-mee)
Definition: to destroy, destroy utterly
Usage: (a) I kill, destroy, (b) I lose, mid: I am perishing (the resultant death being viewed as certain).
HELPS Word-studies
622 apóllymi (from 575 /apó, "away from," which intensifies ollymi, "to destroy") – properly, fully destroy, cutting off entirely (note the force of the prefix, 575 /apó).
622 /apóllymi ("violently/completely perish") implies permanent (absolute) destruction, i.e. to cancel out (remove); "to die, with the implication of ruin and destruction" (L & N, 1, 23.106); cause to be lost (utterly perish) by experiencing a miserable end.
As Jesus stated in John 3:16 "God loved the world, so that he gave his one and only Son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life."
- The opposite of eternal life is eternal death with no resurrection.
- By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread, until your return to the ground. For from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return. Genesis 3:19
-
"Getting closer but your still off.... Just "one word" needs to be specified."
"Rather than using the word embodiment, Jesus Personifies Wisdom in that he was being made in the Image of God and therefore is the Perfect Reflection of his God and Father JEHOVAH."
We certainly disagree on this.
"Therefore, Jesus is Godlike or who is like God and has Godlike attributes. (Colossians 1:15)"
And we disagree based on the semantics of what it is that the WT means by this specific language, and what they then deny by this same language.
"So, in summary, the context of 1Cor. 1:18-25 does lend credible support for your belief that Christ is the created Wisdom in Proverbs 8."
A misquote of my statement which is based on the context and syntax of the Greek used in that passage; purposefully removing "not". What I wrote is the following:
- So, in summary, the context of 1Cor. 1:18-25 does not lend any credible support for your belief that Christ is the created Wisdom in Proverbs 8.
I ask you to not do that again. Quote me correctly, and then if you wish to make comment on that, do so; but, never change someone's quote to fit your ideals!
The remainder of your post is entirely unrelated to what is specifically within the scope of discussion.
-
@Brother Rando I'll provide my quote again to your inaccurate summary. Quotes are mine but notice your falsified and inaccurate answers?
So, in summary, the context of does lend any credible support for your belief that Christ is the created Wisdom in Proverbs 8.
I was also speaking about 1Cor. 1:18-25 which is a prophecy that is coming about.
"Also, the feminine noun Wisdom later describes herself in the Masculine Sense, as a Master Workman In Proverbs 8:30..." "
Okay, and...
Then you state this?
The scripture are clear, "God is not a man" Numbers 23:19"
I see, God is a woman, is that your point? If it is, point me to where on JW.org it is taught that God, Jehovah, is a woman.
Well, enough for now.
Trinitarians are Jesus Christ deniers. Trinitarians Claim God created himself.
- Yahweh created me, the first of his ways, before his acts ⌊of old⌋. Proverbs 8:22
This leads us to another scripture.
- In the beginning was the Word, which is the first of Jehovah's ways, the Beginning of Creation.
Trinitarians Claim God was brought forth and begotten.
- Before mountains had been shaped, before hills, I was brought forth. Proverbs 8:25
Trinitarians Claim God came "to be" beside God, a master workman.
- I was ⌊beside⌋ him, a master workman, and I was delighting day by day, rejoicing before him ⌊always⌋, Proverbs 8:30
Although this line of reason is Worldly Wisdom that does not come from above. (James 3:15) It is prophesized that the Wisdom of God that comes from above will destroy such ones who think they are wise and intelligent in Denying him as Christ, the son of the living God Jehovah. World Wisdom is meaningless and will soon be Lifeless...
- For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will confound.”
@Pages wrote I ask you to not do that again. Quote me correctly, and then if you wish to make comment on that, do so; but, never change someone's quote to fit your ideals!
Fist of all, I have no need to change your quotes. They are easily exposed. I made a quote that belongs to me to show how hypocritical your faith against Jesus Christ is...
- Christ is the Power of God and the Wisdom of God which brings us back to Proverbs 8:22...
-
As I read this last post of yours, one of the words that come to mind in describing the response is simply, incoherent. The method of showing who has said what is completely confused.
The haphazard method of marking quotes in your post is, in my opinion, deceptive at best. You use quote markers (the grey line and text) on some of your statements as well as marking only some of my statements you are quoting, leaving other of my statements unmarked as being a quotation giving the impression those words are yours when they are not. Be professional and respectful when quoting someone else's words by correctly, and properly, denoting that.
The quoting methodology used by the various persons writing pseudonymously under Bro Rando is certainly not consistent with one another, and I would hope that you all come to a standard form which does not obliterate the ability of readers to follow the discussion accurately.
As to the other issue brought up in my previous post it seems an impasse has come.
-
Personal attacks are the last stage of someone who is unable to articulate their beliefs. It's in coherent for a trinitarian to claim God is a trinity, then claim God is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
-
"Personal attacks are the last stage of someone who is unable to articulate their beliefs. It's in coherent for a trinitarian to claim God is a trinity, then claim God is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. "
In my view, what is incoherent is the profession of someone that they have understanding of the trinity doctrine, and then state the erroneous following:
"God is a trinity, then claim God is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit."
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed co-equal, co-eternal, and have the same nature, attributes, or essence. But God, Himself, is not claimed in any manner within trinity doctrine as existing alongside the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
-
Below are two trinitarians with two opposing views:
One, @C Mc writes "Jesus is God." It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
While @Pages writes The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed co-equal, co-eternal, and have the same nature, attributes, or essence. But God, Himself, is not claimed in any manner within trinity doctrine as existing alongside the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
However Jesus Christ states "So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. (John 17:5) and "God is Spirit" @ (John 4:24).
Jesus never claimed to be Co-equal to God but admits "The Father is Greater than I am" (John 14:28) Therefore, the trinity doctrine is sham, leading its' prey away from Christ. (Matthew 16:16) Neither Jesus or Christ is ever mentioned in a trinity doctrine.
-
"Below are two trinitarians with two opposing views:"
There is no conflicting, or opposing view, between the two examples provided. Just an opinion of yours that there is conflict; which, in itself, is a misunderstanding on your part.
Neither quote makes Jesus, God per se in entirety; neither the Father, nor Son, nor Spirit, exhaust all that there is of the Being of God. In other words, your previous assertion, "God is a trinity, then claim God is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit." is in error; not only, in regard to actual trinity doctrine, but also by stating there is God who is existing along with the Father, Son, and Spirit – expanding the trinity into a quartet.
"However Jesus Christ states "So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was. (John 17:5) and "God is Spirit" @ (John 4:24)."
So what, how is "God is Spirit" relevant to your position?
"Jesus never claimed to be Co-equal to God but admits "The Father is Greater than I am" (John 14:28)"
This has been addressed in other posts throughout this forum.
"Therefore, the trinity doctrine is sham, leading its' prey away from Christ. (Matthew 16:16) Neither Jesus or Christ is ever mentioned in a trinity doctrine."
Certainly, welcome to your opinion on this.
-
Duplicate – ignore.
-
And around and round we go... that is what the number 666 means. Each snake chases its' own tail in the pagam doctrine.
"God is a trinity, then claim God is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit."
Claiming this is in error is correct for I was quoting the OP's claim of a made up trinity that opposes your veiw
One, @C Mc writes "Jesus is God." It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
While @Pages writes The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are indeed co-equal, co-eternal, and have the same nature, attributes, or essence. But God, Himself, is not claimed in any manner within trinity doctrine as existing alongside the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
So we see by @Pages quote he admits
in regard to actual trinity doctrine, but also by stating there is God who is existing along with the Father, Son, and Spirit – expanding the trinity into a quartet.
Give me a third trinitarian and you will get another contraction of the trinity. Anyways, the doctrine itself bears witness against itself. Saying:
The Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father, neither is the Holy Spirt, the Father nor the Son.
-
"God is a trinity, then claim God is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit."
"Claiming this is in error is correct for I was quoting the OP's claim of a made up trinity that opposes your veiw"
No claim was made as to the veracity of @C Mc statement's; as previously recommended many times now, post to @C Mc and discuss your difference.
See my response in this thread.
"Anyways, the doctrine itself bears witness against itself. Saying: The Father is not the Son, nor is the Son the Father, neither is the Holy Spirt, the Father nor the Son." (emphasis mine)
I'd like to read a more detailed explanation from you as to why the bolded portion "bears witness" against this doctrine you disagree with.
-
@Pages - I'd like to read a more detailed explanation from you as to why the bolded portion "bears witness" against this doctrine you disagree with.
Instead of hiding what trinity you believe in, why don't you just post the doctrine? It's Obvious the quote below is not in ANY TRINITY DOCTRINE.
@C Mc writes "Jesus is God." It's in plain sight from Genesis to Revelation. Jesus is Co-equal, Co-creator, and Co-eternal with the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
Trinitarians have this habit of referring to Jesus
Christ. See that? No mention of Jesus as the Messiah or the Christ. Why is that? Because Jesus Christ is NOT in any trinity doctrine.When you post your trinity doctrine that you claim to believe in, I will be happy to show the part of the trinity doctrine that "bears witness" against itself.
-
"No mention of Jesus as the Messiah or the Christ. Why is that? Because Jesus Christ is NOT in any trinity doctrine."
I find 255 hits for Christ amongst the Creeds – below is a small sampling.
- "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth And in Jesus Christ," (Historic Creeds and Confessions (electronic ed.). (1997). Lexham Press.)
- "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man" (Historic Creeds and Confessions (electronic ed.). (1997). Lexham Press.)
- "For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man." (Historic Creeds and Confessions (electronic ed.). (1997). Lexham Press.)
- "Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ." (Historic Creeds and Confessions (electronic ed.). (1997). Lexham Press.)
"When you post your trinity doctrine that you claim to believe in, I will be happy to show the part of the trinity doctrine that "bears witness" against itself."
I will be looking forward to your explanation for the above as promised.
-
"No mention of Jesus as the Messiah or the Christ. Why is that? Because Jesus Christ is NOT in any trinity doctrine."
@Pages- I find 255 hits for Christ amongst the Creeds – below is a small sampling.
@Brother Rando I did not ask for for a small sampling amongst Creeds. I specifically stated:
"When you post your trinity doctrine that you claim to believe in, I will be happy to show the part of the trinity doctrine that "bears witness" against itself."
Evidently you don't believe in your trinity doctrine. I thought it would something you would be proud of, in wanting to share this Uninspired doctrine. What are you hiding and running from?
-
"I did not ask for for a small sampling amongst Creeds. I specifically stated:"
"When you post your trinity doctrine that you claim to believe in, I will be happy to show the part of the trinity doctrine that "bears witness" against itself.""
I'm curious, you didn't read anything remotely trinitarian at all within those sample Creedal statements?
-
@Brother Rando "When you post your trinity doctrine that you claim to believe in, I will be happy to show the part of the trinity doctrine that "bears witness" against itself.""
@Pages I'm curious, you didn't read anything remotely trinitarian at all within those sample Creedal statements?
You can solve this with Posting the trinity you personally believe in. Show the "Christian Debate Forum" which trinity doctrine is your god since you learned it.
For all I know this could be the trinity you worship.
-
With respect to your rhetoric in the last two posts where the use of Christ and trinity doctrine was amazingly brushed aside because it was from Creedal statements I'll say this: Creeds are simply statements of Christian beliefs and in this respect they are exemplary and formulary of Christian doctrine – specifically, trinity doctrine.
From the mid 16th century Belgic Confession many centuries removed from the far earlier samples provided. I'll emphasize the highlights of the document in bold for you and others. Enjoy!
ARTICLE X
Jesus Christ Is True and Eternal God
"We believe that Jesus Christ according to His divine nature is the only begotten Son of God, begotten from eternity, not made, nor created (for then He would be a creature), but co-essential and co-eternal with the Father, the very image of his substance and the effulgence of his glory, equal unto Him in all things. He is the Son of God, not only from the time that He assumed our nature but from all eternity, as these testimonies, when compared together, teach us. Moses says that God created the world; and St. John says that all things were made by that Word which he calls God. The apostle says that God made the world by His Son; likewise, that God created all things by Jesus Christ. Therefore it must needs follow that He who is called God, the Word, the Son, and Jesus Christ, did exist at that time when all things were created by Him. Therefore the prophet Micah says: His goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. And the apostle: He hath neither beginning of days nor end of life. He therefore is that true, eternal, and almighty God whom we invoke, worship, and serve." (Historic Creeds and Confessions (electronic ed.). (1997). Lexham Press.)
-
@Pages - With respect to your rhetoric in the last two posts where the use of Christ and trinity doctrine was amazingly brushed aside because it was from Creedal statements I'll say this: Creeds are simply statements of Christian beliefs and in this respect they are exemplary and formulary of Christian doctrine – specifically, trinity doctrine.
What trinity doctrine? You never listed the trinity doctrine you claim to believe and worship?
- Now for the fifth time SHOW YOUR TRINITY DOCTRINE.
