i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
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
i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
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.
i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
Kenneson,
The reason that it would contradict "source" in Rev 3:14 is because God the Father is always seen as the source, while the son is only seen as the intermediate agent. That is what is in view within all of those texts. So it would be a contradiction.
i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
Strawman. I never said that it meant "eternal existence", I said it meant The Being! Can you read? It`s right there in my post. But: Yahweh calls himself The Being in this text in Exodus, and we bot agree that God has eternal existence, correct? So obviously, the term "The Being", hO WN, when used about God, must contain also the quality "eternal existence", correct? Or do Jehovahs Witnesses now believe that God aka Yahweh aka The Being is not eternal? I get confused with all these "new light"-things...
Here is the key part of what you said:
"In other words, the term "The Being" means all that is God, and so does "I am"."
You gave a meaning to "the being" and so from that I got it also meaning eternal existence. It sure seems like that is what you mean to me. Indeed God is eternal, but I don't see "the being" denoting that.
You must be confused. I allready admitted I was wrong about the wording in Exodus, and that it`s hO WN and not EGW EIMI. However, the term "I AM", EGW EIMI, is used as an introductory statement so many times in the OT that the readers and authors of the NT would automatically associate it with God himself, when coming from the mouth of a) God b)someone claiming to be God (and that would result in stoning). I don`t understand why this is so hard to understand. Also, the term (as you yourself admitted) in John 8, contains a claim of longlasting (I would say eternal) existence.Your argument is full of holes, for if it was so often used of God himself that people thought of God when it was used, that would mean that every other time somebody used it they thought the person was claiming to be God. I understand what you're saying, its just absurd.
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.
i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
There is Wisdom personified and wisdom an attribute. As the Wisdom of Proverbs 8:22 is personified and is spoken of as coming into existence, it cannot be an attribute that God possesses of which this is not true. It comes to be revealed within the New Testament that this Wisdom is in fact Jesus Christ, and so we progressively come to see that it is a person that is spoken of and who this person is. This is appropriate, for when a person personifies an attribute it is customary to identify them as that attribute.
Mondo
i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
Kenneson,
To say Jesus was the origin of creation would contradict John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2.
Mondo
i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
You said before that God was not using "I AM" as a Name in Exodus 3:14. Yet, God told Moses, "Say ... 'I AM has sent me to you.' " That is most definitely not the normal way of using "I AM." Normal people do not tell others "I AM has sent you," rather they would say "I sent you."
I didn't say that normal people use it that way, but it is also not being used as a name or a title, it is being used as a way in which he reveals himself. None of this applies to any of the other texts though for none of them use it this way. His name is given in verse 15.... oh and again, "I am" is not the best translation either.
If God was not using "I AM" as a Name in Exodus 3:14, then why did God reply to Moses' question ("What is your Name?") by saying "I AM WHO I AM" and "Tell them 'I AM has sent me'"?Again, the name is given in verse 15, the self revelation is given in verse 14.
If God was not using "I AM" as a Name in Exodus 3:14, then He would have told Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, He has sent me" OR "God has sent me" or "YHWH has sent me."Well YHWH was the name that he gave to Moses. He gave it and said "this is my name..."
It is not normal or natural to say to someone, "Say to this people, 'I AM has sent me.'"Well he didn't say "I am has sent me," literally he said "I will be has sent me." EHYEH was God's way of explaining himself. Perhaps you missed the references I provided on this. Let me requote them.
ISBE: "This has been supposed to mean 'self-existence,' and to represent God as the Absolute. Such an idea, however, would be a metaphysical abstraction, not only impossible to the time at which the name originated, but alien to the Heb[rew] mind at any time. And the imperfect 'ehyeh is more accurately tr[anslated] 'I will be what I will be,' a Sem[etic] idiom meaning, 'I will be all that is necessary as the occasion will arise... The optional reading in the ARV margin is much to be preferred: ‘I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE,’ indicating His covenant pledge to be with and for Israel in all the ages to follow."
HALOT: “I shall be who I shall prove to be”
The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary: "The meaning is obscured by the conventional translation I am who I am, which implies that God is the ground of his own existence. The Hebrew verb denotes, not abstract being, but manifestation in a definite character, or name; and its form indicates habitual manifestation in past, present, or future. Since English requires a tense, the best rendering is 'I will be as I will be.'"
But compare those verses to the following verse, where YHWH says that a the king of Babylon DOES want to be God: Isaiah 14:13 (ESV): You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.'I think you really missed the boat on this one. These are not actually words spoken, but it is language applied to express the ideas in their heart. In the case of Isaiah, the sense is merely that he will take the place of their God. Notice what Keil and Delitzsch explain: "All the foolhardy purposes of the Chaldean are finally comprehended in this, “I will make myself like the Most High;” just as the Assyrians, according to Ctesias, and the Persians, according to the Persae of Aeschylus, really called their king God, and the Sassanidae call themselves bag, Theos, upon coins and inscriptions ('eddammeh is hithpael, equivalent to 'ethdammeh, which the usual assimilation of the preformative Tav: Ges. §34, 2, b)."Also compare the following:
Ezekiel 28:9 (Revised Version): Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou art man, and not God, in the hand of him that woundeth thee.
For Ezekiel, it is not that he views himself as God as in Jehovah, but he looks at himself as elohim, a god, as we see from verse 2.
Mondo
i live in memphis.
months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.
i'm a believer in the holy bible.
Oy vey.
Mondos point is that doesn`t really say "I am has sent you", because the phrasing is hO WN , and hO WN doesn`t mean "I am", it means "the Being". When God says "I am who I am", he really says "EGW EIMI HO WN", which directly translated means "I Am the Being", not "I Am who I Am". However: This doesn`t mean that you are wrong! "I am the Being" is the direct translation of the passage, and the direct wording in greek, but that doesn`t mean that the translators made an error when the Bible was translated from greek. What is the essential meaning of "The Being"? It is existence, isn`t it? Existence in itself, for itself, by itself, and for all eternity, with no beginning, no end. This is what God is, and not even Mondo or your average jw would disagree on that. In other words, the term "The Being" means all that is God, and so does "I am". When the words EGW EIMI, "I AM" came from the mouth of God as an introductory statement in the OT, it really just means the same as "The Being". It was translated into "I AM WHAT I AM" or "I AM THAT I AM", because the translators ever since the Vulgata understood the meaning of both EGW EIMI and hO WN. The point is that the two terms mean the same thing, when God is using them. It means "I exist" (forever, by myself). What Mondo also doesn`t understand, is the claim of eternal existence by Jesus, in John 8:First of all, hO WN does not mean eternal existence. So I don't know where you got that from. Second of all, you have contradicted your argument that Jesus is quoting Exodus 3:14. Now you seem to say that he is no longer quoting it, he just means the samething. If they meant the same thing that why are they different??"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
You really amaze me, because you keep making an argument about what Jesus supposedly meant in linking to other texts, but you ***never*** deal with what Jesus actually said and the meaning of those words!
Hebrew didn`t really have any words that meant "eternity". What do you then say, when you want to say that something or someone is eternal? You create an expression, a metaphore that signifies an extremely long-term existence, construct sentences that would mean such a thing as our modern word, "eternal". The greeks were great poets, but these jws don`t understand poetry very well...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.
The Greek word "arche" found in Revelation 3:14 can also be used for those in authority, rulers. Look how that word was used in the following Verses: Luke 12:11; Luke 20:20; Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24 ; Ephesians 1:21 ; Ephesians 3:10; Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 1:16 ; Colossians 2:10 ; Colossians 2:15; Titus 3:1.I will be making a more extensive post on this soon, but your not correct. Within the NT arch is only used for rulers as a plural or as the abstract "rule." Whenever a singular "ruler" is spoken of the term used if ARCWN, as in Revelation 1:5. Otherwise, every time the singular ARCH is used within the NT, especially with a genitive as in Revelation 3:14, it always refers to the first in time or the first period of time. As BDAG says, the mean "first-created" is "linguistically probable."Also, God calls Himself the Beginning (arche) at Revelation 1:8 and 21:6.
So, Revelation 3:14 in no way PROVES that Jesus was created by God.
I don't see how you use Hebrews 1:3 to support that belief either, especially when Hebrews 1:2 said that Jesus existed BEFORE ALL AGES. And I definitely don't see how you use John 1:4.Well Hebrew 1:3 refers to Jesus literally as "the copy of God's being." Do the math. John 1:4 says, when properly punctuated, "what came to be in him was life." Hmm. Do the math there too. As for "the ages," they refer to different periods of mans existence. For example, we often read of "the age to come," and the period before the flood was "an age" and the period before the fall was "an age."
Keep in mind that Jesus was on earth as a Man when He spoke the words at John 6:57. And also about John 6:57, look at Albert Barnes' comments on John 5:26 (which is cross-referenced with 6:57 in his commentary):I think you missed the key words. "I live because of the Father." The Father is the source of Christ's life, he is not "self existent."
Jude 1:25 (ESV): to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord , be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.This was a doxology. It does not say that God received it "before all time," etc, it is a prayer. It is a statement included for emphasis.
If Jesus was the "Wisdom" personified in Proverbs Chapter 8, and IF, as non-Trinitarians claim, Jesus was created by God, then that means God had to create wisdom, and at some point in the past God was without wisdom!You are confusing the attribute of Wisdom with the person called Wisdom. So the problem is non-existent.
Mondo
i have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.
...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.
i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.
Well some have historically taken the view that Jesus is both the second person of the Trinity and Michael the archangel. But no, that is not what I am saying. The form of God seems to refer to Christ's outward appearance as God, as his agent. This is a well suited description of the Logos, but it does not mean that he was ontologically God. I can say that because that would mean that "the form of a servant" would mean that one was ontologically a servant, or that they possessed a servant's nature, though there is no such thing as the nature of a servant. A servant can be a man, it can be an angel, it can be many things. There is no nature that is servanthood... and besides, the word MORFH does not mean "nature" contrary to the claim of many, it at most implies it at times, but it does not mean it.
Mondo
for what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.
the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".
at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.
Leolaia,
Good and valid example! As I said, I'd never come across one, but I wouldn't go so far and say it didn't exist.
With that said, that would invalid the matter of a different gender, but that would not necessarily mean that Jesus would be uncreated as he is not part of TA PANTA. It is normal within Scripture to refer to all of something relative to the one spoken of out of that group, who though is a part of it. In fact, it is normal to do so outside of Scripture as well. We must determine elsewhere whether or not Jesus is included within "all creation" and I believe verse 15 to point to that.
Mondo
