Much information here. Many websites devoted to it. Here's a list.
http://www.144000.110mb.com/directory/1914_generation_jehovahs_witnesses.html
jonathan dough
JoinedPosts by jonathan dough
-
21
The "Generation." what is the latest New Light Regarding It? CO from Fresno Area Confused Me!
by AvocadoJake inthe co who is covering the central valley, mentioned how easy this concept is to understand.
in his talk, he said many of the friends had made a "big deal, over little.
he used the "titanic analogy, used the space shuttle analogy.
-
-
-
-
-
jonathan dough
Johnathan,
This is the first time you and I have corresponded on this forum, however, I do recognise the persona from another poster, also known as godrulz.
I think what did it was the use of the word "Arian" which is a term not commonly used around here.
Those who are true Christians (worship Jesus as YHWH, equal with the Father; either trinitarian or oneness/modalism, but not Arian or polytheism), let us pray and do spiritual warfare for those still deceived. Apologetics, love, prayer, support, encouragement, exposing error, defending truth, etc. can be part of our divine appointment here (as unpopular as we may become). Speak truth in love, listen, respect, glorify God. 2 Timothy 2:24-26; Rom. 1:16; I Jn. 5:11-13
I submit that you, Godrulz, are posting under a duplicate account named Johnathan Dough. Your judgemental attitude contradicts your claim to be "a new creature in Christ"
Now you're being childish and petty, although I agree that sometimes I am a bit judgmental, or come across as such. However, I could say the same of you. Criticism and arguing is not per se judgment. It's criticism. It's combat. It's not persecution, either.
No, I'm not Godrulz, he was much nicer and smarter than me, although I agree with much of what he wrote, as do billions of other Christians. It's called mainstream Christianity. That's probably the similarity you see. If I was Godrulz I wouldn't have joined him in an extensive, long-going argument with WontLeave a while back, who seems to have left the arena after having gotten what he came for. Besides, he's one of those holy-roller charismatics, and I'm not. But if you want to delude yourself into thinking I'm Godrulz, go right ahead. It won't be the first time you've been wrong.
Just for the record, just as Godrulz said somewhere else, we have an answer for everything you can throw at us. And it's not just any answer, but the correct answer. Just because we don't choose to respond to every hair-brained notion you dream up doesn't mean we can't. We simply choose not to.
I notice a pattern. People like you can't handle the heat and resort to "running off" the critics, get rid of them, get them banished, libel them by claiming they are someone they are not, you know, devil tactics; all this because your type routinely get their hats handed to them, and deep down inside you know it, and you know you're wrong.
Arianism is heresy.
You are referring to yourself in the third person, I have to ask why.
No I didn't. You're dreaming. Maybe you could provide the quote of this?
I notice a pattern. People like you can't handle the heat and resort to "running off" the critics, get rid of them, get them banished, libel them by claiming they are someone they are not, you know, devil tactics; all this because your type routinely get their hats handed to them, and deep down inside you know it, and you know you're wrong.
Johnathan,
I am not running away nor calling you names.
You're not reading things carefully, at all. I didn't say you were running away, but people like you "run off" the critics.
Johnathan,
I only know you believe in the Trintiy but so I can better understand you, please answer some questions.
What denomination do you represent?
Do you believe we pass over at death or do you think life ends at death?
Do you believe in Hell as a literal place of torment?
What is your view of the end times prophecies?
When you have the time.
And another sneaky tactic you people have is changing the issue when they get suck and paint themselves into a corner and know they can't win an argument no matter how hard they try, just like the JWs. No, I'm not going to answer your questions. I've had my fill of JWs and other nut-jobs who try to create new religions, new faiths, new false denominations, and then try to get others to follow after them. Like AGuest, who has been following along all this time thinking we haven't noticed. I thought there might be hope for you, but I'm now having second thoughts. Besides, if you can't grasp the basics of the Trinity, everything else is doomed to sail over your head.
And AGuest, don't bother getting involved with this. I read your latest post and I can tell you don't have the slightest clue what has been said or what arguments have been made. Really. That's just crazy talk. Take it down before you really embarrass yourself. You are in way over your head as well. Give us a break for a change. I quit reading your posts a long time ago. Except for this:
How, in light of Christ's words as recorded at John 8:32, 36 and John 14:6... and Paul's words... do you come up with another, separate entity from Christ... and call it/that/him "the Holy Spirit"?
Off the rails, once again. You don't understand the Trinity or the indwelling. The Holy Spirit is not regarded by trinitarians as a "separate entity" in trinitarian thought.And I'll be darned if I'm going to rewrite all I wrote in response to Factfinder for your benefit.
Read this: http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html
-
-
-
jonathan dough
You said: "However, if, as the Jehovah's Witnesses falsely teach, the preexistent Christ is a created creature only, then the Holy Spirit must also have been created and accordingly there would have been a time when there was no Holy Spirit and therefore God would have lacked power and authority and would not have been omnipotent, according to their theory. But, since the Holy Spirit is eternal, which the Jehovah's Witnesses must concede, and the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ, and this Spirit is the Holy Spirit, Christ the Word must be eternal."
I have no idea what you are talking about. JWs never said the Holy Spirit was created, they have always taught it was God's Active Force, something God has as part of his existence. JWs never said there was never a time before the Holy Spirit was created. You are confusing the issue. I see this as a straw man argument.
You just don't understand the argument. Read it again.I never said the JWs teach the Holy Spirit was created. I'm saying: that is the conclusion that must be drawn when they claim the Word was created. I say this because the Bible provides that Christ is the Spirit, and it also says God is the Spirit, and there is only one spirit. But if Christ is the Spirit and as the JWs falsly teach the Word was created, then the Spirit would also have to be created. And that in turn would mean that there was a time when God the Father had no Spirit because that same Spirit (remember, Christ is the Spirit) would have been created. And therefore there would have been a time when God had no Spirit.
I know it doesn't make sense, but that is what the JWs teach even if they don't recognize the flaw in their theology. Now, if Christ is the Spirit, and there is only one Spirit, and Christ is eternal, then the Spirit is eternal and there are no logical problems, it all fits nicely and works fine.Johnathan,
I use the Holman Christian Standard Bible
Proverbs 8:23-31
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
23 I was formed before ancient times,
from the beginning, before the earth began.Then why did you say he was made?
Johnathan,
Our Father is more female than male in attributes. The term "Father" means a title or form of address that pertains to headship.
The secret to Father's female side is within the word of Christ. Father is a jealous God and like a human female, Father has the same quality though it reveals her anger.
All things possessed by all of God's intelligent creations are attributes that have come directly from God's own internal makeup. Jesus Christ who was created by the hand of Father is personified in Her male attribute. Yet Father maintained her female side by giving birth to her only begotten Son, whom we know as the Word.
Father's wisdom is that of a woman's nature, for Father Herself is nature. All of the things you view in creation are from Father's energy. Christ used the raw energy God gave him with to create all else in existence.
Within that raw energy are the attributes of nature, the attributes of Father's divine makeup. Even the animal kingdom has Father's attributes and they experience many emotions from jealousy, excitement, happiness and anger. These things all come from the Mother of creation.
Our reality exists within our Creator who is eternal. Understand that there is no other God like our Creator in existence. Outside of God is where eternity exists.
You're nuts.
Factfinder:
a. To shape or mold (dough, for example) into a particular form. b. To arrange oneself in: Holding out his arms, the cheerleader formed a T. The acrobats formed a pyramid. c. To organize or arrange: The environmentalists formed their own party. d. To fashion, train, or develop by instruction or precept: form a child's mind. 3. To come to have; develop or acquire: form a habit. 4. To constitute or compose a usually basic element, part, or characteristic of. 5. a. To produce (a tense, for example) by inflection: form the pluperfect. b. To make (a word) by derivation or composition. a. To shape or mold something is not to create it. It is already in existence. 4. Constitute or compose is not the same as create. a. The Word is not a "tense." b. The Word is not a "word" either. You need to interpret this, like in very Bible I've found including yours, in the context of the many verses that prove the Word was not created. Even your own Bible disagrees with you because it uses "form." The Word was formed, shaped, molded, poured out, anointed. Not created. If your Bible meant "created" or "made" they would have said that.
The Trinity boils down to traditions taught by man.
Matthew 15:5-9 "But you say, 'Whoever tells his father or mother, "Whatever benefit you might have received from me is a gift [committed to the temple]"— he does not have to honor his father.' In this way, you have revoked God's word because of your tradition. Hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you when he said: These people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. They worship Me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commands of men."
Jesus revealed how hypocritical the traditionalists are.
They claim to honor Christ and God with their lips, but invalidate the truth of God's Word, so, they are worshiping Satan in reality, because their false worship is in vain.
If you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins. John 8:24
More for you. I use Bible Gateway.
Proverbs 8:23-31
The Message (MSG)
22-31 "God sovereignly made me—the first, the basic—
before he did anything else.
I was brought into being a long time ago,
well before Earth got its start.Proverbs 8:23-31
New Century Version (NCV)
23 I was created in the very beginning,
even before the world began.
24 I was born before there were oceans,
or springs overflowing with water,Proverbs 8:23-31
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
23 I was formed at the very beginning.
I was formed before the world began.
24 Before there were any oceans, I was born.
There weren't any springs of water at that time.Proverbs 8:23-31
New International Version (NIV)
23 I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.Do you get my point? I am not using the NWT.
A few obscure Bible sources doesn't make your point at all. The NWT isn't the only Bible who gets it wrong. You have a questionable rendering of one verse in Proverbs, and Christian trinitarians have a mountain of evidence to place your distortion into context. I acknowledge there are non-trinitarians out there. What you should be concerned about is how you misquoted your own bible. I'll go with the overwhelming weight of authority.
Proof texts that Jesus was, and is, God.
-
-
-
jonathan dough
Michael was then created and through him he created the invisible spiritual reality first
You're still a JW. Don't try to fool us, and you better get your act together before it is too late. You're spouting utter nonsense, Devil stuff. Jude 4-9 alone proves you wrong. Verse 4 says that there is only one master and Lord, Jesus Christ, and a few verses later at verse 9 the archangel Michael says to the devil "May the Lord rebuke you," referring to the only master and Lord, Jesus Christ. If Michael was referring to Jesus as another party, he couldn't be that party, obviously.
And here is a mess of other reasons why you and the JWs are dead wrong, heretics, blasphemers of the worst kind in teaching that the Christ is a created angel. Or that he was just a man while on earth. It is a fearful thing to fall in the hands of the living God.
Jesus Christ is not Michael the Archangel as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach.[Top]
Little known to most people is that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and teach that Jesus Christ is an angel, Michael the Archangel to be precise (Reasoning, 218; Insight, 108, 156, 393-394). They base this on Daniel 10:13, 12:1; Jude 9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; Revelation 12:7-12, 19:11-16; and John 12:31 (Reasoning, 218), but none of these verses come remotely close to overturning the context of Bible teaching or convert God the Son into an angel.
Understandably this little piece of information is downplayed, and for good reason. It’s truly mind-boggling and causes most Christians to pause and take a deep breath. Incredible as it may seem, their preincarnate Jesus was a created angel, then became nothing more than man, and after his resurrection and exaltation returned to being an angel, but a type of super angel, higher and more glorified than all the other angels (Concepts, 65-73). But they are wrong about this as well.
First, the strongest proof that Jesus was not an angel is found in the pages you just read. For all of the reasons that Jesus was, and is, God, those Scriptural truths automatically exclude Him from being an angel. To reiterate just a few, and without intentionally denigrating any angels who might be watching, the Word was eternal, but angels are created. The Word was before all things, but angels are created. The Word created all things, but that would have included Himself if He was an angel. The list is endless, and at some point, common sense must prevail here.
Secondly, and to repeat a point made earlier, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8 NWT). He cannot have been a preexistent angel who changed completely into mere flesh, and then reverted back to heaven as an angel. On the other hand, there is no such radical change in the Trinitarian Christian world where the preexistent Word was God the Son, remained God the Son during His earthly sojourn, and continued as God the Son after the resurrection and ascension. He never stopped being divine.
Third, when John fell down to worship at the feet of the angel at Revelation 22:8,9, the angel warned him not to and told him to worship God instead. Since the act of worship must only be directed to God, and God at Hebrews 1:6 said with respect to the Son, “Let all the angels worship Him” (NAB), Jesus obviously must be God. There are several other examples of people worshipping Jesus, such as His disciples prior to His ascension (Matthew 28:17 NAB) and when He restored the blind man’s vision (John 9:38 NAB).
The Greek word used for “worship” is proskuneo, and can mean “to make obeisance, do reverence to” and “is the most frequent word rendered ‘to worship’” (Strong and Vine’s, 214). Since the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God, they use “obeisance” or “homage” or “reverence” throughout the Bible when such conduct is directed to Christ. Granted, falling down to one’s knees alone might not equate to worship, and ultimately it is a matter of the heart, but who knows what the heart is feeling? With respect to New Testament worshipers, one can only determine that through circumstantial evidence and the context of the Bible.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible shows no one “worshipping” Christ; they do obeisance or pay homage, but after all that you have read thus far, do you really believe that? Can you honestly say that Jesus Christ was just an angel in light of everything He said about Himself, and other people’s testimony, and the many miracles that He performed? Of course not.
In the final analysis the Jehovah’s Witnesses have no legitimate scriptural “context” to rely on, no rational basis for their interpretation, and no justification for altering God’s word as they have done here and elsewhere. The angels were told to worship Jesus and they did, along with His disciples. And as for the blind man who regained his sight, he didn’t simply pay his respects, he dropped to the ground and worshipped Jesus as one would anticipate.
Fourth, verses 5-14 in the first chapter of Hebrews is devoted to clarifying with great specificity that the Son is not an angel, but God. Hebrews 1:1-14 (NAB) states in full:
CHAPTER 1
1 In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through prophets; 2 in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,
3 who is the refulgence of his glory,
the very imprint of his being,
and who sustains all things by his mighty word.
When he had accomplished purification from sins,
He took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 far superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.II THE SON HIGHER THAN THE ANGELS
Messianic Enthronement 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say:
“You are my son; this day I have begotten you”?
Or again:
“I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me”?
6 And again, when he leads the first born into the world, he says:
“Let all the angels of God worship him,”
7 Of the angels he says:
“he makes his angels winds and his ministers a fiery flame”;
8 but of the Son:
“Your throne, Oh God, stands forever and ever;
And a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom.9 You loved justice and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions”;
10 and:
“At the beginning, O Lord, you established the earth,
And the heavens are the works of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
and they will all grow old like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a cloak,
and like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same, and your years will have no end.13 But to which of the angels has he ever said:
“Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool”?
14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent to serve, for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
Much of chapter 1 has been dealt with in previous sections and will only be summarized briefly here. The Christ is God the Son and not an angel for the following reasons, to mention a few:
a) At Hebrew 1:3 the Son is called “the very imprint of his being.” A literal translation says that Christ is “the express image of His essence” (Green’s Literal Translation). Here, “image” (Greek charaktar) denotes that the Son is “literally equal to God,” of whose essence he is the imprint. It is the fact of complete similarity which this Word stresses” (Strong and Vine’s, 269). Clearly, Christ could not have been created and most certainly was not an angel because either way He would not be literally equal to God, but much less (see section 28).
b) Hebrews 1:4 states that the Son is “far superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” This means, among other things, that He is superior in the sense of not being an angel at all because he is in a class of His own (not created) and because at verse 6 we learn that God said, “Let all the angels of God worship him.” As explained above, it is God alone who must be worshipped.
c) This is supported by the famous verse 8 where God speaking of His Son said, “Your throne, Oh God, stands forever and ever;
And a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom”
(see section 34 for a detailed analysis).d) Speaking to the Son in the third person (self-communication within the Trinity), verse 10 is an Old Testament passage directed to God Almighty but “redirected to Jesus” (NAB notes 1, 8-12):
At the beginning, O Lord, you established the earth,
And the heavens are the works of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
and they will all grow old like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a cloak,
and like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same, and your years will have no end.
e) Verse 13 quotes Psalm 110:1 where Jehovah refers to Jesus as adonay, a title used exclusively for God.As strong as this evidence is, the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t read Hebrews 1:1-14 the same way, but believe that any implication of Christ’s superiority and distinction from the angels means only that he was higher than all the other angels, in a superior position vis-à-vis the angels, though still an angel himself; a super angel. They also teach that many of those speaking in chapter 1 were worshippers of God, not God himself. But the clear language speaks for itself.
Fifth, the Jehovah’s Witnesses attempt to shore up their reading of these verses by arguing that according to the verse following verse 4, the Son must be an angel because both angels and the Son are called Sons of God. If the Son is completely different from the angels, then angels are not Sons of God.
A Watchtower textbook, in commenting on the verse following Hebrews 1:4 (wherein the Son is distinguished from angels), says: “But the fact that Jesus Christ is here distinguished from the other angels does not mean that he is not also an angel of God; otherwise, the fact that Jesus Christ is here distinguished as the Son of God would mean that the other angels are not sons of God. Jesus Christ is here designated God’s Son, not in contrast with the angels, but in contrast with the previous prophets, by means of whom God used to speak to men. -- Heb. 1:1-3 (Concepts, 72)
As a preliminary matter, there is nothing in verses 1-3 that even remotely suggests that the inspired writer of Hebrews in chapter 1 was contrasting God the Son with Old Testament prophets. This is pure fabrication. Read it carefully, and then take a close look at verse 4 which sets the stage for all of the “contrasting” verses that follow:
1 In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through prophets; 2 in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe,
3 who is the refulgence of his glory,
the very imprint of his being,
and who sustains all things by his mighty word.
When he had accomplished purification from sins,
He took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 far superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.The superior Son is contrasted with inferior angels in verse 4 and all following verses, not prophets.
Furthermore, their logic is unsustainable. It is illogical to say that because angels are called sons of God and Jesus is the Son of God then Jesus must be an angel. That is what they are arguing, but it ignores verse 5 which makes it very clear that Jesus the Son of God is completely different from angels who are called, figuratively, sons of God.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say:
“ You are my son;This question in effect means that angels are not his sons in the same way Christ is His Son. Angels are not “His Son.”
Additionally, since the nation of Israel is also called God’s “son” at Hosea 11:1, that would make humans angelic beings as well according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ line of thought, but they aren’t. Humans (Israel) are lower than angels ( Hebrews 2:7) though called sons of God yet in a completely different sense and class, just like angels are lower than Christ who is superior, who dwells in a non-angelic class of one, as God the Son, who was and is God.
-
-
-
jonathan dough
Are you saying that Proverbs 8:23-31 is wrong?
"The LORD made me at the beginning of His creation, before His works of long ago. I was formed before ancient times, from the beginning, before the earth began. I was brought forth when there were no watery depths and no springs filled with water. I was brought forth before the mountains and hills were established, before He made the land, the fields, or the first soil on earth. I was there when He established the heavens, when He laid out the horizon on the surface of the ocean, when He placed the skies above, when the fountains of the ocean gushed forth, when He set a limit for the sea so that the waters would not violate His command, when He laid out the foundations of the earth. I was a skilled craftsman beside Him. I was His delight every day, always rejoicing before Him. I was rejoicing in His inhabited world, delighting in the human race."
This scripture clearly indicates that Christ acknowledged his maker. What more evidence is there to prove that Jesus (the man) had a prehuman existence. Even if you do not accept that Jesus (the man) and Christ (the Son of God) are the same, this scipture proves that Yahweh created the son...or whom do you suppose this to be?
You really need to get a better Bible, because it doesn't say the Lord "made" the Word, and if this is all you're hinging your arian views on, you'll lose the argument every time. And being "brought forth" is not the same as being made or created. A more accurate rendering is "From of old I was poured forth," (NAB) "when there was no depth I was brought forth." Try this again: perhaps metaphor will help. Irenaeus (d. 200 A.D.) saw the Son and Spirit’s roles as the two hands of the Father. Just as Paul says at Col 1:17: “He is before all things.” He was not created but rather “set up” or “poured out” (Hebrew Nacak) as one pours out an existing libation, or casts existing metal or anoints an existing king (Strong and Vine’s, 188).
This scipture proves that Yahweh created the son.
Not even close, and there is a mountain of evidence that proves you wrong in too many ways to list.None of these other Bibles claim the Word was "made."
New International Version (©1984)
I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
New Living Translation (©2007)
I was appointed in ages past, at the very first, before the earth began.
English Standard Version (©2001)
Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"From everlasting I was established, From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth.
King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
And before the world he was possessed by me, and from the beginning, before he would establish the Earth.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
I was appointed from everlasting from the first, before the earth began.
King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth was.
American King James Version
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
American Standard Version
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was.
Bible in Basic English
From eternal days I was given my place, from the birth of time, before the earth was.
Douay-Rheims Bible
I was set up from eternity, and of old before the earth was made.
Darby Bible Translation
I was set up from eternity, from the beginning, before the earth was.
English Revised Version
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
Webster's Bible Translation
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
World English Bible
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, before the earth existed.
Young's Literal Translation
From the age I was anointed, from the first, From former states of the earth.None say that he was "made" or "created."
I'll say it again. If the Word was before all things, he could not be a thing, and could not be created. Col. 1:16, 17. I'm not the one out on a limb on this. 2 billion Christians and 2,000 years of theology back me up. I'm not the one being radical. You seem like a smart enough fellow, why do you dig your heels in so hard? Are you afraid of church? Are you looking for a reason not to join a religion? I don't understand you arians.
Christ’s Knowledge: How much did Jesus know? If he was God, why was some of His knowledge limited? -
-
-
jonathan dough
I said: "[the mighty god being his son Jesus], who was God's first creation"
You said: "This is arianism, and another false teaching. The Word was not created, and the evidence is overwhelming."
I have not seen overwhelming evidence of any kind, but for those who aren't aware, here is the defintion of what I am being accused of...
The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from—God the Father.
I'm afraid that Arius did not invent this concept, the Bible had it first. Colossians 1:15: "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
You might think you are no longer a JW, but you still are, to the very core.
I don't know how much evidence you want or need, but I can tell that you haven't read any of what has been presented to you because I've already covered all of the issues in the material I submitted to you.
I'm afraid that Arius did not invent this concept, the Bible had it first. Colossians 1:15: "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
First, as I mentioned, Col 1:17 provides that the Word was before all things, not other things, but all things. Therefore he could not be a thing, and could not have been created.
Secondly, Col 1:15 provides two reasons why the Word was not created.
1) He was the image of the invisible God, the invisible made visible.At 2 Corinthians 4:4, the “image of God” means that Christ is “essentially and absolutely the perfect expression of the Archtype, God the Father” (Strong and Vine’s, 77).
[I]n Colossians 1:15, “the image of the invisible God “gives the additional thought suggested by the word “invisible,” that Christ is the visible representation and manifestation of God to created beings; (5c) the likeness expressed in this manifestation is involved in the essential relations in the Godhead and is therefore unique and perfect; “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” John 14:9. (ibid., 77)
Understanding "image" depends on how the concept is used elsewhere. For example:
At Hebrews 1:3 Christ is said to be “the very imprint of His (God’s) being” (NAB) (“the very stamp of his nature” (RS) (“the express image of His substance” (Strong and Vine’s, 269). The Greek word used here for image, stamp or imprint is charaktar and means an exact copy or representation, and stresses complete, not partial, similarity of essence.
(2) In the NT it is used metaphorically in Heb 1:3, of the Son of God as “the express image of His substance.” The phrase expresses the fact that the Son “is both personally distinct from, and yet literally equal to, Him of whose essence He is the imprint. The Son of God is not merely his “image” (His character), He is the “image” or impress of His substance, or essence. It is the fact of complete similarity which this word stresses. (Strong and Vine’s, 269)
Accordingly, such equality applies to His eternal existence, omnipotence and omniscient nature, as God and the Word are literally equal to each other with respect to their essential being.
2) He was the first born of all creation; not the first of creation to be born, but preeminent, above creation.
The Word, Christ, was the firstborn of all creation, but not in the sense of being created - (Colossians 1:15)[Top]
The Jehovah's Witnesses erroneously teach that “Having been created by God, Jesus is in a secondary position in time, power, and knowledge. Jesus, in his pre-human existence, was “the first-born of all creation (Col 1:15 NJB)” (Should You Believe, Chapter 6), the first created thing.
They apply “first-born” (Greek protokos) narrowly and limit it to human procreation. Like a man fathering a son, Jesus, they claim, was the first creature born, or fathered, by God; a created subordinate being and therefore not eternal.
The Jehovah's Witnesses base this argument on prior usage of the phrase “first-born (of)” in the context of then-living creatures which they claim always belonged to a group of some kind, and therefore Jesus belonged to the group of all created things. They write:
(2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures, the same meaning applies - the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; the “firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; the “firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What then causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? (Reasoning, 408) (emphasis added)
The manner in which they phrase the issue assumes Christ the Word is a creature, writing: each time the expression “first born of” occurs, in each such instance that it is applied to creatures the same meaning applies, that the first born is part of a group.” But this is a mere play on words and begs the question whether Christ was a creature in the first place? The issue, rather, revolves around the definition of “first born” or “first born of” creation and how that is applied before its use at Colossians 1:15 and afterward, whether or not it was applied to creatures.
“First born of” is not limited to a group of creatures but is used in the Old Testament figuratively for disease or plague (NAB notes Job 18:13). The “first-born of death consumes his limbs” (NAB Job 18:13).
Isaiah 14:30 illustrates the figurative use of “the firstborn of.” It states: “And the firstborn of the poor shall eat; and the needy shall lie down in safety” (Green’s Literal Translation). These verses emphasize the poorest of the poor. It does not state, nor can it be implied, that only those people who were the procreative firstborn of each family who happened to be poor would eat, and their poor siblings would starve. It does not carve out one group of first-born poor from the rest of the poor, but it identifies those hungering poor in general, the neediest of the needy.
The term “first-born” (son) (Hebrew bkowr ) was used at Exodus 4:22 to refer to all of Israel as a group, not part of a group, and that relationship was not the result of physical procreation because they already existed. Rather, it was a spiritual and religious relationship; Israel was God’s Son.
(7) Israel was God’s “first-born”; it enjoyed a privileged position and blessings over all other nations (Ex 4:22; Jer 31:19). (Strong and Vine’s, 39)
At Deuteronomy 21:16, 17 “first-born” (Hebrew bkowr) also has the meaning of superiority of position, not the first created male child.
[T]hen on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first-born, but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.
Here, the son of one wife who is not the mother of the actual first-born son should not be treated as such with respect to disposition of her husband’s inheritance (ibid.).
As you can see, “first-born” or “first-born of” is not limited to a member of a group of creatures but has broad application. According to Strong and Vine’s, “firstborn” (Greek protokos) with reference to the preexistent Christ is used “of His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used of superiority of position (cf. Ex 4:22; Deut 21:16, 17)” (ibid., 218).
(Prototokos) Firstborn is used (1) of Christ as born of the Virgin Mary (Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7), (2) of His relationship to the Father, expressing His priority to, and preeminence over, creation, not in the sense of being the first to be born. It is used of superiority of position (cf. Ex 4:22; Deut 21:16, 17). (3) Chronologically, the four passages relating to Christ as firstborn, first begotten, may be set forth thusly: (3a) Col 1:15, where His eternal relationship with the Father is in view, and the clause means both that He was the firstborn before all creation and that He Himself produced creation (the genitive case being objective, as v. 16 makes clear); (3b) Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5, in reference to His resurrection; (3c) Rom 8:29, His being firstborn among those living by faith alone in God the Father; (3d) Heb 1:6, first begotten, stresses His superior position, His preeminence over all; His second advent in contrast to His first advent, at His birth, being implied. (Strong and Vine’s, 218)
As such, the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong in their interpretation of “first-born” at Colossians 1:15, 16, and Trinitarian Christians are correct in saying “that the ‘first-born’ here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished. Thus, Christ could be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those whom he created,” (Reasoning, 408). This is particularly true in light of the unequivocal language of Colossians 1:17 which says “He is before all things” (RSV).
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-6.html#31
I submit to you it would be impossible for Jesus to have always existed, because how could a Father and Son exist at the same time?
You don't seem to want to let go of this, still thinking in human father/son terms when in fact we are dealing with Spirit. I have explained this ad naseum. Maybe I haven't been clear or patient enough, and for that I apologize. Perhaps metaphor will help. Irenaeus (d. 200 A.D.) saw the Son and Spirit’s roles as the two hands of the Father. Just as Paul says at Col 1:17: “He is before all things.” He was not created but rather “set up” or “poured out” (Hebrew Nacak) as one pours out an existing libation, or casts existing metal or anoints an existing king (Strong and Vine’s, 188).
-
-
-
jonathan dough
And this is where it gets tricky, for you. You said, "Immanent trinity, the nature of God in himself before creation, does not include Jesus who was not yet born," and then you say, "Jesus is God-Man, God the Son. And because the Word is eternal, he could not be created."
You have tripped yourself up here. If Jesus was not yet born, how could God have been triune in nature. And after Jesus was born, this adds a 4th person to the "triune" making a "quadrune"
There is not tripping up here. You're just not paying attention, that's all. Your statement "If Jesus was not yet born, how could God have been triune in nature, " indicates you don't understand the difference between immanent and economic trinity yet, or the God-man Jesus that is the hypostatic union. Immanent trinity refers to God before creation, before baby Jesus was born; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The divine person who was, and is, God the Son was a divine person who assumed a human nature. When was that human nature assumed? When Mary gave birth to Jesus, or at conception. Thus, the God-man. Go re-read the section explaining the difference between immanent and economic trinity.
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#2
And because the Word is eternal, he could not be created."
I'm referring to the Word, the Second Person of the trinity when I say "he" could not be created. Not the created humanity of Jesus. I thought that would have been clear by now.
You're basically telling me that Yahweh has a split personality because this is the only way a Triune God could work. And, even if this was the case, it would still mean two individual personalities, not a whole.
Are you talking about YHWH (triune) or Jesus (dual)? I've already explained in detail and quoted numerous mainstream references that address the personality of the triune God, that they are not considered individual separate entities like humans.“Person” refers to a form in which the divine essence exists, not a created human, but three personal self-distinctions (The New Bible Dictionary [Grand Rapids, Michigan, W. M. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962], 1300) (New Bible Dictionary).
In most formularies the doctrine is stated by saying that God is one in His essential being, but that in this being there are three Persons, yet so as not to form separate and distinct individuals. They are three modes or forms in which the divine essence exists. ‘Person’ is, however, an imperfect expression of the truth in as much as the term denotes to us a separate rational and moral individual. But in the being of God there are not three individuals, but only three personal self-distinctions within the one divine essence. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)
Fourth, while each Person is self-conscious, He never acts independently.
[P]ersonality in man implies independence of will, actions, and feelings, leading to behavior peculiar to the person. This cannot be thought of in connection with the Trinity; each Person is self-conscious and self-directing, yet never acting independently or in opposition. (ibid.)
Fifth, The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue,“ Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it is as one undivided individual…. Why would all the God-inspired Bible writers speak of God as one person if he were actually three persons? … What purpose would that serve except to mislead people?” (Should You Believe, Chapter 6).
This line of argument illustrates their confusion. The triune God is not split into three. He is one undivided individual as just mentioned. His diversity manifests itself in operations and characteristics:
When we say that God is a unity we mean that though God is in Himself a threefold centre of life, His life is not split into three. He is one in essence, in personality, and in will. When we say that God is a Trinity in unity we mean that there is unity in diversity, and that diversity manifests itself in Persons, in characteristics, and in operations. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)
If you are referring to "two individual personalities" of the God-man, in the sense of Christ the God-man having seperate wills, why yes, the orthodox teach that.
Just as there are two complete and perfect natures in Christ, one divine, the other human, there are two wills in Christ, one divine, the other human. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 947)
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html
Consider John 8:58: ""I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
You said that "Immanent trinity, the nature of God in himself before creation, does not include Jesus who was not yet born"
So tell me Johnathan, who was Jesus referring to when he said this to the Jews? Or are you going to tell me this is just another part of Yahweh?I'm saying that Jesus at John 8:58 was referring to his divine self, God the Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Not the man (baby) of the God-man that was born to Mary. In so doing he was claiming divinity, that he was YHWH. Jesus was, and is, God.
“The humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 922).
-
-
-
jonathan dough
hehe 'god the father and god the son are not regarded as equal in every sense of the word. They are equal in nature and power. Let me try and explain'. hehe
You have to ask "equal in what sense?" There is subordination of relation and order among the three Persons, but not in nature:
Moreover, the subsistence and operations of the three Persons are marked by a certain order involving a certain subordination in relation, though not in nature. The Father as the fount of deity is First: He is said to originate. The Son, eternally begotten of the Father, is Second: he is said to reveal. The Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son, is Third: He is said to execute.
While this does not suggest priority in time or in dignity, since all three Persons are divine and eternal, it does suggest an order of precedence in operation and revelation. Thus we can say that creation is from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)
Any perceived inequality is voluntarily assumed. You might be subject to your employer and he might have you cleaning toilets, but that is a voluntary subjection. It does not make your employer better than you as a human being. It does not render the employer superior.
But as to the God in the God-man equation of the union, He never ceased being fully God in His essential nature, during the incarnation being “always God in all of the co-equal attributes” (Strong and Vine’s, 42).
Any subordination of God the Son to God the Father was relational, a change in status or order of precedence, but not in His essential being as He remained fully God, albeit with a veiled Glory. God the Son’s subordination is voluntary. It does not mean He is not equal to God in essence.
It's all right here: http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#trinity-home
-
-
-
jonathan dough
When the Bible says that they are one it means they are one in unity not trinity, otherwise this is robbing Christ of the true glory due to him because he did not have to do what he did for us!
Nonsense. Prove it.
It was a decision Jesus made with his own free will that he lowered himself for a time and came to earth as Jesus Christ and later voluntarily die for our sins.
Jesus didn't lower himself, the Word emptied himself humbly, if you read Phil. 2:6. See my previous post on your Christological confusion with respect to the nature of Christ Jesus.
Jesus is the mediator, as pointed out at 1 Timothy 2:5-6: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, a man, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself—a ransom for all, a testimony at the proper time."
I wish you would articulate your arguments better. I think you are trying to argue that based on this verse Jesus could be nothing more than a man, the official JW stand on this; but this verse doesn't imply that Jesus was just a man, that's not possible. Again, approach this first by reading up on why the God-man Jesus is not just a man and is God the Son, divinity, the God-man.http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-5.html#20
Then, go read Psalm 49:7-9 which states that no man can redeem another man, let alone mankind. If Jesus were just a man, He could not be a ransom sacrifice reconciling man to the Almighty, mankind could not be redeemed, and Jesus died for nothing.
Also Jesus can not be greater than himself if he is God.
What are you trying to say, and where is the scriptural evidence supporting this? Can you rephrase this? Jesus greater than himself? I don't understand what you are saying.
John 14:28: "You have heard Me tell you, 'I am going away and I am coming to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I." Is he going to ascend to himself?
The God of the God-man Jesus is God the Son, not God the Father. And the man of the God-man wouldn't be ascending to himself because the creature that was baby Jesus was not in heaven before. God the Son, of the hypostatic union that is the God-man Jesus, ascended to be where he had been before, if he even left in totality at all. See my previous post regarding your confusion and belief in the heresy of patripassianism.
In heaven Jesus is still subject to his Father: Matthew 20:23 "He told them, "You will indeed drink My cup. But to sit at my right and left is not mine to give; instead, it belongs to those for whom it has been prepared by My Father."
You misunderstand how trinitarians regard the concept of "equality." God the Father and God the Son, the Word, are not regarded as equal in every sense of the word. They are equal in nature and power. Let me try and explain.The equality of Christ and God - Is God superior because God is the head of Christ and sent Him on His mission?” - (1 Corinthians 11:3)[Top]
The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that Jesus could not have been God’s equal because Christ had a God above him and therefore God is superior in every way and Christ inferior, stating:
Not only is Almighty God, Jehovah, a personality separate from Jesus but he is at all times his superior. Jesus is always presented as separate and lesser, a humble servant of God. That is why the Bible plainly says that “the head of the Christ is God” in the same way that “the head of every man is the Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:3) (Should You Believe, Chapter 7)
“Is not the sender superior to the one sent?” (ibid., Chapter 7)
First, as noted earlier, Trinitarians actually do believe that the created humanity of Jesus, who was not God, was a humble servant of God and inferior (see section 5).
Secondly, the Jehovah's Witnesses neglected to quote all of the relevant portions of verse 3, leaving out the reference to husband and wife which helps put these verses into proper context: “…the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” The Greek word for ‘head’ is kephale and in this passage it is used “metaphorically, of the authority or direction of God in relation to Christ, of Christ in relation to believing men, of the husband in relation to the wife, 1 Cor 11:3” (Strong and Vine’s, 138). It is not intended to mean that one is inherently superior by nature to another as the Jehovah’s Witnesses would have you believe.
Paul is referring to authority possessed and exercised and an ordering of their relationship, but as the Jehovah's Witnesses interpret verse 3, a husband would be inherently superior as a person to his wife the inferior being, but we know that not to be true. In that culture, and in some contemporary matrimonial roles, the wife voluntarily assumes a particular subservient role. But just because a husband sends his wife down to the corner market for some milk, or the husband has the final decision with respect to, say, financial matters, that does not make his wife inferior to him as a person any more than the President of the United States is superior, as a human being, to any citizen of the United States of America. Your employer is not a superior individual, either, but only exercises authority over you.
The divine person of Christ, even if sent by God the Father, and even if He voluntarily subjected Himself, did not in so doing become less equal to God with respect to His essential being, nature and essence. When the Word assumed a human nature he did not cease being God, but willingly assumed a different relationship; a different grade, order or manifestation as Tertullian theorized. His incarnation and obedience did not diminish the divine essence of His being or make Him less consubstantial. The divine Person of Jesus was still fully God, who chose a veiled glory.
Christ possessed equality with God prior to His incarnation, and then for a time veiled that glory, being always God in all of the co-equal attributes, but in the incarnation never using His Godly powers to better Himself. He was fully God, fully man, God taking on the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), not a man adding Godliness. (Strong and Vine’s, 42)
9) Could Jesus be God Almighty if he prayed to the Father and referred to God as His Father? If he was God’s submissive servant? If He entrusted His spirit to God at death?[Top]
The Jehovah's Witnesses argue that Jesus could not have been God because He worshipped God, called this God “Father,” prayed to God, and “since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same time be that God (Should You Believe, Chapter 7).
Once again, the Jehovah's Witnesses fail to understand the nature of the God-man Jesus; that He is fully God and fully man; and, that the doctrine of the Trinity teaches that “the humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 943). If Jesus the created human, the “man” in the God-man equation of the hypostatic union of Trinitarianism, were claiming to be that God Almighty the Father, the Jehovah's Witnesses’ objections might be relevant, but that’s not accurate dogma.
Therefore, it was entirely proper (and did not diminish Christ’s divine nature) that the created humanity of Christ the man prayed to God the Father, was subordinate to the Father (Should You Believe, Chapter 7), worshipped God, called Him Father (ibid.), could be regarded as God’s submissive servant (ibid.), was seen as distinct from God (ibid.), was not as “good” as God (ibid.), and could function as a separate entity or witness about himself in addition to God (ibid.).
Jesus could also have a will separate from God (ibid.), received God’s anointing to declare the good news (ibid.), taught what belonged to God (ibid.), and could rightfully claim that “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). It was this suffering man Jesus who could call out to His God from the cross (ibid.), and to whom he could entrust his spirit at death because the humanity of Christ is a creature, not God (ibid.). And because Jesus the man recognized his limitations he knew it was not for Him to grant seats at his right and left hand in His kingdom (Should You Believe, Chapter 7).
Furthermore, since God Almighty is an invisible spirit person (Colossians 1:15), that is the God Jesus was referring to when he said at John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God.” He was not referring to himself in his created human capacity, naturally, since He was visible to the human eye. And with respect to what that man saw, he saw God fully and completely due to Christ’s beatific intuitive human knowledge as more fully explained in section 13(A) below.
Finally, because Jesus of the Bible is a miraculous product of the hypostatic union, it was the divine Person of Christ (the “God” in the God-man equation) that the prophet Habakkuk was including by definition in his reference to God when he stated “O my God, my Holy One, you do not die” (Habakkuk 1:12 NWT; “we shall not die” RSV).
The above are all “reasons” why the Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus is not God, but their arguments are baseless and do not disprove the Trinitarian concept that “Jesus is God.”
As a matter of fact, the view which the Jehovah's Witnesses ascribe to Trinitarians - the exaggerated view of Noetus which identified “Christ with the Father,” was rejected by the church many centuries ago along with similar heretical distortions (Catholic Encyclopedia, 296).In its extreme form it may suggest that the whole of God was, for example, present in Jesus - that heaven was empty when Jesus walked on earth. In relation to the cross, it may imply that, because there is no distinction between Father and Son, the whole of God suffers equally as Jesus dies, and indeed God dies entirely on the cross …. (Oxford, 1211)
This and similar notions are precisely some of the “pitfalls” the “doctrine of the Trinity sets out to avoid …” (Oxford, 1211). Any implications or explicit assertions by the Jehovah's Witnesses to the contrary are untrue - they are false accusations.
10) When God exalted the risen Jesus to His right hand it did not thereby make Jesus superior to God - (Philippians 2:9)[Top]
Another line of argument advanced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses denies Christ’s divine preincarnate status by incorrectly interpreting Philippians 2:9 to mean that under the doctrine of the Trinity the exalted Christ would have returned to a position in heaven superior to God. They write:
Speaking of the resurrection of Jesus, Peter and those with him told the Jewish Sanhedrin: “God exalted this one [Jesus] … to his right hand.” (Acts 5:31) Paul said: “God exalted him to a superior position.” (Philippians 2:9) If Jesus had been God, how could Jesus have been exalted, that is raised to a higher position than he had previously enjoyed? He would already have been an exalted part of the Trinity. If, before his exaltation, Jesus had been equal to God, exalting him any further would have made him superior to God. (Should You Believe, Chapter 7).
This reflects a glaring misconception of what the Trinity doctrine teaches and the nature of the hypostatic union. It was not God the Son who was exalted with respect to His essential being, nature and power that defines him as God; conversely, it was not the divine nature of God the Son of the God-man equation that bled on the cross and died because God does not die; otherwise, and for many other reasons beyond this topic, He could not, for instance, have raised himself as he claimed he did. Even the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that God cannot die. Philippians 2:7-11 puts verse 9 into better context, stating that the preexistent Word:
[E]mptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:7-11 RSV)
First, it is self-evident here that the risen Christ is exalted above all creation and every name in the universe, but not God Himself, as He is God the Son. This is indicated in these same verses where the Christian confessional states “Jesus is Lord” which means, among other things, that Jesus is God. (See section 35 for a detailed explanation of this meaning of “Lord”).
Secondly, Philippians 2:9 does not say as the JWs claim that God the Son was “raised to a position higher than he had previously enjoyed.” God the Son, the Word, when He emptied Himself to take the form of a slave never ceased being fully God. It was his Glory that was veiled for a time being; he temporarily resigned his “status.”
Christ possessed equality with God prior to His incarnation, and then for a time veiled that glory, being always God in all of the co-equal attributes, but in the incarnation never using His Godly powers to better Himself. He was fully God, fully man, God taking on the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3), not a man adding Godliness. (Strong and Vine’s, 42)
[I]n the process of the Incarnation, he empties himself of his divine “status” … (Fundamentals of Christology, 317).
The Word never ceased being God the Son when He emptied Himself. It was merely his status or role or relationship that changed. Accordingly, being fully God the Son, the God in the God-man equation was never elevated back or exalted to a position superior to God because He never ceased being God. Hence, he was not exalted to a position superior to God.
Third, the created humanity of Jesus could not have been “raised to a position higher than he had previously enjoyed” as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim because He was not God and there could not have been a position He previously enjoyed in heaven to be raised back to.
Fourth, the focus is on the humanity of Christ, although this humanity can never be viewed in isolation because, “In Jesus humanity does not exist in itself, but it is the Son who exists as man through his human nature. Jesus gives back his whole divine self to the Father on the cross in and through his humanity (Fundamentals of Christology, 320). He consummates his human experience in all these dimensions only in dying and rising to a new, definitive form of human existence (ibid., 317).
Fifth, the exaltation also refers to the resurrected heavenly Jesus that died on the cross, who does not cease to be human (ibid., 318), a glorified human yet still God the Son to whom every knee shall bow. And any exaltation that God the Son might have enjoyed was with respect to His grade, order, appearance, aspect or manifestation (Tertullian). It would be a change in order of precedence in operation, a change in the relationship, but it would not alter in any way the essential being, nature and power of God; that which defines the triune God as one.
http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-2.html#8
Any perceived inequality is voluntarily assumed. You might be subject to your employer and he might have you cleaning toilets, but that is a voluntary subjection. It does not make your employer better than you as a human being. It does not render the employer superior.
But as to the God in the God-man equation of the union, He never ceased being fully God in His essential nature, during the incarnation being “always God in all of the co-equal attributes” (Strong and Vine’s, 42).
Any subordination of God the Son to God the Father was relational, a change in status or order of precedence, but not in His essential being as He remained fully God, albeit with a veiled Glory. God the Son’s subordination is voluntary. It does not mean He is not equal to God in essence.
-
-
-
jonathan dough
Johnathan,
I did read what you had to say and the scriptures.
My scriptual response (if you bothered to read it) is here...
I didn't see that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I find the concept of the Trinity unworkable. How could God have miraculously and mysteriously walked the earth as Christ? Those that believe that way, they are required to do so without questioning the validity of the "mystery."
Hold it right there. Don't take this wrong, but the JWs have gotten deep into your brain and you have failed to shake out their false teachings. What you're referring to when you say "How could God have miraculously and mysteriously walked the earth as Christ?" is the heresy of patripassianism which has been condemned by the church for centuries. Mainstream Christian theology does not teach that YHWH left heaven and walked the earth as a man.
This distortion, among many put forth by the Jehovah's Witnesses, is referred to as the great heresy of patripassianism. The Jehovah's Witnesses persist in preaching (incorrectly) that mainstream Christians believe that God the Father took the form of Jesus the man on earth, becoming a creature, and that the Father became the suffering incarnate Son. But this is not proper Christology, it does not reflect mainstream Christian thought, and it seriously misstates the doctrine of the Trinity which underlies the very essence of Jesus Christ and the triune nature of God Almighty; that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Christ is deity. The actual mystery lies in how the "God" and "man" of the God-man Jesus are joined together, a mystery the church readily takes on faith, like the resurrection of the dead. Don't know how that is possible, but it is taken on faith nonetheless.Christians have never denied the central role faith plays in their faith. After all, how can one believe in the ability to raise the dead, or the parting of the Red Sea, or manna from heaven, or Jericho's walls tumbling down, or any of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testament? Certain things must be taken on faith, whether by Jew or gentile.