If you want to call "silly" a demonstration of the absurdity of your argument, by all means. You want to arbitrarily decide when it refers to God and when it doesn't. It doesn't fly.
Who is Jesus? Is he God?
by BelieverInJesus 396 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Hellrider
According to Barrs Biblical Words for Time, the word olam means in pertpetuity, not "eternity". Was it often used to describe God as eternal, you say? Even though it doesn`t mean "eternal" at all? Hm, I wonder, could this not be the case of other words and expressions too, such as....(see above).
No it couldn't be a case of that, because olam was the closest thing that had to eternal.This one was also good. As if the greeks only had one way to say a certain something, one word for each meaning, true linguistic reductionist positivism. You`re a funny man.
-
Kenneson
Mondo1,
You make it sound like the Father acted all alone. That is not so. If Jesus makes or creates everything that exists, how is he not likewise Maker or Creator?
-
Mondo1
What I simply said was that to call Jesus the "source" of creation would contradict what the Bible teaches of his role. The title of "creator" is never assigned to Jesus, but if we were to give it to him, it would be necessary to do so only in understanding the role he took, which was secondary, with the Father the source and originator of all.
Mondo
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Mondo1 said:
Ummm.. ever heard of olam? It referred to an unspecified period of past time, but it was often used to describe God as eternal. In Greek we would say aiwnos. [...] olam was the closest thing that had to eternal.
So, are you saying that the Hebrew word "OLAM" took on a "special theological meaning" of ETERNITY when it applied to YHWH? That's interesting, considering the fact that earlier in this thread you made these statements:
Mondo1 said:
How can you ever imagine that a linking verb has any special theological meaning? [...] None of those other things have to do with the words EGW EIMI. Two very simple, very common words. If you want to argue for a special theological meaning, the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate it. [...] They don't have "special theological meanings!" That is the very point. They have meanings. Those meanings can be made use of, but they didn't suddenly invent new and unheard of meanings.
First, what exactly do you mean when you say "special theological meanings." What is that? Who defines what a "special theological meaning" is, and when it has been used or hasn't been used?
Second, you claimed that "OLAM" takes on an additional meaning when applied to YHWH that it does not take on when applied to other people or things. Would that not be a "special theological meaning," which you claimed that Biblical words did not have?
You also claimed that the words "I AM" or "EGW EIMI" do not take on any additional meaning when applied to God or Jesus, but you DO SAY that certain other words (such as "OLAM") DO take on additional meaning when applied to YHWH.
Care to explain?
The Hebrew word "OLAM" was also used in reference to JESUS in the Old Testament:
Proverbs 8:23 (KJV): I was set up from everlasting, ["OLAM" is one of the words used here] from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Micah 5:2 (KJV): But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting ["OLAM" is one of the words used here].
So, then, the Hebrew word "OLAM" could very well take on the additional meaning of "ETERNAL EXISTENCE" when applied to JESUS in Proverbs 8:23 and Micah 5:2, just as easily as it could take on this extra meaning when it is applied to YHWH!
Care to explain that away?
And of course, the Hebrew word "OLAM" was used for normal people and things, NOT just God:
Genesis 6:4 (KJV): mighty men which were of old ["OLAM" is one of the words here], men of renown.
Genesis 49:26 (KJV): The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting ["OLAM"] hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.
Exodus 21:6 (KJV): Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through, with an awl; and he shall serve him forever ["OLAM"].
Exodus 31:16-17 (KJV): Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual ["OLAM"] covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: ["OLAM"] for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Exodus 40:15 (KJV): And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be, an everlasting ["OLAM"] priesthood throughout their generations.
Leviticus 3:17 (KJV): It shall be a perpetual ["OLAM"] statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither, fat nor blood.
Leviticus 16:31 (KJV): It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute forever ["OLAM"].
Leviticus 16:34 (KJV): And this shall be an everlasting ["OLAM"] statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all, their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.
Leviticus 23:31 (KJV): Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute forever ["OLAM"] throughout your generations in all your dwellings.
Leviticus 25:46 (KJV): And ye shall take them as an inheritance, for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever: ["OLAM"] but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor.
Deuteronomy 32:7 (KJV): Remember the days of old, ["OLAM"] consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will show thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.
Deuteronomy 33:15 (KJV): And for the chief things, of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things, of the lasting ["OLAM"] hills,
Job 22:15 (KJV): Hast thou marked the old ["OLAM"] way which wicked men have trodden?
Psalm 77:5 (KJV): I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times ["OLAM"].
Proverbs 22:28 (KJV): Remove not the ancient ["OLAM"] landmark, which thy fathers have set.
Proverbs 23:10 (KJV): Remove not the old ["OLAM"] landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:
-
UnDisfellowshipped
Mondo1 said:
What I simply said was that to call Jesus the "source" of creation would contradict what the Bible teaches of his role. The title of "creator" is never assigned to Jesus, but if we were to give it to him, it would be necessary to do so only in understanding the role he took, which was secondary, with the Father the source and originator of all.
So, there you have it, Mondo1 says that even if Jesus is the Creator, He is only a lesser Creator than The Father. That's the same argument the Watchtower uses in the "Reasoning" book, where they said that even if Jesus is God (Romans 9:5), and not just "a god," it still means that Jesus was a lesser, inferior god than Jehovah.
Trinitarians acknowledge that The Father is the Ultimate Source, but they also believe Jesus had a much, much, much larger role in creation than gravity or dirt.
In fact, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, The Father Himself gives Jesus MUCH MORE credit for creation than you do at Hebrews 1:10.
-
Mondo1
So, are you saying that the Hebrew word "OLAM" took on a "special theological meaning" of ETERNITY when it applied to YHWH? That's interesting, considering the fact that earlier in this thread you made these statements:
No, that is not what I'm saying, I'm saying olam means olam, it does not have a special theological meaning.
So, then, the Hebrew word "OLAM" could very well take on the additional meaning of "ETERNAL EXISTENCE" when applied to JESUS in Proverbs 8:23 and Micah 5:2, just as easily as it could take on this extra meaning when it is applied to YHWH!
If those words were taken in isolation, certainly, but they are not. In Proverbs 8 we have 22 and 24-26 that clarify the meaning. In Micah we have several things, the least of which is 5:4 where it speaks of "Jehovah HIS God."
And of course, the Hebrew word "OLAM" was used for normal people and things, NOT just God:
Exactly.
-
Mondo1
So, there you have it, Mondo1 says that even if Jesus is the Creator, He is only a lesser Creator than The Father. That's the same argument the Watchtower uses in the "Reasoning" book, where they said that even if Jesus is God (Romans 9:5), and not just "a god," it still means that Jesus was a lesser, inferior god than Jehovah.
This isn't a WT argument. Even Trinitarian scholars recognize that Jesus took on the role as the intermediate in creation. BDAG discusses this sufficiently, as do many others. For Romans 9:5, that would be quite true, for there is no basis in concluding that God is polypersonal. One must assume that a priori to come to the conclusion that Jesus is qeos in the same way as the Father. As the Bible does nothing to lay out a polypersonal God, there is no reason to assume that he exists in such a way.
Trinitarians acknowledge that The Father is the Ultimate Source, but they also believe Jesus had a much, much, much larger role in creation than gravity or dirt.
I would agree with that. I only took these two things as an example to show how it applies and how if these things could be included, how much more so could Jesus.
In fact, as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread, The Father Himself gives Jesus MUCH MORE credit for creation than you do at Hebrews 1:10.
Sure he does. This perfectly parallels Jesus as Wisdom and Understanding (Prov. 8:14) when in Proverbs 3:19 it says: "Jehovah by Wisdom founded the earth, by understanding he established the heavens." Albert Barnes notes: This thought, developed in Prov 8, is the first link in the chain which connects this ‘Wisdom’ with the Divine Word, the Logos of John’s Gospel."
Mondo
-
LittleToe
Mondo:
To say Jesus was the origin of creation would contradict John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2.
Your position is absurd as there is no such contradiction. Take off the blinkers and read it plainly, and by that I'm not asking you to take a Trinitarian slant (I use the NWT for your familiarities sake):
Joh. 1:1-3 "In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in [the] beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men."
The focus throughout is the Word, not the Father, to whom life is then attributed to. Given this case, that human life was "through" him, who was it who breathed into Adam's nostrils?
Col. 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him."
Setting aside the issue over the interpolated "[other]"s, the focus is Christ as creator.
Heb. 1:2 "has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things."
Hence the Son is the one whose hand is on creation, with no instance of the Father having direct contact with it whatsoever.
In fact, in none of these instances is the Father refered to as the Creator at all. Are you sure that's a function of the Father at any point, given your acceptance that Jesus is some form of God and was refered to as "Jehovah" in at least an intermediary way throughout the Old Testament?
-
Mondo1
Littletoe,
My position is 100% in line with the grammatical structure used in those texts, which demonstrates clearly that Jesus is not the source of creation, but the intermediate agent. Numerous sources testify to this. Dana and Mantey state: "Here God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the ????? as the intermediate agent." Marvin Vincent: "The preposition dia is generally used to denote the working of God through some secondary agency, as dia t?? p??f?´t??, through the prophet (Matthew 1:22, on which see note)." The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key: "The prep[osition] w[ith] the gen[itive] describes Christ as the intermediate instrument of creation (Abbott; Lightfoot)." And even Origen! "Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage [John 1:3, which uses the same grammar as Colossians 1:16] also, through the ?????, then they were not made by the ?????, but by [one] stronger and greater than He."
So don't call my position absurd, when grammatically it is explicit. You should research your arguments a bit better first. The Father is explicitly shown to be the source (1Cor. 8:6).
Mondo