The Hidden Treasure of John 1:1
Comments
-
You're mixing two scriptures together. I agree that "In the beginning..." the Word already was according to Genesis 1:1. Why? Because the Word and all the sons of God already existed before the world was.
"I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. So now, Father, glorify me at your side with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was." (John 17:4-5)
However Genesis 1:1 is certainly not the beginning of all creation since the earth existed before the Six Creative Days began. "Now the earth was formless and desolate,* and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep,*b and God’s active force*c was moving about over the surface of the waters." (Genesis 1:2)
"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." (John 1:3) Here are just a few supporting scriptures.
- I was ⌊beside⌋r him, a master workman, and I was delighting day by day, rejoicing before him ⌊always⌋, Proverbs 8:30
- Yahweh created me, the first of his ways, before his acts ⌊of old⌋. Proverbs 8:22
- From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth. Proverbs 8:23
Notice the other translations?
I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
I was appointed in ages past, at the very first, before the earth began.
Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
From everlasting I was established, from the beginning, before the earth began.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
I have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
Now...notice the cross references?
Therefore, John 1:1 is the beginning of creation, before the world was. "In the beginning was the Word"
-
You're mixing two scriptures together.
Which two scriptures? Only Jn. 1:1 was cited in your example provided below.
"Arkhe' refers to "the beginning" as in archangel...."
"Arkhe' refers to the beginning..."
"Archangel is derived from arkhe'"
"Most importantly "the beginning" was referred to the Word. "In the beginning was the Word," (John 1:1)"
I agree that "In the beginning..." the Word already was according to Genesis 1:1.
Did you mean to write "the Word already was according to" John 1:1?
However Genesis 1:1 is certainly not the beginning of all creation since the earth existed before the Six Creative Days began.
I take "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) as an opening summary statement which presupposes God's existence, and Him being the creator of the universe and all therein. Gen.1:2 and following narrate God's creation activity over a period of six days. We disagree on this, but your view is a possible alternative.
"All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence." (John 1:3) Here are just a few supporting scriptures.
I was ⌊beside⌋ him,, and I was delighting day by day, rejoicing before him ⌊always⌋,
Yahweh created me, of his ways, before his acts ⌊of old⌋.
From ancient times I was installed, From, from times
Yes, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." The Word mediated creation and as I have stated previously this excludes the Word from having been made.
The first part is positive "...all things were made;" the second part is negative "...nothing was made that has been made.". This covers anything and everything that has ever been made.
Jn. 1:4 goes on to say "In him was life," which is not said of either wisdom or Michael. So, the Word is neither wisdom, nor Michael.
I believe you have always been very vocal with regard to seeing wisdom (Prov. 8:22) as a created being (a view I disagree with) instead of a personification of God's true wisdom.
I also believe it is your desire to then link somehow the created wisdom and Michael together via your word study of ἀρχή to then become the Word of Jn. 1:1, 14. If I haven't stated this according to you belief, I apologize.
Moving on in Proverbs:
The opening of Proverbs states the purpose of this book is to gain, or acquire, wisdom and the value of doing so (Prov. 1:2) see also (Prov. 4:7, 9:10).
I will say regarding chapter 8 that wisdom is an inherent attribute of God meaning that wisdom itself is eternal, and what we have described within this chapter is God's exercise of His wisdom in creation via personification.
If wisdom is a created being, who then is prudence with whom wisdom dwells? (Prov. 8:12)
Therefore, John 1:1 is the beginning of creation, before the world was. "In the beginning was the Word"
In expressing the above "...is the beginning of creation, before the world was." are you saying the first clause is referring to a specific point prior to creation? Or something else?
"In the beginning" certainly brings to mind the opening of Genesis and the act of creation; but, Jn. 1:1 goes well beyond that regarding what is said of the Word's existence and essence before we read Jn. 1:3, 10.
I agree with you that the Word pre-existed creation, that certainly has never been an issue between us; however, we part company at that point because I believe the Word to be eternal – never a point where He was not.
What has been missed in your above argument I addressed in my previous comment "it [John 1:1] states that whatever temporal or supra-temporal frame one gives to "In the beginning..." the Word already was."
I believe you have failed to grasp the significance of my comment above. And that is, whatever measurement of time or measurement of that prior to created time you give to "the beginning" the Word already was.
The imperfect ἦν (was) is an absolute sense here. This means, "the beginning" is an eternal proposition – the Word always was anywhere along that line no matter how far back you wish to push "the beginning" to. This also applies to ἦν in clause 2 and 3.
I'm sure we will talk more about these things.
-
@Pages The imperfect ἦν (was) is an absolute sense here. This means, "the beginning" is an eternal proposition – the Word always was anywhere along that line no matter how far back you wish to push "the beginning" to. This also applies to ἦν in clause 2 and 3.
No, (was) is not absolute because ἦν is imperfect. To Claim the Word is God is not what the scripture states. If (was) was perfect, there would be no need for three clauses. It would simply read, "In the beginning was God."
But it doesn't. Why? Because God has No Beginning, he is Eternal. Therefore, "In the beginning was God" would be a fraudulent verse. In the beginning refers to Creation.
- The Word was in the beginning with God and was a god (1:1, 2)
- The Word was used by God to create all other things (1:3a)
- Life and light came into existence by means of the Word (1:3b-5)
The Greek word used for beginning is arche' a feminine noun that points to Creation as it is brought forth or came into existence.
@Pages I read of the Word creating all things in Jn. 1:3 and specifically "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." which excludes the Word himself from having been made.
The word creation or creating is not in this verse. The Greek word used is γίνομαι. In English translated ginomai.
Strong's Concordance
ginomai: to come into being, to happen, to become
Original Word: γίνομαι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ginomai
Phonetic Spelling: (ghin'-om-ahee)
Definition: to come into being, to happen, to become
Usage: I come into being, am born, become, come about, happen.
@Pages "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." which excludes the Word himself from having been made.
Of course, I agree. Jesus never created himself. Jesus was brought forth by Someone who already existed. Jesus is called the Master Workman in Proverbs 8:30. Jesus is also called the beginning as you alluded too.
@Pages So Jesus is the only one who can rightly be called “the firstborn of all creation.” (Col 1:15)
Col. 1:15 does not state that Jesus is the first-created (πρωτόκτιστος) of all creation. Firstborn (πρωτότοκος) in the context of Col.1:15-18 is a status of supremacy (Col. 1:18) where both ἀρχή and πρωτότοκος are used together "he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, ...".
I agree. “The firstborn of all creation.” (Col 1:15) is just that. Then in Jn. 1:3 and specifically "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
(Col. 1:18) states that Jesus IS the beginning referring back to (Col. 1:15) then adds and the firstborn from among the dead. Notice Paul doesn't use the imperfect ἦν (was) but IS drawing an eternal proposition of when he became the the firstborn from among the dead. This is when the Father gave immortality to his son by resurrecting him to eternal life.
"For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself." (John 5:26)
Notice how Hebrews 1:6 reads: "But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” So obviously Jesus is not dead yet. So Firstborn here mean Firstborn of All Creation. Firstborn can also be rendered FirstBegotten.
If Jesus was Begotten then Someone who already existed would need to beget him...
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
-
Here's proof that angels are elohim (gods)
And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “And let all the angels of God worship him. (Hebrews 1:6)
Let all who serve an image be ashamed, those who boast about idols. Worship him, all you gods אֱלֹהִֽים (Psalm 97:7)
-
No, (was) is not absolute because ἦν is imperfect.
Does John give definition to "In the beginning" in Jn. 1:1-2? In other words, does he say which beginning, what beginning, a time reference for this beginning, or origination of this beginning, etc., in these two verses? For these are the only two occasions in chapter 1 where this phrase is used.
John does not do so, thereby making Ἐν ἀρχῇ unrestricted in its entirety allowing for the imperfect and active ἦν to be applicable at any point in time as we know it, or outside time as we can only imagine it. Hence, the absolute sense is given to ἦν in its continuous state.
Perhaps an illustration will help: imagine a straight horizontal line that is infinite – no start or end – and take the prepositional phrase "In the beginning" and place it anywhere you wish on that line, move it around all you want; no matter where "In the beginning" lands the "ἦν ὁ λόγος" is still true and valid.
John has told his readers of the eternal existence of the Word; not once, but twice in the first two verses (Jn. 1:1-2).
To Claim the Word is God is not what the scripture states. If (was) was perfect, there would be no need for three clauses. It would simply read, "In the beginning was God."
But it doesn't. Why? Because God has No Beginning, he is Eternal. Therefore, "In the beginning was God" would be a fraudulent verse. In the beginning refers to Creation.
The Word was in the beginning with God and was a god (1:1, 2)
The Word was used by God to create all other things (1:3a)
Life and light came into existence by means of the Word (1:3b-5)
The Greek word used for beginning is arche' a feminine noun that points to Creation as it is brought forth or came into existence.
See my reply above.
The word creation or creating is not in this verse. The Greek word used is γίνομαι. In English translated ginomai.
Yes, ἐγένετο is used twice and γέγονεν is used once in Jn. 1:3 which contextually carries the Word's act of creating.
"2. to come into existence, be made, be created, be manufactured, be performed
a. gener. ὃ γέγονεν J 1:3c (s. ref. to Vawter, below); w. διά τινος vs. 3a"
(BDAG, s.v. “γίνομαι,” 197.)
May I suggest that even you understand it in that sense: your own words from above – "The Word was used by God to create all other things (1:3a)".
Though I must say not even the NWT is bold enough to insert "other" into "all things" here in Jn. 1:3; which, by the way, you quoted correctly in your first post top of the page.
Of course, I agree. Jesus never created himself. Jesus was brought forth by Someone who already existed. Jesus is called the Master Workman in Proverbs 8:30. Jesus is also called the beginning as you alluded too.
Already addressed – see my opening reply.
Since Proverbs has resurfaced in your response "Jesus is called the Master Workman in Proverbs 8:30."; I will say the following:
If Prov. 8 is to be taken where wisdom is a literal created person, I'll then ask this question again – If wisdom is a created being, who then is this prudence with whom wisdom dwells? (Prov. 8:12)
I agree. “The firstborn of all creation.” (Col 1:15) is just that.
You agree with what? That Jesus is the first-created being? Or that Jesus, as I argued, is preeminent and holds a supremacy over all creation?
(Col. 1:18) states that Jesus IS the beginning referring back to (Col. 1:15) then adds and the firstborn from among the dead.
Notice Paul doesn't use the imperfect ἦν (was) but IS drawing an eternal proposition of when he became the the firstborn from among the dead.
This is when the Father gave immortality to his son by resurrecting him to eternal life.
You are correct that ἦν is not to be found in Col. 1:15-18; however, there is an issue with "eternal proposition" as you've used it here. Where I have used "eternal proposition" in this discussion regarding "In the beginning" with the imperfect ἦν (Jn. 1:1) it is truly with the meaning of no point of origin – eternal, always was always will be.
Eternal life, in scripture, and as you have described "This is when the Father gave immortality to his son by resurrecting him to eternal life." perhaps would be better thought of as everlasting life, or life forevermore; because, eternal in its fullest sense is always was which created creatures have never enjoyed.
"For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself." (John 5:26)
It seems you think "life in himself" in this verse is endorsing your view of "This is when the Father gave immortality to his son by resurrecting him to eternal life." which I differ with for a number of reasons.
"Life in himself" is an attribute of God, and only God. This phrase is descriptive of God's own eternal being and of His creative power to give and sustain life. It is also an attribute of the Son which John initially remarks upon in Jn. 1:4 – "In him was life" (ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν) where once again the imperfect ἦν is used – the absolute sense to be taken here as well.
Only God is eternal in the fullest sense having no point of origin and no point of ending. And as you know, I include the Word as sharing this uncreated status (Jn. 1:1-2, 4).
Notice how Hebrews 1:6 reads: "But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.” So obviously Jesus is not dead yet. So Firstborn here mean Firstborn of All Creation.
You really wish to connect "firstborn" πρωτότοκος with first-created don't you. There is a perfectly good word for first-created as I mentioned previously (πρωτόκτιστος). I'll say it again, "firstborn" carries a sense of special status, it is not a synonym for the word created (cf. Psa. 89:27).
Regarding your beliefs about Michael, while we're here in Hebrews, I want to mention this adjacent text "For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? (Heb. 1:5).
Whatever their heavenly status may be, all angels are in view here – they may corporately be called "sons of God" – but no angel is given the unique individual status of being called the "Son" by God. This prohibits the angel Michael from being the "Son".
Firstborn can also be rendered FirstBegotten.
Rev. 1:5 in the KJV does render πρωτότοκος as "first begotten"; however, the meaning and sense of πρωτότοκος is unchanged "the firstborn from the dead".
If Jesus was Begotten then Someone who already existed would need to beget him...
Somehow... I don't think you are speaking about Matt. 1:18-22; Lk. 1:26-35; Jn. 1:14 are you.
-
@Pages Whatever their heavenly status may be, all angels are in view here – they may corporately be called "sons of God" – but no angel is given the unique individual status of being called the "Son" by God. This prohibits the angel Michael from being the "Son".
Interesting, but Jesus is also referred to a son, a child, a master workman.
Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. (Hebrews 5:8)
For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. (Isaiah 9:6)
I was ⌊beside⌋r him, a master workman, and I was delighting day by day, rejoicing before him ⌊always⌋, (Proverbs 8:30)
Now let's insert the dogma that God is a son, a child, or a master workman.
Although he was
a sonGod, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. (Hebrews 5:8)- God doesn't learn obedience nor is he tested with evil. "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone." (James 1:13)
- Even if you changed a child into the child or a son into the son or even a master workman into the master workman, it simply doesn't change Mighty God into Almighty God
- Jesus can rightly be called the Word of God for he is God's Chief Messenger. CHIEF MESSENGER comes from the Word Archangel.
- Arch which means 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").
- Angel which means 32 ággelos – properly, a messenger or delegate – either human (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:24, 9:52; Gal 4:14; Js 2:25) or heavenly (a celestial angel); someone sent (by God) to proclaim His message.
The Apostle Paul asks a rhetorical question which he later answers himself. "So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” (Hebrews 5:5)
- God has completely fulfilled it to us, their children, by resurrecting Jesus; just as it is written in the second psalm: ‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’ Acts 13:33
- Jesus said to her: “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life; (John 11:25)
- “During that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. (Daniel 12:1)
- And many of those asleep in the dust of the earth will wake up, some to everlasting life and others to reproach and to everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2) (Ummmmm... sounds like a resurrection to me)
Jesus was begotten twice, which means he was firstborn twice.
- He is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of All Creation;
- - and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the Firstborn from the Dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”
Strong's Concordance
prototokos: first-born
Original Word: πρωτότοκος, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: prototokos
Phonetic Spelling: (pro-tot-ok'-os)
Definition: first-born
Usage: first-born, eldest.
the Firstborn of All Creation
4416 prōtótokos (from 4413 /prṓtos, "first, pre-eminent" and 5088 /tíktō, "bring forth") – properly, first in time (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); hence, pre-eminent (Col 1:15; Rev 1:5).
the Firstborn from the Dead
4416 /prōtótokos ("firstly") specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification, i.e. at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is "preeminent" (4416 /prōtótokos) – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16).
[4416 (prōtótokos) refers to "the first among others (who follow)" – as with the preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life (Jn 5:26).
“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)
Since Jehovah created for himself a Son, you can render him the only begotten god. "No man has seen God theon at any time; the only-begotten god theos who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him." (John 1:18)
Most translations either removed begotten or god because if the reader saw read the only-begotten god, that would give evidence he is the beginning of creation.
- "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1)
- "And again, when he brings in the firstbegotten into the world" (Hebrews1:6 Kjv)
“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,” (Rev 1:5 KJV)
-
@Pages Whatever their heavenly status may be, all angels are in view here – they may corporately be called "sons of God" – but no angel is given the unique individual status of being called the "Son" by God. This prohibits the angel Michael from being the "Son".
What about these titles? (In Bold)
- For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6)
- During that time Michael the great prince will stand up, who is standing in behalf of your people. (Daniel 12:1)
- And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. (Rev 1:5)
- I was ⌊beside⌋ him, a master workman, (Proverbs 8:30)
- Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. (Hebrews 5:8)
- When the morning stars And all the sons of God began shouting in applause? (Job 38:7)
- I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star. (Rev 22:16)
@Pages but no angel is given the unique individual status of being called the "Son" by God. This prohibits the angel Michael from being the "Son".
So you are claiming that one of the sons of God cannot be called "son"? Well, you could apply that to Jesus also? Is there a scripture that calls Jesus "Son"? I see scriptures calling him "a son" and "the Son of God" but I don't recall any scripture apply "son" to anyone?
Then again, what about the only begotten god? God is not begotten because he had no beginning, God always existed and is eternal. How is it that John knew that Jesus was the only begotten god? Because he knew Jesus was a god??
If sons are gods then why can't Jesus be called "a god"? Notice the arrangement that John uses.
- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (John 1:1)
- So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth. (John 1:14)
- 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)
“For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,” (Acts 27:23) If angels bother you, why not interchange the angel with the son? But if this angel doesn't pardon your transgression, what do you think will happen to you? (Exodus 23:20-21)
- “For there stood by me this night the son of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,” (Acts 27:23)
Post edited by Brother Rando on -
Responses from your first post:
Interesting, but Jesus is also referred to a son, a child, a master workman.
Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. (Hebrews 5:8)
For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. (Isaiah 9:6)
I was ⌊beside⌋r him, a master workman, and I was delighting day by day, rejoicing before him ⌊always⌋, (Proverbs 8:30)
Now let's insert the dogma that God is a son, a child, or a master workman.
Although he was a son God, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. (Hebrews 5:8)
God doesn't learn obedience nor is he tested with evil. "When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried, nor does he himself try anyone." (James 1:13)
Even if you changed a child into the child or a son into the son or even a master workman into the master workman, it simply doesn't change Mighty God into Almighty God
Jesus can rightly be called the Word of God for he is God's Chief Messenger. CHIEF MESSENGER comes from the Word Archangel.
Arch which means 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").
Angel which means 32 ággelos – properly, a messenger or delegate – either human (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:24, 9:52; Gal 4:14; Js 2:25) or heavenly (a celestial angel); someone sent (by God) to proclaim His message.
Responses from your second post:
What about these titles? (In Bold)
For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6)
During that time Michael the great prince will stand up, who is standing in behalf of your people. (Daniel 12:1)
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. (Rev 1:5)
I was ⌊beside⌋ him, a master workman, (Proverbs 8:30)
Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered. (Hebrews 5:8)
When the morning stars And all the sons of God began shouting in applause? (Job 38:7)
I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star. (Rev 22:16)
So you are claiming that one of the sons of God cannot be called "son"? Well, you could apply that to Jesus also? Is there a scripture that calls Jesus "Son"? I see scriptures calling him "a son" and "the Son of God" but I don't recall any scripture apply "son" to anyone?
Then again, what about the only begotten god? God is not begotten because he had no beginning, God always existed and is eternal. How is it that John knew that Jesus was the only begotten god? Because he knew Jesus was a god??
If sons are gods then why can't Jesus be called "a god"? Notice the arrangement that John uses.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (John 1:1)
So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth. (John 1:14)
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)
The Apostle Paul asks a rhetorical question which he later answers himself. "So, too, the Christ did not glorify himself by becoming a high priest, but was glorified by the One who said to him: “You are my son; today I have become your father.” (Hebrews 5:5)
God has completely fulfilled it to us, their children, by resurrecting Jesus; just as it is written in the second psalm: ‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’ Acts 13:33
Jesus said to her: “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life; (John 11:25)
“During that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. (Daniel 12:1)
And many of those asleep in the dust of the earth will wake up, some to everlasting life and others to reproach and to everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2) (Ummmmm... sounds like a resurrection to me)
I want to first re-post what your above responses are responding to which in nearly all cases is not engaging with anything contained in what I had written. Here is what I wrote:
- Regarding your beliefs about Michael, while we're here in Hebrews, I want to mention this adjacent text "For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? (Heb. 1:5).
- Whatever their heavenly status may be, all angels are in view here – they may corporately be called "sons of God" – but no angel is given the unique individual status of being called the "Son" by God. This prohibits the angel Michael from being the "Son".
Given some of the above responses to what I wrote concerning Heb. 1:5 I can only surmise that for one) you did not fully comprehend the emphasis surrounding the italicized word and "" use – i.e. "Son" to include the preceding definite article the – thus, to be read as the "Son"; and two) by your responses a failure to recognize the significance of what is stated in that text of scripture. "For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”?
And, since Hebrews is in the discussion, I will point out that Heb. 1:3 provides additional support for the disqualification of Michael as being called the Son by God.
In particular the Son is describe as "...the exact representation of his being..." which is an ontological statement.
The ramification of this will not end favorably when you argue for the Son being a created archangel. Since the Son is ontologically "...the exact representation of his being..." (speaking of God's being) then it follows that both Father and Son are created archangels.
This applies specifically to your belief concerning Michael since it is your position that Michael is created.
Additional observations I have regarding a couple of your responses above.
"...it simply doesn't change Mighty God into Almighty God". I assume this may be in reference to what I wrote at an earlier time in this discussion, so I'll repeat it below in part:
Isa. 10:21 uses “Mighty God” in context for "the LORD, the Holy One of Israel." (Isa. 10:20) and "The Lord, the LORD Almighty, " (Isa. 10:23).
"...it simply doesn't change Mighty God into Almighty God"
My point being, it does tell us that the Almighty God, or otherwise stated "The Lord, the LORD Almighty," (Isa. 10:23) is called “Mighty God” in Isa. 10:21. Not to far distant from Isaiah's previous use in Isa. 9:6. (cf. Jer. 32:18)
I want to bring attention to the fact that YHWH who is called Almighty God is also called Mighty God; therefore, the contention regarding Mighty God in Isa.9:6 as descriptive of Jesus for being a lesser (a) god in contrast to Almighty God is not well-founded reasoning.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (John 1:1)
You probably don't recall our first discussion regarding the grammar in Jn. 1:1 – it has now been some time since we engaged in that thread.
At that point in our conversation we were considering the imperfect ἦν function and meaning, but unfortunately didn't progress very far into that area of grammar. You can find that conversation here:
Here, in this thread we have considered the use of ἦν in the first clause to a greater extent than we had previously done so.
I want to take a moment to back-track to that question I raised in the other earlier thread.
The question I asked concerned the first clause and whether λόγος could be exchanged for θεὸς without issue. In other words Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος would instead read Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ θεὸς "In the beginning was God" to which you didn't object.
It is your view that God has no beginning whereas the Word does have a point of origin prior to the creation event; and further, this Word's beginning is consider to be inherently expressed in the grammar of the first clause.
My question for you is the following:
Given God has no beginning – how, according to the above view you hold, would Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ θεὸς not then express that God has a beginning?
-
@Pages Given some of the above responses to what I wrote concerning Heb. 1:5 I can only surmise that for one) you did not fully comprehend the emphasis surrounding the italicized word and "" use – i.e. "Son" to include the preceding definite article the – thus, to be read as the "Son"; and two) by your responses a failure to recognize the significance of what is stated in that text of scripture. "For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”?
That's not what you said.... you said "Son" and I responded So you are claiming that one of the sons of God cannot be called "son"? Well, you could apply that to Jesus also? Is there a scripture that calls Jesus "Son"? I see scriptures calling him "a son" and "the Son of God" but I don't recall any scripture apply "son" to anyone?
Now if you would like to include the preceding definite article the that's fine. “For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,” (Acts 27:23) If the angel of God bothers you, why not interchange the angel with the son? But if this angel doesn't pardon your transgression, what do you think will happen to you? (Exodus 23:20-21)
- “For there stood by me this night the son of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,” (Acts 27:23)
- Paul points to this angel as (I am) [ἐγώ] egō εἰμι,eimi. (Acts 27:23)
- Paul also directs attention to the angel as the spiritual Rock that followed them and uses ἦν ēn (was) Christ. (1 Cor 10:4) and (Exodus 23:20-21) https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/10-4.htm#:~:text=1510%C2%A0%5Be,Christ%0AN%2DNMS
But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.” (Jude 1:9)
- Since there is only one archangel, he is unique and one of a kind. Notice the definition lines up to the beginning. Jesus can rightly be called the Word of God for he is God's Chief Messenger. CHIEF MESSENGER comes from the Word Archangel.
- Arch which means 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").
- Angel which means 32 ággelos – properly, a messenger or delegate – either human (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:24, 9:52; Gal 4:14; Js 2:25) or heavenly (a celestial angel); someone sent (by God) to proclaim His message.
The Word of God has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent"). "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1) "and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) "I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star." (Rev 22:16)
- "In the beginning was the bright morning star"
- "The Firstborn of All Creation"
Strong's Concordance
ktisis: creation (the act or the product)
Original Word: κτίσις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: ktisis
Phonetic Spelling: (ktis'-is)
Definition: creation (the act or the product)
Usage: (often of the founding of a city), (a) abstr: creation, (b) concr: creation, creature, institution; always of Divine work, (c) an institution, ordinance.
HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 2937 ktísis – properly, creation (creature) which is founded from nothing
-
That's not what you said.... you said "Son" and I responded So you are claiming that one of the sons of God cannot be called "son"? Well, you could apply that to Jesus also? Is there a scripture that calls Jesus "Son"? I see scriptures calling him "a son" and "the Son of God" but I don't recall any scripture apply "son" to anyone?
Now if you would like to include the preceding definite article the that's fine.
What I wrote is the following – but no angel is given the unique individual status of being called the "Son" by God. – to which, in common theological language, is easily understood as the type of language denoting the unique and only Son of God who in Heb. 1:5 God calls "my Son".
I'm certain you understand of whom I speak of when I write Son of God without a definite article. And by the way, speaking of articles, and to your question:
"Is there a scripture that calls Jesus "Son"?"
There certainly is, and it is close by – Heb. 1:2 "...he has spoken to us by Son,"
Just as I am certain of the above, I am also certain that misdirection is presently being employed whereby your hope is not having to directly and meaningfully engage the issue of Michael and Sonship with the texts of Heb. 1:3, 5;
For instance, in what manner does the following make any argument; or, how is it even to be considered to have relevance to Heb. 1:3, 5? There is no point being made.
"But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.” (Jude 1:9)"
And what is the following in relation to? What is its purpose? Where is the argument?
"The Word of God has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent"). "In the beginning was the Word" (John 1:1) "and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) "I am the root and the offspring of David and the bright morning star." (Rev 22:16)"
Those two examples from your recent post can be taken in a number of ways all of which can lead to discussions that are fragmented, non-productive, and completely unrelated to whatever subject originally was being discussed. The context to which they may refer is completely missing and seem to be nothing more than a verse taken here, one from over there, another one here, linking them together by some means, or not, and consider this meaningful discussion.
Questions I asked of you remain unanswered still.
-
@Pages What I wrote is the following – but no angel is given the unique individual status of being called the "Son" by God. – to which, in common theological language, is easily understood as the type of language denoting the unique and only Son of God who in Heb. 1:5 God calls "my Son".
I'm certain you understand of whom I speak of when I write Son of God without a definite article. And by the way, speaking of articles, and to your question:
"For to which of the angels did he ever say, “You are my son, today I have begotten you,” and again, “I will be ⌊his father⌋, and he will be ⌊my son⌋”? (Hebrews 1:6) Jesus is call my son , today I have begotten you,” and again, “I will be ⌊his father⌋, and he will be ⌊my son⌋”. This means that he was begotten a second time. Born Again but you would not know nothing about that.
- God is not begotten twice nor is God begotten once. God never came into existence. God always existed. "And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world," (Hebrews 1:6)
- "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,” (Hebrews 5:5)
1510 eimí (the basic Greek verb which expresses being, i.e. "to be") “For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,” (Acts 27:23)
Therefore, because we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. (Hebrews 4:14) And you did not despise or disdain what was a trial for you in my flesh, but you welcomed me like an angel of God, like Christ Jesus. (Galatians 4:14)
What I wrote is the following – but no angel is given the unique individual status of being called the "Son" by God. – to which, in common theological language, is easily understood as the type of language denoting the unique and only Son of God who in Heb. 1:5 God calls "my Son".
I'm certain you understand of whom I speak of when I write Son of God without a definite article. And by the way, speaking of articles, and to your question:
"Is there a scripture that calls Jesus "Son"?"
There certainly is, and it is close by – Heb. 1:2 "...he has spoken to us by Son,"
No. Hebrews 1:2 actually reads, "in these last days he has spoken to us by }a Son", whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the world," The Greek word for a Son is huios.
Strong's Concordance
huios: a son
Original Word: υἱός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: huios
Phonetic Spelling: (hwee-os')
Definition: a son
Usage: a son, descendent.
"But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.” (Jude 1:9)"
And what is the following in relation to? What is its purpose? Where is the argument?
The point is THE Archangel is the preeminent Son ahead of the rest of the Sons of God.
- Arch which means 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").
- Angel which means 32 ággelos – properly, a messenger or delegate – either human (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:24, 9:52; Gal 4:14; Js 2:25) or heavenly (a celestial angel); someone sent (by God) to proclaim His message.
- when the morning stars were singing together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7)
- Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered, (Hebrews 5:8) Some translations use 1510 eimí (the basic Greek verb which expresses being, i.e. "to be") lol...
What do you think the Word does? (a celestial angel); someone sent (by God) to proclaim His message.
- "so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me" (John 17:23)
- The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. (John 3:35)
- Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him who sent me. (John 17:6)
- However, to sit down at my right hand or at my left is not mine to give, but it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared. (Mark 10:40)
22 “Yahweh created me, the first of his ways,
before his acts ⌊of old⌋.i
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. (Proverbs 8:22-26) Looks like Firstborn of All Creation to me or should we say FROM the Beginning? I guess we can say the initial (starting) point of set up from the first. Maybe we should say firstbegotten of All CREATURES, since all the sons of God were created before the earth existed? All the sons of God existed before Abraham was. "when the morning stars were singing together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Read (Job 38:1-7)
- Arch which means 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").
- Angel which means 32 ággelos – properly, a messenger or delegate – either human (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:24, 9:52; Gal 4:14; Js 2:25) or heavenly (a celestial angel); someone sent (by God) to proclaim His message.
- when the morning stars were singing together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:7)
- Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered, (Hebrews 5:8) Some translations use 1510 eimí (the basic Greek verb which expresses being, i.e. "to be") lol... brought forth...
- And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, (Hebrews 1:6)
-
"No. Hebrews 1:2 actually reads, "in these last days he has spoken to us by }a Son", whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the world," The Greek word for a Son is huios."
English translations are smoothing out the Greek – English translations supply "a" or "his" since υἱῷ in the phrase ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ has no article. The Greek text may be read either "...in Son" or "...by Son".
Below is a note on Heb. 1:2 referencing exactly this:
- "There is, however, no exact equivalent in English (“in son” is hardly good English style)." (W. Hall Harris, eds. The NET Bible Notes. 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019), paragraph 86080.)
You can further confirm this with your own JW website Kingdom Interlinear for the reading of the Greek text.
From your previous post you had this to say:
“For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,” (Acts 27:23) If the angel of God bothers you, why not interchange the angel with the son? But if this angel doesn't pardon your transgression, what do you think will happen to you? (Exodus 23:20-21)
The above is unrelated to my comments on Heb. 1:5.
After the above unrelated reply you then followed with these two statements:
“For there stood by me this night the son of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,” (Acts 27:23)
Paul points to this angel as (I am) [ἐγώ] egō εἰμι,eimi. (Acts 27:23)
The brackets surrounding ἐγώ is informing one that there is question as to the authenticity of the word being in the original text.
Nevertheless, your contention is that the angel sent to Paul is "I AM"? Even your own denominational bible states the text as: "This night an angel of the God to whom I belong and to whom I render sacred service stood by me" (Acts 27:23 NWT)
It seems you and your own bible text are at theological odds with one another. It is clear the NWT has Paul rendering "...sacred service" to God, not an angel of God. The NWT is also clear that the service Paul gives is defined as sacred – cultic, religious, worship of God.
Moving back to your last post.
I've already addressed the issue of your confusing firstborn with first created, and beginning as being a synonym for the word created in my previous posts to you.
"The point is THE Archangel is the preeminent Son ahead of the rest of the Sons of God."
Obviously, I am in complete disagreement that any angel, or "THE Archangel" as you put it, is to be considered as the Son. As I have pointed out in my comments on Heb. 1:3, 5 – since this is still part of your ongoing response to those comments – why this is not the case and quite frankly to date you have not succeeded in proving your proposition beyond any shadow of a doubt.
In your continuation of citing Proverbs 8:22-26 as a foundation upon which you wish to base your claim that wisdom is a actual created being, the first begotten, and this wisdom is also Michael, who is also the Word, and somehow becomes Jesus, is a most unnatural interpretation of scripture.
I maintain, as before, that wisdom is an eternal attribute of God, and Prov. 8 personifies this attribute in the chapter's telling of creation. In other words, it is a narrative of God exercising His wisdom in the creation of the heavens and earth.
By the way, I've asked this question before and have yet to receive your response:
- If wisdom is a created being, who then is this prudence with whom wisdom dwells? (Prov. 8:12)
By the way, I've asked this before as well with no response:
- In your mind or in the mind of the WT Society – how should the third clause of John 1:1 have been written to express "and the Word was God." given that "a god" is considered the correct reading by you and the WT?
-
@Pages English translations are smoothing out the Greek – English translations supply "a" or "his" since υἱῷ in the phrase ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ has no article. The Greek text may be read either "...in Son" or "...by Son".
Below is a note on Heb. 1:2 referencing exactly this:
"There is, however, no exact equivalent in English (“in son” is hardly good English style)." (W. Hall Harris, eds. The NET Bible Notes. 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019), paragraph 86080.)
So... the scripture still states "a son". in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the world, (Hebrews 1:2)
Moses is called Elohim, does that make him God or a god? Remember, there is no "a" in the Hebrew language either.
@Pages It seems you and your own bible text are at theological odds with one another. It is clear the NWT has Paul rendering "...sacred service" to God, not an angel of God. The NWT is also clear that the service Paul gives is defined as sacred – cultic, religious, worship of God.
I noticed you removed the and placed an instead. Tricky, but you are misquoting once again. “For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,” (Acts 27:23) Also, Paul belongs to the angel of God that recruited him whose I am. Paul calls this angel Lord as does (Joshua 5:14) And the messenger of Jehovah saith to him, 'Why is this -- thou dost ask for My name? -- and it is Wonderful.' (Judges 13:18)
THE Messenger of Jehovah, is the angel of God, the Word of God, the Son of God. In the Greek Septuagint, Wonderful Counselor read Angel of Great Counsel.
Then the officers went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, and the latter said to them: “Why did you not bring him in?” The officers replied: “Never has any man spoken like this.” (John 7:45-46)
"Christ is the Wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:24)
When Satan tempted Jesus with evil and promised all the earthly kingdoms for one act of worship, notice what scripture Jesus quoted from Hebrew Scripture. In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” (Luke 4:8)
@Pages Obviously, I am in complete disagreement that any angel, or "THE Archangel" as you put it, is to be considered as the Son. As I have pointed out in my comments on Heb. 1:3, 5 – since this is still part of your ongoing response to those comments – why this is not the case and quite frankly to date you have not succeeded in proving your proposition beyond any shadow of a doubt.
- I don't expect you would. As I stated before, those of Christendom who claim God is preeminent don't even know what it means and then reject the meaning. It means – properly, ( sense), i.e. " (starting) point"; (figuratively)what comes and therefore is (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").
- Your claim that God is ahead of the rest ("preeminent") is due to lack of understanding. God is eternal.
“You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah, “Yes, my servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and have faith in me And understand that I am the same One. Before me no God was formed, And after me there has been none. (Isaiah 43:10)
THE Archangel is Firstborn of All Creation, the Bright Morning Star. Morning Stars are the Beginning of Creation, that's why Morning is attached to them. The Morning Stars have been fighting since the Dawn of Mankind. (Rev 12:7)
because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. (1 Thess 4:16)
Commanding Call, Archangel's Voice, God's Trumpet, and the Lord HIMSELF all have one thing in common. This is the Word of God. "Later they heard the voice of Jehovah God as he was walking in the garden about the breezy part of the day, and the man and his wife hid from the face of Jehovah God among the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:8)
Doesn't matter if you use Voice or Word, it still refers to God's Chief Messenger (Archangel). This angel is sometimes even called Jehovah because of the person he is representing.
Enjoy your evening.
-
"I noticed you removed the and placed an instead. Tricky, but you are misquoting once again. “For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,...”
There is no misquote, I quoted the text of Acts 27:23 correctly from your own NWT on the JW website. Here it is again: "This night an angel of the God to whom I belong and to whom I render sacred service stood by me" (Acts 27:23 NWT).
What I said still stands regarding the difference between what you want this verse to somehow say and what the WT has in their NWT. They place no notes that agree with your stance on this verse, even on the point of whom Paul belongs and worships.
Once again, it is clear the NWT has Paul rendering "...sacred service" to God, not an angel of God. The NWT is also clear that the service Paul gives is defined as sacred – cultic, religious, worship of God.
If you're in doubt of the WT position on "sacred service" here is their NWT study note(s):
"Acts 27:23 to whom I render sacred service: Or “whom I serve (worship). —See study note on Ac 26:7"
Below is the second NWT study note for Acts 26:7 with more detail on "sacred service" λατρεύω
"rendering him sacred service: The Greek verb la·treuʹo basically denotes serving. As used in the Scriptures, it usually refers to rendering service to God or in connection with the worship of him (Mt 4:10; Lu 2:37; 4:8; Ac 7:7; Ro 1:9; Php 3:3; 2Ti 1:3; Heb 9:14; 12:28; Re 7:15; 22:3), including service at the sanctuary or temple (Heb 8:5; 9:9; 10:2; 13:10). Thus, in some contexts the expression can also be rendered “to worship.” In a few cases, it is used in connection with false worship—rendering service to, or worshipping, created things. (Ac 7:42; Ro 1:25) Some translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures into Hebrew (referred to as J14-17 in App. C4) read “serving (worshipping) Jehovah.”
Continuing on to the secondary statement from your response above:
"...Also, Paul belongs to the angel of God that recruited him whose I am. Paul calls this angel Lord"
The WT seems to be in disagreement with this statement as well. As they recognize Paul belonging to God and offering sacred service to God alone. I am fairly certain the WT doesn't endorse angel worship.
"I don't expect you would. As I stated before, those of Christendom who claim God is preeminent don't even know what it means and then reject the meaning. It means – properly, ( sense), i.e. " (starting) point"; (figuratively)what comes and therefore is (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").
Your claim that God is ahead of the rest ("preeminent") is due to lack of understanding. God is eternal."
It is beyond me to understand how the above is in any way relevant to what it is supposedly in reply to. In fact most of your post seems to be designed to obstruct any meaningful discourse so that you escape accountability of what you write.
-
@Pages Once again, it is clear the NWT has Paul rendering "...sacred service" to God, not an angel of God. The NWT is also clear that the service Paul gives is defined as sacred – cultic, religious, worship of God.
I quoted the King James Bible which you have rejected. Which is fine because Jesus is the angel of God that recruited Saul. “For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,” (Acts 27:23)
Now which is it?
@Pages Once again, it is clear the NWT has Paul rendering "...sacred service" to God, not an angel of God. The NWT is also clear that the service Paul gives is defined as sacred – cultic, religious, worship of God.
Since Jesus is the angel of God, then Jehovah telling HIS angels to worship Jesus is a lie and a deception. "And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “And let all the angels of God worship him.” (Hebrews 1:6)
The scripture actually states, 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 NWT) Whose angels? All the angels of God are directed to be in subjection and obey him. Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." (Matthew 28:18)
Questions:
- Who is the God that told his angels to do obeisance to him. The God is Jehovah and him is Jesus Christ. Something you can never understand no matter how hard you try. God's Word has been hidden from you.
- Jesus is not God but God's Christ that was GIVEN “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." (Matthew 28:18)
"I don't expect you would. As I stated before, those of Christendom who claim God is preeminent don't even know what it means and then reject the meaning. It means – properly, ( sense), i.e. " (starting) point"; (figuratively)what comes and therefore is (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").
Your claim that God is ahead of the rest ("preeminent") is due to lack of understanding. God is eternal."
@Pages It is beyond me to understand how the above is in any way relevant to what it is supposedly in reply to. In fact most of your post seems to be designed to obstruct any meaningful discourse so that you escape accountability of what you write.
Well, it goes to your lack of understanding. You already agreed that In the beginning was directed to the Word. ("Preeminent") has to do with Creation. It means – properly, ( sense), i.e. " (starting) point"; (figuratively)what comes and therefore is (foremost), i.e. has the priority because ahead of the rest ("preeminent").
- He is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of All Creation; (Col 1:15)
- Your claim that God is the Firstborn of All Creation is a theological error.
-
Completely irrational reply misrepresenting what I've written in my posts with the end result being your evasion of interacting with a specific text's grammar and interpretation by not staying within that text to support your assertions.
You might as well reply the sky is blue and the ocean is water throwing in at the same time several unrelated verses that may have a word in common but no pertinence to the actual text under discussion and call that a sound argument for the belief you wish to propagate.
Come to think of it, the above is exactly how you engage theological discussion – in my opinion your writing does not stand up to close critical examination.
I quoted the King James Bible which you have rejected.
I didn't reject the KJV, I simply quoted the NWT, the text of the WT and the organization to which you belong; which gives an understanding of Acts 27:23 contrary to what you suppose.
I notice that you didn't offer any comment to the official WT commentary (NWT study notes) for Acts 27:23 regarding the "sacred service" that was quoted. Are you evading? Are you at odds with your WT organization? Want to pass over that you're in error?
The rest of your replies have been addressed in my previous responses to you throughout my posts. You do a great job of misrepresenting someone's writing.
I don't care to engage in theological discussions where those discussions evolve into a festival of nonsense.
-
@Pages I don't care to engage in theological discussions where those discussions evolve into a festival of nonsense.
Like I said several times before. It's your lack of understanding that causes you to walk away. You are not the only one. Many disciples of Christ left serving him due to their lack of understanding. Where one doesn't have understanding, it would take faith of which 'is not a possession of all people.' (2 Thess 3:2)
"I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who Sent me." (John 6:38) Now, if I asked you who said this? You would have no idea. Then if I pressed you, you would finally recant and say God. I would correct you politely and ask, "Did God really come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who Sent me?"
- Who SENT God?
- Why would God forsake his own will to do someone else will?
- It was Jesus that said these things, and yet you do not believe him
Acts 27:23 comes back to "In the beginning was the Word" but that is a stumbling block to you. Arche' is the rootword of archangel. The Firstborn of All CREATION. The Firstbegotten that was brought forth a second time became "Born Again" when he was firstbegotton of the Dead.
But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death. (1 Cor 15:20)
Strong's Concordance
aparché: the beginning of a sacrifice, i.e. the first fruit
Original Word: ἀπαρχή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: aparché
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ar-khay')
Definition: the beginning of a sacrifice, the first fruit
Usage: the first-fruits, the earliest crop of the year, hence also met., for example, of the earliest converts in a district; there is evidence in favor of rendering in some passages merely by: sacrifice, gift.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Origin from apo and arché
If I was to share the details of how we correctly translated (Acts 27:23) it would prove too much for you and you would positively walk away without getting the ANSWER. Those who walk away prematurely, do not go through the refining process of learning and are likely to be lost forever.
Case and point.
- So Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves." (John 6:53)
- When they heard this, many of his disciples said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?” (John 6:60)
- Because of this, many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him. (John 6:66)
The many disciples that left never got the ANSWER. Only those who stayed were given the ANSWER to what he meant. Jesus did not go chasing after his many disciples that left him that day, nor did he beg or bug them. They left him on their own accord which brings Judgement because they are unwilling to listen to him.
- I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you on the way and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Pay attention to him, and obey his voice. Do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgressions, because my name is in him. (Ex 23:20-21)
- Yes, happy are those who keep my ways. Listen to discipline and become wise, And never neglect it. Happy is the man who listens to me By coming early to my doors day by day, By waiting next to my doorposts; For the one finding me will find life, And he receives approval from Jehovah. But the one who ignores me harms himself, And those who hate me love death.” (Proverbs 8:32-36)
As the Storm Approaches, Maintain Your Focus on Jesus!—Future Kingdom Blessings -
"Like I said several times before. It's your lack of understanding that causes you to walk away."
Not at all, in a nutshell it is due to the reasons I have already expressed in my previous post; to which your reply once again demonstrates the evading of direct questions asked of you regarding Acts 27:23.
Even your discourse following the above statement is yet another continuing example of this evasion tactic.
"Arche' is the rootword of archangel."
I believe you mean to state that "Arche" is the prefix and not "the rootword" of archangel.
One, where is the specific word "archangel" found in Acts 27:23? Or for that matter Arche?
"Acts 27:23 comes back to "In the beginning was the Word" but that is a stumbling block to you. Arche' is the rootword of archangel. The Firstborn of All CREATION.
The Firstbegotten that was brought forth a second time became "Born Again" when he was firstbegotton of the Dead."
Two, so where is any of this written, not assumed, in the text of Acts 27:23?
"But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death. (1 Cor 15:20)"
And this also is suppose to answer my questions previously directed to you? Where is it specifically written of the resurrection of Jesus or firstfruits in Acts 27:23? This Acts text in question is devoid of any, and all, of the above language making those answers non-relevant.
This is simply an exercise to divert the conversation away from this specific Acts text to another area foreign to that particular text.
Further proof of this misdirection is in the fact that Acts 27:23 is the text under discussion and not the text of Jn. 6:38 (it's first and only appearance) sandwiched in your reply between two sections supposedly devoted to Acts 27:23 (see Jn. 6:38 quote below which has no relevance whatsoever to the Acts text).
""I have come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who Sent me." (John 6:38) Now, if I asked you who said this? You would have no idea. Then if I pressed you, you would finally recant and say God. I would correct you politely and ask, "Did God really come down from heaven to do, not my own will, but the will of him who Sent me?""
In this hypothetical script penned by your imagination I would not have answered as you have written in this fictional masterpiece, nor would I be ignorant of the identity of the one speaking. The answer is that Jesus himself is speaking in Jn. 6:38.
By the above scenario writing, it is absolutely clear to me that you do not have the foggiest notion of what the relationship of Father, Son, Holy Spirit within the doctrine of the trinity entails. In other words, you have simply written indefensible nonsense to distract and take up space.
"If I was to share the details of how we correctly translated (Acts 27:23) it would prove too much for you "
Well bless your heart, and quite right – most likely those details of yours will turn scripture on its head proving to be a most overwhelming experience as demonstrated throughout your posting history on this forum.
Humor and critique aside – is it at all possible for you to stay exclusively anchored within verse 23 and lay out the grammar of this particular verse as you read it?
Just you, along with your understanding of grammar, your keyboard to write, and only verse 23 – that's all. Stated another way, refrain from all copy and paste tendencies acquired, and used, as a JW missionary – focusing only on the wording of verse 23 to the exclusion of all other verses. Is this something you are willing to participate in?
-
No matter how often you try, you will never get it. Your Modalistic views corrupted your thinking. The teaching “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16) eludes you. Trinitarians and Modalists alike, deny this very scripture because it cannot be found in their man-made doctrines.
Acts 27:23 is rather easy for those untainted by pagan doctrines. An infant can see it. The same person who wrote this verse also wrote:
in turn you belong to Christ;
Christ, in turn, belongs to God.
-
"No matter how often you try, you will never get it. Your Modalistic views corrupted your thinking. The teaching “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16) eludes you. Trinitarians and Modalists alike, deny this very scripture because it cannot be found in their man-made doctrines.
Acts 27:23 is rather easy for those untainted by pagan doctrines. An infant can see it. The same person who wrote this verse also wrote: in turn you belong to Christ; Christ, in turn, belongs to God."
The above response is yet another classic example of how one avoids giving a direct answer to a direct question asked of them; even something as simple as writing "no" in response to my final question is completely foreign to this mindset.
So, I take your response to my final question to be an unstated no, I'm not willing to participate. Well, and fine.
In response to the remaining rhetoric of your post I can only say that there is considerable difference theologically between the two doctrines of modalism and trinitarianism. Also, I'm definitely not a modalist.
Your assertion regarding Matt. 16:16 is completely unfounded; and I daresay support for this will not be found in WT teachings on JW.org will it? Empty words.
If "an infant can see it" as you say, speaking of Acts 27:23, then I suppose this further explains why you are reticent to engage in that particular discussion since you are certainly not "an infant" at a keyboard.
-
@Pages Your assertion regarding Matt. 16:16 is completely unfounded; and I daresay support for this will not be found in WT teachings on JW.org will it? Empty words
Come on! Come on! Notice how this trinitarian doesn't want to even repeat the scripture, so he deletes it in his response. Much like removing
to be Christin their bibles. “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16) You will not find that scripture in any trinity doctrine. Because trinitarians don't believe Jesus is the Christ. Nor do they believe that Jesus is the Son of the living God.Like your buddy @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
Christrefuses to quote the scripture I gave him. He actually deleted this scripture from My Response. The Jews answered him: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s son.” (John 19:7)@Pages If "an infant can see it" as you say, speaking of Acts 27:23, then I suppose this further explains why you are reticent to engage in that particular discussion since you are certainly not "an infant" at a keyboard.
“Truly I say to you, unless you turn around and become as young children, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens." (Matthew 18:3)
-
Come on! Come on! Notice how this trinitarian doesn't want to even repeat the scripture, so he deletes it in his response. Much like removing
to be Christin their bibles. “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16) You will not find that scripture in any trinity doctrine. Because trinitarians don't believe Jesus is the Christ. Nor do they believe that Jesus is the Son of the living God.In my estimation the hyperlink pop-up of the text Matt. 16:16 suffices. And quite simply, how exactly does Matt. 16:16 enter the conversation on Acts 27:23?
The confession of Peter “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” is a foundational statement of the doctrine of Christ. More importantly, this doctrine of Christ exists within the doctrine of the trinity. Therefore, those assertions above are of unsustainable, and faulty, theological premise.
Like your buddy @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
Christrefuses to quote the scripture I gave him. He actually deleted this scripture from My Response. The Jews answered him: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s son.” (John 19:7)So..., speak to KS4J. What relevance do you believe this has to Acts 27:23?
"“Truly I say to you, unless you turn around and become as young children, you will by no means enter into the Kingdom of the heavens." (Matthew 18:3)"
Yes..., but Matt. 18:3 was not what you were referring to by your comment "An infant can see it." were you.
All in all, more misdirection, and hiding, from answering the questions asked of you.
-
@Pages The confession of Peter “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” is a foundational statement of the doctrine of Christ. More importantly, this doctrine of Christ exists within the doctrine of the trinity. Therefore, those assertions above are of unsustainable, and faulty, theological premise.
Care to share the trinity doctrine that states such a thing? “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” Therefore, those assertions above are of unsustainable, and faulty, theological premise.
Would love the link to research it!
-
@Brother Rando September 3 Like your buddy @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
Christrefuses to quote the scripture I gave him. He actually deleted this scripture from My Response. The Jews answered him: “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself God’s son.” (John 19:7)My apologies for not remembering when & where @Brother Rando previously quoted John 19:7 since web browser find in page shows first mention of John 19:7 in this discussion is September 3 comment by @Brother Rando (so John 19:7 in this discussion is a distraction).
Searching discussion Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ? found first mention of John 19:7 on page 13 (currently Jesus ? "Not God" ? Savior ? has 22 pages):
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus January 2021 Jewish religious leaders (Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, ...) are an enigmatic mix: two physically assisted with burial of Jesus (tomb & burial cloth), some were close to Kingdom of Heaven (Mark 12:28-34, Luke 10:25-37), those who sinned in public by bearing false witness (Matthew 9:34, Matthew 12:22-32, Mark 3:22-30, Luke 11:14-23, John 8:48-59), and Sanhedrin members who believed Jewish Rabbi Jesus cursed יהוה Lord by His Jewish deity claims so Jesus deserved to die (Matthew 26:57-68, Mark 14:53-65, Luke 22:54-71), which included greater sin (John 19:1-11) per John 19:7 (LEB) The Jews replied to him, “We have a law, and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself out to be the Son of God!” (those Jewish Sanhedrin members never believed Jesus is יהוה Lord per Luke 22:67 yet undeniably understood יהוה Son deity claim by Jesus).
Assertion by @Brother Rando 'He actually deleted this scripture from My Response.' is factually false because I cannot edit discussion comments by someone else (I can only edit my own comments for up to an hour after posting). @Brother Rando false words reminds me of Exodus 20:16 & Deuteronomy 5:20
@Pages September 3 So..., speak to KS4J. What relevance do you believe this has to Acts 27:23?
For John 19:7, please @Brother Rando comment in the discussion where a John 19:7 reply is desired.
What relevance do you, @Brother Rando, believe John 19:7 has to Acts 27:23 in this discussion ?
Which words are more important to you @Brother Rando: Holy eternal words spoken/inspired by Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God OR voluminous words published by the Watchtower Society (JW.org) ?
Many failed prophetic predictions prove the Watchtower Society (JW.org) has NEVER been the correct communication channel for Holy יהוה Lord אלהים God.
Keep Smiling 😊
-
Care to share the trinity doctrine that states such a thing? “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” Therefore, those assertions above are of unsustainable, and faulty, theological premise.
Fortunately, I didn't state that Matt. 16:16 is itself written in the doctrine of the trinity; I apologize for that misconception.
-
@Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus
ChristWhat scripture shows son - singular being an angel ?I'll let the logos software answer that:
SONS OF GOD (בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, beney ha'elohim; υἱοὶ θεοῦ, huioi theou). Angels or members of a heavenly host of beings (Gen 6; Job 1:6; 2:1; Deut 32:8; see also Job 38:7; Pss 29:1; 89:6; Dan 3:25). The “sons of God” may be members of the divine council (Pss 82:1; 89:5–7) and may be related to the Nephilim and the Rephaim.
In the New Testament, this relationship to the divine comes by adoption (Rom 8:15). Jesus calls peacemakers “sons of God” (Matt 5:9; Luke 6:35), and children of God become so through faith in the Son of God (Rom 8; Gal 3:26).
If you look at the scripture on the left...notice the link to the right. Likes like behind the scenes, the scripture on the left was supposed to read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was the Son of God."
@Pages should also read these links...
