Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider 239 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mondo1

  Kenneson,

  The text specifically says "created" and so, that in itself must rule out it speaking of the attribute, per your argument. Because the attribute is uncreated, whatever "wisdom" is there spoken of must not be that attribute. Why would the person though need to be uncreated, especially when the person says she is created? That would not make much sense! To personify an attribute merely means that your activities and characteristics show forth the attribute. It has nothing to do with length of existence.

  Mondo
• 

  Kenneson

  Wisdom's superiority over all things is due to her origin before them. A variation to your translation of "created" is "begot." Things are created; Jesus is not one of the things made. Verse 23 has wisdom existing from eternity.
• 

  Mondo1

  Kenneson,

  The word does not mean that. To verify that, I consulted BDAG, Thayer, Friberg and Liddell and Scott, none of which supply "begot." You are dealing with an a different word here, not what Proverbs 8:22 states. Prov. 8:22 uses KTIZW, you are looking for GENNAW (to beget).

  Verse 23 is not refering to "eternity," but "ancient times." For example, the New Revised Standard Version states: "Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth." To say eternity contradicts verses 22 and 24-25.

  Mondo
• 

  LittleToe

  Mondo:

  I never asked whether it would change your theology. I asked:

  If Wisdom refered to the Holy Spirit instead of the Son, how might that affect your theology?

  On the issue of created you are getting yourself in hot water. How is it possible for an uncreated attribute to become a created person? You have no less of a dilemma than the early Christians dealing with Christ being their Lord and God and having a Father, and there being only One God. Hence the concept of the Trinity was born. Prior to that it was difficult to describe adequately beyond innately knowing that Christ was their Lord and their God, and yet not the same person as the Father. Surely you agree with that innate "knowing"?

  My own thoughts progessed through the following stages:

  • There is an order of being/persons known collectively as "God", distinct from spirit angels in the manner that man is distinct from fleshly animals (1.Cor.15:39).
  • When we pray to God, Christ intercedes simultaneously from wherever and whenever all of us are - surely this speaks of some form of omnipresence?
  • Since Father, Son and Holy Spirit are evidently able to be everywhere and everywhen simultaneously inhabiting the same space and time, there must be something distinct about this order of beings/persons known as "God" that permits this activity.
  • The very nature of the words Father and Son require each other. In what sense was the Father "Father" in the distant depths before time, and yet still retained His unchangableness, if this is not so?

  And so on...

  DTTP:Most of orthodox Christianity accepts that Wisdom = Christ. Where do you get the view that Evangelicals do not?

  LT, of the "unorthodox Christian" class
• 

  Mondo1

  On the issue of created you are getting yourself in hot water. How is it possible for an uncreated attribute to become a created person? You have no less of a dilemma than the early Christians dealing with Christ being their Lord and God and having a Father, and there being only One God.

  Well this isn't what happened. A created person perfectly displayed the Wisdom of God in both his creation and in who he is, and so he was considered Wisdom as the one that personifies it. The early church had no problem, for the word "God" carries with it more than one sense, and so applying the term to Jesus outside of the "one God" was not a dilemma at all.

  There is an order of being/persons known collectively as "God", distinct from spirit angels in the manner that man is distinct from fleshly animals (1.Cor.15:39). Entirely unfounded. Your cited Scripture does not at all support such a conclusion, and in fact it is entirely unrelated. Scripture is clear in that the "one God" is not an "order" but the Father. (1Cor. 8:6)

  When we pray to God, Christ intercedes simultaneously from wherever and whenever all of us are - surely this speaks of some form of omnipresence?

  Not in the least, for with use of the Holy Spirit, this can all be done from the one place he is, which is next to God's throne.

  Since Father, Son and Holy Spirit are evidently able to be everywhere and everywhen simultaneously inhabiting the same space and time, there must be something distinct about this order of beings/persons known as "God" that permits this activity.

  Faulty question. See prior answer.

  The very nature of the words Father and Son require each other. In what sense was the Father "Father" in the distant depths before time, and yet still retained His unchangableness, if this is not so?

  By such an argument, God's nature changed for he was not always creator, for he had not always created. He was not always God for without one to be God over, he could not be God. He was always counted as Father and God within his purpose of doing these things. In his own time he carried out the actions the fulfill that portion of his purpose.

  Mondo
• 

  Kenneson

  Mondo1,

  By your reckoning, God could not be Love either because He had no one to love if He was all by Himself. How could He have Wisdom if He had no one to share His thoughts with? How could He have Power if there was no one to exercise it over? He could not be Father because He had no Son. He could not be Creator because He had no creation if alone. And He could not be God because He had no one to be God over. But what if Jesus were viewed as an eternal "creation" or generation of God, an eternal Son? Wouldn't that change all that? That there was a time when God was not God, but "became" God is a strange concept to me.

  The author below also discusses the verb qanah found in Prov. 8:22 he says that the word for created is "bara" in the creation account of Genesis and not qanah.

  http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html
• 

  Hellrider

  Mondo:

  In your reply to LT, you write:

  The early church had no problem, for the word "God" carries with it more than one sense, and so applying the term to Jesus outside of the "one God" was not a dilemma at all.

  And in your reply to me, you write:

  No, Jesus is much higher than these, but still not the Almighty.

  So, what you are saying is the following: "The word "God" carries with it more than one sense". I agree with this. There are in the Bible two previously known ways to use it: 1) The first one is in the sense the eternal God (monotheistic) and in the other,2) "god", it is is used as a title, for prophets, lawmakers and the like, much like "lord". However: You are introducing a third meaning of the word! I showed you how the meaning 2 is not the meaning of how the early church fathers used this word! You sidestepped this issue by not commenting on their statements at all! On the other hand, you are denying that the early church fathers used the meaning 1) about God. So basically, what you are saying is that there is a meaning in between 1) and 2). There is no Biblical foundation for this. The term can only be used either in the 1st sense (monotheistic) or in the 2nd sense (as just a title for some great person/prophet). When looking at what the early church fathers said (I have listed some of it, twice), theirs statements are clearly in the 1st sense.
• 

  Mondo1

  Kenneson,

  The matter of what God was not is not my argument, I was responding to that argument.

  For the Hebrew, QANAH refers to what is aquired, and one way of aquiring, the way God uses, is creation. Hence the LXX uses KTIZW. Thus, what I said is correct. The proper sense is "created," not "begot." See http://www.scripturaltruths.com/jesus/wisdom

  Mondo
• 

  Mondo1

  Hellrider,

  Entirely unfounded. The angels are called gods in a sense that is in between, and there is no reason that Jesus could not be such in between the sense of angels and God Almighty. Consulting just about any Greek lexicon points to this.

  Mondo
• 

  Hellrider

  Mondo:

  Entirely unfounded. The angels are called gods in a sense that is in between, and there is no reason that Jesus could not be such in between the sense of angels and God Almighty

  Entirely unfounded. While it is true that angels are called gods in oral traditions, this is not the case with the Bible. The word "God" appears 3930 times in the Bible. When angels are spoken of in the Bible, they are usually referred to as "men" or "people" (Genesis 18.2, Daniel 9.21, Joshua 5.13, Judges 13.6, Ezekiel 9.2,3 etc). In other places they are referred to as "holy ones", "sons of God". Only in one passage are they referred to as Gods: Psalm 82,6, but even in this passage, it is made perfectly clear that they are not "the" most high, they are "gods, sons of the most high". In the case of Jesus Christ, the story is completely different. He is referred to as "God" even in passages where the Father is not mentioned, and he is reffered to as God without the "mildening" of the phrase by the use of "son of God" (although he is called this too). There are so many differences between angels (who might not even be considered superior beings !!! - but more on the same level as humans!!!!) and Jesus Christ, that the jw-claim that he is "an angel" is pretty much an insult.