GOD THE SON...CO-CREATOR OF ALL THINGS!

 

Ray to Wrench, April 03, 2000

 

 

 

Hi wrench, as I read through this latest from you it looks as if we are making some progress, slow but sure. As far as "trimming the fat" and our words dwindling in one area but growing in others, I think it's just the nature of the beast, yet we trudge forward because it is for a good cause.

 

After I went back through your re-framing of your treatise, restating your goals and standards you say that you intend to demonstrate, you respond that your research continues and then you launch into your reason for referring to the orthodox position as "unprecedented"...

 

 "When I say that the “orthodox” position is unprecedented, there is really no denying that, because even if it would be determined that their interpretation of Revelation 3:14 is correct, which is far from the case of happening, but even if it were determined, the interpretation would STILL be unprecedented in relation to the word meaning “source” because there is not another clear case of the word being used that way in the LXX or NT. THAT is what I MEAN when I say it is “unprecedented”. Likewise, even if it were determined to be correct, which as I said before, it hasn’t, but even if it were determined to be such, it would STILL be unprecedented when compared to every other “arche with a genitive” in the Bible. That fact in itself is really uncontested. And it would as well be unprecedented in relation to the way in which John used the word “arche” EVERY OTHER time. THAT is a fact that is not debated. So, me saying “unprecedented” in relation to their interpretation in view of the above observances is certainly not saying too much. It is simply the facts, whether or not Revelation 3:14 is determined to have to mean something other than the interpretation that we offer, which is, Christ was the “beginning” (timewise) of the creation by God. "

 

Ray continues: I would agree with your statement if we approach the issue like a side blinded team of Amish horses with tunnel vision. In other words, with a confused sense of priorities. If we overlook that the expression in Rev. 3:14 is attributive and not predicate of itself, and placed in apposition, and if we overlook that your numerous examples do not contain the same referents (Christ and all creation) and subject material (relationship between Christ and all creation at the beginning),  and if we thus restrict ourselves to a such criterion of judgment,  we could indeed regard the orthodox view as "unprecedented".  On the other hand, if we approach the issue with a proper set of priorities,  and thus look to see what the teaching of the New Testament is on this particular subject (elsewhere),  we shall have to conclude with the general consensus of reliable scholarship that the NT elsewhere clearly shows that Christ was NOT the first of Jehovah's  creations,  but actually pre-existed all creation (John 1:1-3,  Col. 1:15-17).

 

It is important to note that each of these two examples presents clear predication of the subject material, thus John 1:3 makes the statement two different ways to prevent confusion. It first says positively that all things "came into existence" THRU the logos, and then seals it by stating negatively that there were no exceptions to this (not even one!). Thus the logos is distinguished from all creation without exception at the beginning, and that by priority of existence. Then Col. 1:16-17 says the same thing just as clearly,  even stipulating things visible and invisible.  So clear was this that even the NWT translators could not allow it to stand as Paul said it.  So, Wrench, if we approach Rev. 3:14 with the right set of priorities, the orthodox interpretation will have the precedence, and the appositional expression in Rev. 3:14 should be taken in conformity with it.

 

You seem to be taken up with a non sequitur based on what you see as a consistent pattern. Thus you use expressions like "everywhere else..."...or "EVERY OTHER TIME",  with regard to "arche with the genitive". However, the conclusion you reach is non sequitur because the pattern,  no matter how consistent it seems,  cannot negate or overrule the clear teaching of Scripture elsewhere.  And we must recall that even the WT Society has not relied on or used yours (or Greg's) argumentation in the past, and they would have no natural bias against it since they teach the same conclusion.  Therefore I don't think the scholars have "missed" what you think they have,  rather they have simply recognized that clear, unambiguous,  and predicated statements of scripture elsewhere (like John 1:3 & Col. 1:15-17)  carry the day. Obviously we will go into this more deeply later in this letter.

**************************************************

 

 "Since you have called the WT so far into the foray of things, I feel I don’t have much choice but to break stride with my normal stance, and start quoting what they DO say when needed in relation to the things we are talking about to demonstrate the position that I have taken."  

 

As a loyal witness you should be eager to stick with the WT since you SAY you consider them God's authority on such matters.  What was it Jesus said about "honoring me with their lips"?  And so you say you trust them as a safe guide, but you couldn't prove it by me so far in our discussion.J  Watch as you haggle and boggle over your previous attempt to connect up "the beginning" of Gen. 1:1 with "the beginning" of John 1:1 in order  to sustain your attempt to restrict the "all things" of John 1:3 to only the physical  universe.  I brought it to your attention that any attempt to connect up these two beginnings opposes the WT's teaching that there was an interval of time between them during which the creation of the spirit angels occurred. Note:

 

". I don’t want you to think that I am somehow opposed to the explanation of John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1 being different time references, because I am not. I simply happen to think that them being the same time reference makes more sense TO ME. I have offered that to you and you have objected by means of appealing to the WT as being in disagreement with me, who I claim to uphold as God’s authority on these matters. That disagreement, as I hope to show, is debatable in itself, but,  regardless, don’t be fooled into thinking that I can’t defend the position that you say the WT is insistent upon, that being John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1 are referring to “different” time references with the phrase “in the beginning”. I can defend it just as easily as the position that I personally prefer, in fact, you may find that it doesn’t require much “tweaking” at all to simply “shift” to the other position, because it is certainly valid and defendable. I just happen to think that the explanation I have offered makes better sense to ME. But, more on this later as we continue."  

 

Ray replies: As we shall see in a bit the problem for you lies in your attempt to restrict the "all things" of John 1:3 to just the physical universe in order to escape the clear and unambiguous language that the logos pre-existed all creation. Since the passage actually states no exceptions, this could only mean that the first thing that ever came into existence did so THRU him. So your motivation for wanting to place a restriction on the "all things" is exceedingly obvious.  More on this later...

 

***********************

 

After clarifying my meaning about exactly how Christ has identified with creation as a result of John 1:14,  you make further inquiry as follows:

 

"However, I would like to inquire further if you don’t mind. First, I am wondering, other than the possibility of Col. 1:15-17 implying to you that Christ was considered a ‘creation” (in the manner you describe), what other scripture do you know of that ACTUALLY CALLS Christ a “creation”? What I mean is, it appears that this would be the only one that does so. Although you mention Phil. 2 as calling him a servant and a man, it doesn’t actually speak of him as “included” in creation. It doesn’t call him a creature or a creation. Is there a scripture other than Col. 1:15-17 (possibly, as you say), that actually calls Christ a creation via his incarnation in the flesh?" 

 

Not that I'm aware of with that specific term, but then again I'm not aware of that specific term being applied to lots of creatures the bible talks about.  Such is the importance of context when it comes to interpretation.  The bible records where in the past some angels took the human appearance, but they did not do so through the birth process, and so we know that they were not truly human by nature.  Thus the logos became truly human by nature (John 1:14) and we agree that all true humans possess the nature of a creature, do we not?  Yet the bible teaches us that this creature is unique in that he had a pre-existence as "theos" (John 1:1c),  and in the same context it tells us plainly that all creation without exception came into existence thru Him (John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17),  thus setting Him apart from the whole category of creation relative to the beginning. 

 

So balancing the Scripture we see how he pre-existed all creation in the beginning, and yet entered the category taking on the nature of a creature when he "became flesh" (John 1:14,  Phil. 2). He could thus identify with BOTH sides, and so be a sympathetic and proper mediator between them, for only He knows what it's like to actually be both. Gabriel couldn't have done that.  Why?  Because although he may have been able to become truly human and know what that's like, he could never know what it's like to be truly God. When the truth of this hits you between your eyes, Wrench, you will be stricken to your knees, as Saul was on the road to Damascus...and I guarantee that no earthly organization will ever take it from you!  Consider Thomas as he was suddenly delivered from a state of unbelief, and could not contain himself as he peered into the Master's eyes, he blurted out "and said to Jesus, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), and note the capital "G" in the NWT  :-)

 

Interestingly, note also in Phil. 2... how Paul uses the metaphor "slave/servant" (doulou) in reference to Christ becoming truly human,  and then being obedient even "unto death".  The same metaphor is used in Rev. 19 and 22 to depict an angel in a context where creature worship is expressly denied.  The angel is identified as a "fellow slave (or servant…doulos)" with men, thus a fellow creature.  So John is warned that creature worship is a no-no...and he is instead admonished to "worship God". When Christ took the nature of a "slave/servant",  this is when he became a creature,  for obviously he wasn't a slave before he became one, right?  But who was he before he became truly human?   The bible says He was "theos" and also that He pre-existed all creation (John 1:1c;  John 1:3;  Col. 1:16-17),  and that makes Him TRUE theos,  doesn't it? Sure it does, for only true God exists before all creation. 

**************************************************

 

Ok, Wrench, I pointed out that the Trinitarian view can easily accomodate the expression "firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1:15), but the WT's view stumbles clumsily over Paul's words "He is before all things" in verse 17, all creation as you've admitted. This reminder apparently sounded an alarm inside your mind, for you react in the following way:  

 

"I think I need to make you aware of what I actually did say when you posed the Col. 1:15 question.  First off,  I do  not think that the "ALL THINGS" is ALL CREATION,  because I believe that it obviously excludes Christ himself who I do view AS a creation."  

 

You then quote your response to my recent question about whether you regard the "all things" of Col. 1:16 as being restricted to only the physical universe as you've recently attempted to maintain with the same expression in John 1:3.  But my statement about your admitting that the "all things" is all creation,  was not based on this answer alone, but on something you admitted  in an earlier letter. I noticed it then and brought it to your attention. I knew it would be important to remember...and now we see why.  Let's take a look at your letter dated 11-29-99 (your first response to me).  I refer back to this in my letter dated 12-01-99 as follows:

 

   “In seeking to prove your point, you refer to the "hoti clause" in verse 16. I do not want to misrepresent you so I will actually paste your words here..."Verse 16 is telling us the BECAUSE behind the title "firstborn of all creation". He is among creation BECAUSE of the fact that, word for word from Greek to English, "in him it was created the all (things) in the heavens and upon the earth, the (things) visible and the (things) invisible..." I'm sorry I must disagree with your understanding of this verse. It actually DISTINGUISHES him from all creation, for notice what Paul goes on to say in verse 17: "Also, he is before all things...". So, if he's before all things…all things were made "by means of" him...we must admit that he being distinguished from all creation by priority of existence (before). So you have misunderstood the hoti clause by failing to pay attention to the context. I'm heartened that you recognize that all things here refers to all creation, though, for this is a very important point, as we shall soon see.

 

The hoti clause indeed provides the REASON for the application of the title, it’s just not what you want. The reason is because he was BEFORE all things...in other words he was DIRECTLY responsible for the creation of all things (hands on—Heb. 1:10),  just as we see in John 1:3 "all things came into existence through him,  and without him did not even one thing come into existence that has come into existence."

 

Notice above that you base your conclusion that He was the first creation (your claim as to the meaning of "firstborn of all creation") on the hoti clause in verse 16.  You say "Verse 16 is telling us that BECAUSE of the fact that, word for word from Greek to English, 'in him it was created the all (things) in the heavens and upon the earth,  the (things) visible and the (things) invisible...' Then I disagreed with you pointing out that the passage actually distinguishes him from all creation by priority of existence.  Then I said the following:

 

"I'm heartened that you recognize that all things here refers to all creation, though, for this is a very important point, as we shall soon see."

 

This was back in my letter of 12-01-99, and so as early as 11-29-99 you actually based your belief that "firstborn" means first creation on the hoti clause in verse 16, while maintaining the connection between verses 15-16-and 17.  However, were this true, it would place the Apostle Paul in outright contradiction to himself from one verse to the next.  In verse 15 you would have him place Christ as the first of all creation,  but in verse 16 you would have him denying that he's to be numbered among them.  I simply pointed out back then that Paul is actually distinguishing him from the whole category in verse 16 and 17 by priority of existence (before).

 

Now,  in your recent answer to my question,  we must keep in mind what the question was , and why I asked it.  In your attempt to accomodate the language in John 1:3 by restricting the "all things" to only the physical universe (Gen. 1:1),  I was naturally curious as to what you would say about the same expression in Col. 1:16-17.  You must have seen that you could not restrict the "all things" in Col. 1:16 to just the physical universe because it flat out says "visible and invisible".  And so you decided to suck it right up and declare boldly that they are not the same. Note how you worded yourself:  "Whereas Christ is included among the "all creation" by being firstborn of that class, I do not believe he is included among the "all things" that came THROUGH him for the obvious reasons."  Please excuse me, friend, for you seem to be taking back with one hand what you had just given with the other.  For the JW who takes the phrase "firstborn of all creation" as meaning "first of that category", you cannot BASE that conclusion on the hoti clause of verse 16 and at the same time deny that He's to be numbered among them. You cannot have it both ways.

 

 On the other hand, as the Trinitarian view believes, Christ could enter the category of creation later (Jn. 1:14), thus becoming part of creation without being the first in the series.  Then He could be recognized as deserving of the title "firstborn" because He was before all creation and was hands on responsible for it at the beginning, and also hands on responsible for its redemption as our Kinsman Redeemer.  Just like David, he wasn't the first king of Israel, was he? No, but he was elevated to the STATUS of firstborn, most high of the kings of the earth. (Ps 89:27) He wasn't the first King, but dovetailed into category. As the WT says,  because he was "preeminent".   Thus we can accomodate Paul's language with no problems in both verses 15 and 16.  But the WT's view stumbles clumsily over Paul's words in verse 17... " he is before all things".  You see, the same problem that you tried so hard to escape in John 1:3 clings to you in full measure at Col. 1:16-17.  Moreover, as we shall see, your attempt to restrict the "all things" in John 1:3 to only the physical universe is fraught with all sorts of difficulties.

******************

 

After I rehashed our see saw argument about "bias" in the Grimm/Thayer Lexicon,  noting  the slow progress we have made...to the point where you now see that whoever relies on "corruption based on bias" as an explanation must show specific examples of it right where he claims it must have occurred... in order to verify the explanation. You present your understanding of the problem as follows:

 

 

“Let me review the steps that I see so far in this “bias” discussion, and you tell me if this is how you see the progress.  When it came to Grimm’s definition for “arche” (source), I stated that you could not dismiss the possibility of bias as the reason for him choosing that as a definition. Obviously, that can’t stand alone, I have never intended for that stand alone. It seemed to me though, that from your words in defense of a ‘non-biased’ position for Grimm, you were trying to claim that there was no possibility of bias (I realize now that you are not claiming that) on Grimm’s part because of what you perceive as a sweeping endorsement of Trinitarian and Unitaraian scholars alike of his work. You supplied an example of where Grimm exhibits a ‘non-biased’ assessment in relation to the word “theos”. Therefore, you are challenging me to supply evidence in relation to Rev. 3:14, that Grimm’s choice was one of a biased leaning. Without that, then I am presenting a meaningless defense. Does that sound like a fair assessment of what is happening? If not, you can point out what you feel has been missed.  I suppose if I had heard you say the words that you say later in this post, much of this dialogue could have been avoided, but then again, maybe not. We seem to shoot right past each other sometimes and not quite understand what then other one is getting at. Anyway, later you say,   ---Wrench, did you really think that anyone would deny that everyone who does such a work has personal convictions, and that fact alone ALREADY establishes the possibility.---  From the start of this “bias” conversation, Ray, believe or not, that was what I was waiting to here from you. Thank you." 

 

 

Ray replies:  Your analysis doesn't quite go back far enough.  Actually I was the first to broach the subject in my very first letter in anticipation of your reply to my presentation about Rev. 3:14.  I made a short statement at first as follows:  "And I think it would be difficult to suggest that Thayer was a biased witness in favor of the Orthodox viewpoint that Christ was not an original creature."  Now, how you could have taken from this that I was claiming it was impossible is beyond me. A little further down the same letter I said this:  " If they weren't ignorant of them, should we assume that they were all prejudiced against your view including Dr. Thayer? I don't think we could successfully maintain that ..."  Again I fail to see how you could have gotten "impossible" out of such words. But actually, Wrench, you started off claiming PROBABILITY rather than just possibility anyway. 

 

Your response was to echo your friend's claim that Thayer was actually translating the words of a Trinitarian and therefore "the probability of bias is still very much in tact".  You of course adjusted this to  "possibility" later, whereas I have been steady from the beginning in saying that "corruption based on personal conviction (bias) in this Lexicon is going to be very difficult to establish”,  consistently reminding you that since you are relying on such a claim, it's up to you to show specific examples of such corruption right where you claim it occurred...in order to verify your explanation.  Otherwise you have no explanation as to why your interpretation of Rev 3:14 has such little support among the reputable Lexicographers and Greek Scholars.  I'm just glad you now acknowledge the necessity to verify your explanation.  The failure to do so right where you claim it occurred remains as a mark against the goals you have set for yourself when you re-framed your treatise.

 

Also, the bracketed remarks in Rev. 3:14 more than likely suppliment Grimm's references, for note Grimm's referral to the 8th Century B.C. Philosopher who was said to be the first to use the word in the way he says. Note the bracket that follows. This appears to be a suppliment, for Thayer says when he introduces a different or opposing opinion,  he usually includes representative arguments from both sides.  Then comes Grimm's ref. to Rev 3:14 where he calls Christ "the divine logos",  and invites us to compare Dusterdieck on location as well as Clemens of Alexandrinus (about 200ad) Protrept. 1, page 6 edited by Potter, the following bracket seems clearly supplimental…e.g. another comp.

 

But the extra-biblical Greek expression seems easy enough to translate, and fits well Grimm's reference to Christ as the divine logos.  "ho logos arche theia twn pantwn".  Here the nouns logos and arche are both in the nominative case,  but since logos has the article we recognize it as the subject.  Arche is most likely definite without the article (like our "at home"..comp John 1:1a).  So since there is no verb and the adjective  follows arche, it's attributive and we should place "arche theia" in apposition with ho logos. Normally when the adjective does not have the article in front of it, it's considered predicate, but that assumes that the noun has the article. When the noun is anarthrous, though, all bets are off, and whether the adjective is predicate or attributive is determined by the context.  So I would translate..."the Word, the divine beginning of all things", or possibly "the Word, divine beginning of all things."  Either way it goes nicely with the orthodox interpretation of Rev. 3:14. And note, Wrench, this is not predicate in itself... just like the expression in Rev. 3:14 is not predicate in itself. Instead it's just something he is called,  therefore it's attributed to him. hmmm... What Grimm has found is that this meaning had been a live option from 8 centuries before NT times, and was still such at approx 200 years or so after the birth of Christ, and the small bracket seems clearly meant as a supplimental reference.  You may complain that this is only an "extra-biblical" example, and there are no biblical examples of this.  However, the examples you cite of arche with the genitive do not contain the same referents (Christ and all creation) so as to show the relationship between them at the beginning. In fact there are no examples of  "arche with a genitive" that exhibits your meaning with Christ and all creation as the referents! And as we've seen, the plain teaching of Scripture elsewhere in the NT is that Christ was not the first of Jehovah's creations,  but pre-existed all creation without a single exception (John 1:3 & Col. 1:16-17).

 

Ray continues: Yet even if further searching reveals a disagreement in one or more of the bracketed remarks, that still would not prove that Grimm's work was corrupted by his personal convictions (bias), for he may not have had access to the referenced material. Nor should it be assumed ipso facto that the opposing view is correct.  No matter how you approach it,  as I've repeatedly stated, bias (corruption based on personal conviction) in this Lexicon is going to be very difficult to establish.  But the burden is on you to do so in order to verify your explanation.

 

In the absence of specific examples of corruption based on bias, you next go on to cite three references that acknowledge your meaning as "linguistically possible".  First is the BAG or better known now as the BAGD.  But as I pointed out in my initial reply,  although they acknowledge your meaning as "linguistically possible",  their scholarly opinion, however,  is that the orthodox meaning is better supported by the evidence...and with that I agree.  Would you agree that since they actually adopt the orthodox meaning,  this is not meant as a "ringing endorsement" of your view?

 

The next source you cite is Beckwith's "The Apocalypse of  John",  1922,  p.488:  Where although,  like the BAGD above,   he acknowledges that your meaning is grammatically possible,  he nevertheless believes that the orthodox meaning has the better case in the N.T. However, what you've shown so far seems more supportive of my view than yours.

Let me address this point from you about Beckwith...

 

"... “Even Beckwith struggles with the problem. Notice what he says: After giving his reasons as to why “first created” is not right he goes on to say. “The words mean rather “the one from whom creation took its beginning,” i.e. through whom it came into being; NOT THE CREATOR AS THE PRIMARY SOURCE, for that is God in our book (4:11, 10:5), as elsewhere in the Scriptures, but the CREATIVE AGENT of God, as in Jno. 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:2.”  It sounds as though Beckwith understands the problem with “source” and then vies for a totally different meaning as the “agent” of God’s creation. I think it is interesting that he uses the word “agent”, for we would agree that Christ was God’s “instrument” (agent) for creation. And, he applies that same “agency” (instrumentality) to all the “pendulum” scriptures that you have mentioned for swinging away from the natural and precedented meaning of those words.   I think it is quite apparent that the problem with “source” as a “highly questionable” if not “incorrect” rendering of “arche” is well known among the Trinitarian camp. It is because of these statements presented that I think Grimm succumbed to his ‘personal conviction’ rather than to the facts surrounding the “proper” meaning of the word. I would find it hard to believe that someone so highly regarded among the scholars of his day, did not know about this controversy as Barnes was one of his contemporaries and Beckwith wasn’t far off.

 

Ray replies: I looked over Beckwith's presentation, Wrench, and I honestly can't see what makes you think he's "struggling with the problem"?  I believe exactly as he does, but I don't feel in the least as if I'm "struggling" with anything. Since the bible portrays God as a plurality of Persons (US MAKE--OUR IMAGE...GOD (Gen 1:26-27), we don't have a problem with one member of the Godhead occupying an intermediate role as the hand's on Creator of all things.  As he says, This would be quite properly referred to as "the instrument of true deity"...within the framework of the Trinity, we often recognize the Father as the Primary source...for the simple reason that we hold that such was God's plan for the members to occupy different primary roles...yet all the while we may say that God did this or God did that.  Trinitarians do not feel it is a "struggle" at all, in certain contexts where more than one member of the Godhead remains in view, to distinguish the Personalities by applying distinctive terms.

 

 A good example of this in the bible itself is in 1 Cor. 8:6...where Paul is contrasting the true Deity over against the false deities in paganism.  So on the true side of the comparison he at once maintains the distinction of Personalities by applying the term God to one and the term Lord to the other...yet note that he's in context contrasting the true over against the false! 

 

Now, does Paul really include these two ultimately in the "true God, Jehovah"?  Sure, notice that he says of all things...they are "out of" the Father, and "thru" Jesus Christ. Do you see the "out of" and "thru"?  OK, now turn to Romans 11:36 in the NWT, and what do we find?  It tells us that "all things" are out of (ek) and thru (dia) Jehovah...same Paul...so when he wants to distinguish them, he does,  and when he wants to meld them together as Jehovah,  he does that too...no big deal.  Would you say that Paul was "struggling" here?J  When I pointed this out to SOTB, he attempted to argue that the preposition "dia" doesn't mean "between or through…or agency" when used of the Father,  citing the BAGD.  However, as I replied to him, there is nothing in the context of Romans 11:34-36 that restricts its application to only the Father. Instead terms are used that elsewhere are applied also to Jesus.  Hence the BAGD's opinion is neither here nor there and must be recognized for the assumption that it is. There is nothing to prevent the preposition from having the same force here as in John 1:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, and Col. 1:16. And since Romans, 1Cor.  and Col. were written by the same Paul,  and all inspired by the same Holy Spirit,  the burden is on any who would claim a different meaning for these prepositions.

 

What is most important for us is to compare scripture with scripture, and let the bible speak for itself.   So, when we compare Roman 11:36 with 1st Cor. 8:6,  keeping in mind that Paul wrote both,  and both were inspired by the same Holy Spirit,  we see that Jesus occupies the intermediate role as the agency of true Deity ( Jehovah being a plurality of Persons including Jesus).  So, the logos occupied the intermediate role NOT from the standpoint of being an original creature, but from the standpoint of being God (not the Father!), as depicted for us in John 1:1c through 1:3. 

 

Ray continues: From the above we can see that anything God does is done directly by the Logos as the intermediate, not from the standpoint of him being ultimately a creature, but from the standpoint of him being ultimately God Himself (not the Father now).  When one wants to go to God for salvation, he must go directly to Jesus "no man comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14). But Jesus is the intermediate agency again, NOT from the standpoint of being ultimately a creature, but from the standpoint of being ultimately true God by nature...just as he is depicted as the intermediate agency in John 1:1c—1:3. 

 

When Jehovah predicted in Isaiah 40:3 that the baptist would prepare the way for "our God", Jehovah, guess who showed up? You betcha, it was Jesus "our God"..."God with us".  Now the same tension occurs here as with the intermediate role the logos played in the creation of all things.   Witnesses are taught to think ONLY in terms of representation, meaning the Son is merely representing the Father.  Thus they continue the assumption that only the Father is Jehovah. Whereas if they would only stop to think and LOOK at the language of Scripture at the same time (instead of listening to the WT),  they could see that the bible actually said in plain words right there in Is 40:3 that the baptist would clear the way for Jehovah "our God"!  So when the Logos came in the name of Jehovah he came representing God ...NOT as a mere creature representative, as the WT would claim, but as true God Himself by nature (my Lord and my God,  confessed Thomas). 

 

  How best to represent but to do so as an actual member or the Godhead? This is the actual language the Scripture used...but the WT couldn't handle it, so they made up something else for you to accept. The Son is a mere creature representative who comes in the name of Jehovah.  Jehovah is not to be restricted to only the Father like you are taught to assume...rather the Son is included within Jehovah, for Jehovah is in reality a plurality of Persons,  "LET US MAKE...IN OUR IMAGE"…(Gen. 1:26) Us make is more than one, Wrench, and yet they are said to be God!  The Bible shows that we had a plural MAKER, and we should we believe the bible, not cling to the doctrines of men? 

 

So I think you've merely participated in your own deception when you kid yourself into thinking that Trinitarians are "struggling" when they are simply accepting and working out the actual language of Scripture pertaining to Christ's ultimate identity, and then going on to reason from that standpoint. So we see the interdependence of the members of the Godhead as an eternal reality (frozen in the context of eternity). This of course is primitive, since I am myself only a finite creature, but try to think of the sun...the sun rays...and the heat...I think of the nature of true Deity as eternally existing in a frozen state where as long as the sun is alive the rays will be...and so also the heat.  So by correspondence, as long as the Father is alive so also will the Son be...and the Holy Spirit.  Now we could approach this example with our finite minds, and thus reason,  "well, then the rays and heat are dependent upon the sun for life", and if God were finite and subject to the limitations of time and space,  that may well be so.  On the other hand it may also be God's condescending way of helping us to understand something about his infinite nature from our finite platform.  So if we correct for God's eternal and infinite context, perhaps it is the heat that keeps the sun going with the intermediate rays performing as the eternal lifeline of God.  So, condescending to our level (Isaiah 55:8-9),  the bible presents the eternal God as a plurality of Persons who have arranged themselves according to their own plan...to bring to pass the will of God for His creation. Maybe that will help you to see that the terms "source" and "intermediate" are not things trinitarians "struggle" with.  In fact I'm of a mind that those who are REALLY "struggling" are those who try to escape the plural God reality and excuse themselves on the false notion that it's "unreasonable", as if the incomprehensible God must be reasonable and explainable in order to deserve acceptance.  hmmm...

***********************

  

Next is Albert Barnes'  "Notes on the Book of Revelation", 1852...page 122.  But here Barnes begins the discussion on this subject as follows:  "The phrase here used is susceptible, properly, of only one of the following significations"...he then goes on to reject the first two, and adopt the "ruler" meaning (same as NIV).   Note the original copywrite of 1852, he was probably not aware of some evidence brought out by Professors Grimm and Thayer...as well as later works. So he adopts the "ruler" meaning.  Although I think the "beginner meaning" is better attested to elsewhere in the N.T. (John 1:3 & Col. 1:15-17), the ruler meaning is not without some support,  if not to be understood as the primary meaning…at least to be  included WITHIN the orthodox meaning as ancillary to it. In other words, because Christ existed before all creation (Col. 1:17), and was hands on responsible for it (John 1:3; Heb. 1:10),  he can rightfully be regarded as the ruler of it. Yet, as we are about to see, he was wrong to assume that there is no precedent in Scripture for "arche" with the "originator" meaning.

 

 By the way,  Barnes was not a lexicographer, and perhaps uses the terms "proper/improper"  to distinguish the literal/fig useage of words, at this stage he does not acknowledge the usage of "arche" in the "originator or source" sense,  but later on page 501 he does just that as he also identifies Jesus (the Redeemer),  as the "Alpha & Omega,  the beginning and the end".  He repeatedly refers to Jesus as "the Redeemer" throughout his notes. Thus on page 501, about 22:12-13 he says, "And behold, I come quickly...These are, undoubtedly, the words of the Redeemer", and on down the page he continues "13. I am Alpha and Omega, & the first and the last---the beginning and the end.  He originated the whole plan of salvation, and he will determine its close; he formed the world, and he will wind up its affairs.  In the beginning, the continuance, and the end, he will be recognized as the same being presiding over and controlling all."  Notice please what he just said;  "He originated..." do you see it, Wrench?  There he acknowledges "arche" being used and applied to Jesus as the one who "originated" or as the one who "formed" the world as its originator"! That he's referring to Jesus here is undeniable for he had just quoted  "my reward is with me" (v 12) and tied it to Matt 16:27, where we discover that it's "the Son of Man" with whom the reward will be.

 

Yet you don't think he considers his own choice, "ruler", as wrong, do you?  Of course not...Instead, the right and correct meaning is the one he finds support for elsewhere in the bible.  But notice also how easily the "ruler" meaning ties in with the meaning, "originator"...the one being naturally ancillary to the other. Then note what he said with regard to the meaning YOU contend for  "That this is not a necessary signification of the phrase, since no one can show that this is the only proper meaning which could be given to the words, and therefore the phrase cannot be adduced to prove he is himself a created being."

 

Now Beckwith's book was copywritten in 1919 and reprinted in 1922, this was after Grimm/Thayer,  and after the discovery of the Papyri and Adolph Deissman's "Light from the Ancient East" 1st ed.  Yet in reference to the idiomatic phrase in Rev 3:14, note how he likewise ties in with the Alpha & Omega as a "self-designation" for Jesus as "the beginning and the end", he says on page 489, 

 

"Since Christ's creative relation to the world does not form one of the topics of this epistle, or of the book in general, these words are probably meant to express the preexistence of Christ before all creation (cf. Holtzm. Theo. I. 547), i.e. one aspect of that eternal existence emphasized in his self-designation, cf. 1:17, 2:8, 21:6, 22:13. The words, then, like the fuller phrase, 'I am the beginning and the end', assert the majesty of the Lord in his eternal being..."

 

Hence Barnes at the earlier time (1852) failed to note at 3:14 that "arche" is indeed used properly  elsewhere in Scripture to mean "originator",  but acknowledges it later on page 501 of the same book.

 

It is interesting to note that the general consensus of belief among the scholars we've seen so far... is that the one thing they AGREE on is that the meaning you contend for is not the right one, and they all reject it for the same reason too...because it is not supported by the teaching of Scripture elsewhere.  In fact they are of the opinion that the Scripture elsewhere flatly denies the meaning you contend for at Rev 3:14.  And I have also found that to be the case.

 

 

 

Ray continues: Concerning the so-called “bias argument” with reference to Grimm/Thayer, you don’t seem to be contesting my point that since you’re the one who claims corruption based on personal conviction (bias) at Rev 3:14,  that it’s your burden to show specific examples of such corruption right where you claim it must have occurred.  After I explained my own exasperation in trying to get this point across to you, you respond that “I guess I just needed to here you acknowledge in words the possibility.  I didn’t feel I was getting that, but maybe I was and wasn’t catching it, whatever, I think we can put that behind us, I hope.”…

 

 

You ask about Abbot, namely “What exactly was the variant-verse notation that he contributed, and what would that have to do with anything doctrinally?” Thayer doesn’t elaborate beyond mentioning that these were the result of an investigation later given to “the learned world” and published in Tischendorf’s  “Critica Major”.  I know that Abbot was a very highly respected scholar in the area of textual criticism of the NT manuscripts, even though he was known to be unorthodox in his personal beliefs.  Hence, then, I would aver that he probably went through Thayer/Grimm’s manuscript with the latest discoveries of textual variants or disagreements based on the interpretation of the same, or other new discoveries that may bear on the meaning of the NT text.  Interestingly he mentions that his investigation was published in the Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s “Critica Major”. I know that Dr. Tischendorf was the finder of the Sinaiticus manuscript  “Codex Sinaiticus” so named because he discovered it at at St. Catherine monastery on Mount Sinai.

 

 

After my further explanation that the logos took the nature of a creature when he became flesh (John 1:14),  you say the following:

 

“I understand that you say he TOOK ON the nature of a creature, but that doesn’t give me the differentiation I was needing. Does that mean he then WAS a creature? For instance, when angels would appear, they would take on the nature of a man, right? But, did that mean that they WERE a man, or were they still an angel wearing the nature of man? Do you see the difference I’m after? Where, in your opinion, does the Bible actually SAY that Christ was a creature. Not just the word “slave” or “man”, but a creature or “part” of creation?”

 

 

 

 

 

Ray had said, “Ok, Wrench, please try to see that what you say above is neither here nor there. We have a bottom line here. No one in the scholarly community seems to have ever been aware of the arguments you've put forth (according to you)...and yet you are so convinced inside your own mind that these points are overwhelmingly in your favor. So, how is this reality to be explained? Apparently here you don't think claiming that they are all biased against you throughout all the centuries is a reasonable argument, and I would agree that it's a stretch to say the least. So here you seem to be suggesting that somehow this overwhelming evidence was "missed" by everyone throughout all the centuries, not only by the mass of pious Christians, but also by the best minds the Church had, everybody missed it. Now stop to think, this is not just some little verse that perhaps a nuance was missed, oh no, this is a whole big BUNCH of verses. I'm trying my best to understand how you can inside your own mind brush this off. Maybe you really do believe that its just because they are all biased against you, and such a thought has placated you, but you don't want to appear to be one of those guys who's always looking for black helicopters”.  You answer as follows:

“Ray, I would think things like this are easily missed. This is not just the meaning of a single word or it really doesn’t have to do with some “rule” of grammar. It has to do with something that is not so obvious, that being the way a particular syntax or word order is used in relation to one particular word. I’ve posted this same treatise many, many places to be viewed and commented on by Trintarians galore, and not one has ever seen the presentation of these facts. And besides, I didn’t come up with this myself, but it was first mentioned, as far as I know, by both Rolf Furuli and Greg Stafford, both who have studied and possess degrees in the ancient languages of the Bible. To say that they could not discover a new aspect in relation to the way “arche” is used with a genitive, is beyond me. You may think it remote, but you can’t deny the fact that the the claims are valid when it comes to the Biblcal examples. Do you really think we’ve come to the end of the road when it comes to discovering things like this? If so, maybe I should cancel my subscription to JBL because that is about the only reason I get it, is to keep abreast of what the current scholarly discoveries and opinions are.”

 

 

  Ray had said: “ But you know, at first when I thought about it,  I hadn't considered whether the WT Society had ever set this evidence forth...and when I thought it over, I realized that I'm pretty familiar with WT literature clear back even before the turn of the last century,  and I don't recall anything that even remotely resembles such an argument. So although you might be able to convince yourself that "everyone is biased against me", and live with that explanation, it's just impossible to offer the same explanation for the WT's not setting it forth. Even you don't believe that they are biased against you, do you? More in a moment about this. “

Wrench replies: “Maybe they have never seen it before, but one thing is certain, they’ve seen it now because I know that they have copies of both Greg and Rolf’s books, and they’ve had them for quite some time. Now, what have they done with that information? Let see, did they DF Greg and Rolf for running ahead? No. Did they discipline them and remove them from their responsibilities in the congregation? No. Did they come out and tell us not to read their books, since they have to know that 1000’s are? No. Have they even given us a “generic” warning about such books? No. Not to date. So, what does that tell me as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?  It tells me that your view of their “realm of control” is a bit exagerrated and that their warnings of “independent thinking” were not in regard to things of this nature.

 

Ray says: Perhaps, but I have a gut feeling that it won’t be long and they will have to clamp down.  Otherwise they will lose control and the asylum will be run by the inmates. I don’t say that lightly, but I base it on my own knowledge of WT history with regard to this kind of activity.  Historically the Society has not tolerated very well any of their “sheep” stealing their thunder, so to speak.  I don’t think they necessarily want to clamp down,  but they’ve been burned before (from their perspective) because they didn’t do so soon enough.

 

Remember me mentioning the problems at Bethel in the late 70s and early 80s? How much do you really know about what went on during that time? This has to be put in context, but it was not long after the fiasco about 1975,  and many witnesses were leaving the organization,  being upset because the Society tried to, as they had done with the 1925 “ancient worthy” failure,  blame the  sheep for their own actions that stirred expectation about that date (75).  In the 75 yearbook, a history of JWs in the United States,  they present a completely distorted recollection of their failed date-setting with regard to 1925,  and actually blamed the sheep for “reading too much into” what they had written.  So by the late 70s and early 80s there was much unrest in the rank and file, and this naturally manifested itself at Bethel Headquarters. It soon looked like the sheep were losing confidence in the Slave as a safe guide. Now, with this background in mind, note the date and context of these WT articles.

 

Watchtower magazine --  Jan 15,  1983, page 27  “Fight Against Independent Thinking…As we study the Bible we learn that Jehovah has always guided his servants in an organized way.  And just as in the first century there was only one true Christian organization, so today Jehovah is using only one organization. (Ephesians 4:4, 5; Matthew 24:45-47) Yet there are some who point out that the organization has had to make adjustments before, and so they argue: ‘This shows that we have to make up our own mind on what to believe.”  This is independent thinking.  Why is it so dangerous?

       Such thinking is an evidence of pride.  And the Bible says: “Pride is before a crash, and a haughty spirit before stumbling.” (Proverbs 16:18) If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: ‘Where did we learn Bible truth in the first place? Would we know the way of the truth if it had not been for guidance from the organization?  Really, can we get along without the direction of God’s organization?’  No, we cannot! – Compare Acts 15:2, 28, 29; 16:4, 5.”

 

Ray says: Do you see what they are worried about, Wrench?  If they give the sheep too much “space” they are in danger of deciding that based on the Slave’s history of leading them all over the map, so to speak, you may decide to do it yourself. What if everyone started thinking like that, what would become of the Governing Body? They must protect their perceived position of authority.  They must inform you that such “independent study” is not a good thing. Of course what they really mean by “independent thinking” is doing it without their direct supervision or their publications. Their own “fears” can be seen in the statement “If we get to thinking that we know better than the organization, we should ask ourselves: ” Remembering the trouble in paradise (Bethel) that came to a head in the early 80s,  the so-called witchhunt,  Consider what was happening among the rank & file right after the “75 fiasco” when people were leaving the organization in droves. Only a year after that we read:

 

Watchtower magazine 5/15/76, p. 298  “ Does not this wavering from one position to another raise questions as to the sincerity of these opposers?  Most of them were former church members who came to declare that such doctrines were false, originating in non-Christian religions.  While they were associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses they offered proofs of their conviction to others as they preached to them. Are these men, when turning against Jehovah’s Witnesses, following the pattern of the apostle Paul? He once was a firm believer in Judaism, believing that he could gain righteousness by works of the Mosaic law. But he threw these things down when he became a Christian. His opposers said that Christians should return to subjection to the things of the Law,  and trust in such works for salvation. Paul answered: ‘If the very things that I once threw down I build up again, I demonstrate myself to be a transgressor.’’- Gal. 2:18.

     

     It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way,  then find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures was in error,  and then after that, to go back  the very doctrines that,  by years of study [[what kind of study,  WT supervised?]] we had thoroughly determined to be in error.  Christians cannot be vacillating—‘wishy-washy’—about such fundamental teachings.  What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons?”

 

So switching back forth is “wishy-washy’ and not worthy of confidence, right? Well, Wrench, what are they worried about?  You may already be aware of the following, but when I saw it I about fell out of my chair! Yet I really shouldn’t have been surprised by it. When the WT goes back and forth in their teachings, and gets caught, what did they call it?

 

The Watchtower magazine 12-01-81, only six years after 75…they had just been having a dog fight at Bethel, and had been lambasted with their own shortcomings by the “opposers”, and so they respond to the complaints like this:  “However, it may have seemed to some as though that path has not always gone straight forward. At times explanations given by Jehovah’s visible organization have shown adjustments, seemingly to previous points of view. But this has not actually been the case.  This might be compared to what is known in navigational circles as “tacking”…” 

 

And then they launch into a discussion about “tacking in the wind”…ha…Hence, when others do it,  it’s “wishy-washy” and not worthy of confidence,  but when we do it, “why we’re just tacking in the wind…you can still trust us…Ahhhhhh, rightJ  But what was it they were REALLY worried about back then? You have reasoned that it’s Ok to seek guidance elsewhere from the Slave as long you don’t reach a different conclusion than they teach.  I’m sure as a loyal Witness you are well aware of the Society’s policy when it comes to apostate literature.  They discourage you from even reading it,  and why, if you don’t reach a different conclusion from what they teach? Note the following as the WT actually envisions your rationalistic thought processes…

 

Watchtower magazine 3-15-86 , page 12:  “The Apostle Paul expressed this concern: ‘I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent seduced Eve by its cunning, you minds might be corrupted away from the sincerity and the chastity that are due the Christ.” (2^nd Cor 11:3)….Have no Dealings With Apostates…Now, what will you do if you are confronted with apostate teaching—subtle reasonings—claiming that what you believe as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not the truth?  For example, what will you do if you receive a letter or some literature,  open it, and see right away that it is from an apostate?  Will curiosity cause you to read it,  just to see what he has to say?  You may even reason: ‘It won’t affect me; I’m too strong in the truth. And, besides, if we have the truth,  we have nothing to fear. The truth will stand the test.’ In thinking this way, some have fed their minds upon apostate reasoning and have fallen prey to serious questioning and doubt. (Compare James 1:5-8.)  So remember the warning at 1 Corinthians 10:12: ‘Let him that thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.” Then at the bottom of the page comes the proverbial question:  “(b) As regards safeguarding oneself from the influence of apostates, why is overconfidence dangerous?”

 

Then you may even reason that what you’re doing in following Greg and Rolf  is “different” from reading apostate literature,  but do you think that justifies your bypassing the Slave in order to read and accept their arguments or points? If so,  take a close look at the following after the Society allowed the dangerous independent behavior to get out of hand…note the difference in attitude on their part….

 

 

Watchtower magazine 8:15-81 (note the date..and remember the house cleaning at Bethel).. “From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah’s people those who, like the original Satan, have adopted an independent, faultfinding attitude. They do not want to serve ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the worldwide brotherhood. (Compare Ephesians 2:19-22.) Rather, they present a ‘stubborn shoulder’ to Jehovah’s words. (Zech. 7:11, 12) Reviling the pattern of the ‘pure language’ that Jehovah has so graciously taught his people over the past century,  these haughty ones try to draw the ‘sheep’ away from the one international ‘flock’ that Jesus has gathered in the earth. [[[I’m not saying that you’re doing anything like that now,  but only that the WT says this is how it starts..nice and innocent like.]]] (John 10:7-10, 16)  They try to sow doubts and to separate unsuspecting ones from the bounteous ‘table’ of spiritual food spread at the Kingdom Halls of Jehovah’s Witnesses,  where truly nothing is lacking.’ (Ps. 23:1-6)  They say that it’s sufficient to the read the Bible exclusively,   either alone or in small groups at home. But,  strangely, through such ‘Bible reading’ they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christiandom’s clergy were teaching 100 years ago, [[[like Barnes and Beckwith, LOL]]]  and some have even returned to celebrating Christendom’s festivals again, such as the Roman Saturnalia of December 25!  Jesus and his apostles warned against such lawless ones.—Matt. 24:11-13; Acts 20:2;8-30; 2 Pet. 2:1, 22.”…..

 

 

Wow,  finally after they,  through independent thinking come out against the Society’s teachings,  the WT drops the hammer on them, so to speak. But many of these ones had witnessed the Slave’s leading them all over the map,  and decided that they needed to look around on their own…even looking into “Christendom’s Commentaries”!  Such a terrible and dangerous thing to do. So maybe the WT today is suffering from their slowness in the past at nipping such rebellious behavior in the bud before it gets off the ground.  After all,  Wrench,  look at how you’re so willing to walk along the edge of a cliff…reasoning “as long as I don’t step over that line right there…I’m ok”.  Hmm….

 

 

 Wrench says: The WT has many times offered more than one explanation for a few verses or passages, but it is never in contradiction with the fundamental teaching that touches on those verses. For instance, in relation to John 20:28 (and I’m not throwing this in to the discussion, it is just an example), you will notice the Aid Book gives a number of possibilities in explanation of that verse,  but none of them violate what they have determined to be true elsewhere in the scriptures. I could name numerous other examples where such is the case, the point being that it is not as crucial as you are making it sound to merely puppet in robot fashion only what the WT has said in relation to the application of a particular verse, or the explanation of a particular verse and the way it fits into the scheme of things.

 

 

Wrench says: I think those examples show the tolerance of that. The important thing is obviously to remain within valid exegesis and to not violate the “fundamental” teaching that is at stake. Otherwise, I think both Greg and Rolf would have been disciplined to send a clear and certain signal to the rank and file JW.  Even when it came to them cautioning brothers who put up pages on the net in defense of the WT and NWT, it WAS NOT forbidden, it was stated that THERE WAS NO NEED for such a thing, and that those on the net should be extremely cautious who they choose to dialogue with and to have no dealings with those who were known to be what we would view as apostate.

 

 

 

 Wrench said:  I recall years ago another brother who compiled a book entitled “The Trinity Examined in the Light of History and the Bible”, or something like that. I obtained a copy of it and he too sent a copy to the Society. This brother is still strong in the truth today and even had a hand in helping Greg with his book. Greg even mentions his name in acknowledgment. Now the Society has had years to catch up with this “lawbreaker”, but, did they? In fact, it wasn’t long, although admittedly a few years, before the Society began to use, or at least repeat some of the very arguments he presented in his book. The WT is certainly cautious before using information like this especially if it is relatively unchartered. They may wait to examine the evidence theirself or see how it pans out in the scholastic world before commiting to it’s usage. They are God’s appointed authority against heresy, Ray, and that is the way they are viewed. They give the food at the proper time to the household of God but they do not dictate to the nth degree how to view the understanding of each and every verse in the Bible as long as that understanding stays within the proper framework of context, grammar and true doctrine. The “independent thinking” they warn of has to do with taking a stand “against” that authority in the area of doctrine and moral values. Let’s be realistic, we all have to have independent thinking to one degree or another or we wouldn’t be able to make any decisions about anything in relation to the all the things we have to handle in life. The “independent thinking” comments should be kept in THEIR proper context as well.

 

 

Wrench says: Well,  even you have mentioned above that there is from time to time, newly discovered information. What is being presented here in relation to "arche" with a genitive phrase could be that, right? If not, why not?


Ray had said: Well, I suppose that a tornado tearing through a junk yard could produce a 747, but the odds seem to be aganst it. It’s not that scholars haven’t noticed the partitive interpretation of the genitive case, because they obviously have. It’s the conclusion you’ve reached that they’ve not reached…that seems to be a problem for you. For example, we cannot say that they have been unaware of the passages you appealed to, for they cite them many times for various reasons.

Wrench replied: Exactly,  but have they cited them for the reasons that I have presented? Scriptures are cited all the time for many different things, but that is a far cry from saying that therefore every aspect of grammar and syntax is understood in relation to other examples of like occurrences. Being AWARE of a passage has NOTHING to do with knowing all that might bear in ON that passage.

 

Ray replies: Well, we know that at least Barnes did back in 1852 as far as the NT examples go.  He cited them to show the same as you claim, didn’t he? And yet he nevertheless rejected the conclusion you reach on the grounds that the Scripture elsewhere proved otherwise. So the more I think about it the more I’m inclined to realize that the assumed strength of Stafford’s evidence is more apparent than real…in other words it is superficial, since not one of his examples contains the same referents and subject material, Christ and all creation to show the relationship between them with reference to the beginning. Instead clear,  unambiguous and predicate statements elsewhere in the N.T. (John 1:3, Col. 1:15-17,  Rev 22:12-16 cf. Matt. 16:;27) prove the exact opposite is the truth.

 

Wrench says:  Likewise, I will wait to comment on those verses, but, let me assure you, that now, since you make the complaints that you do about my “maverick” ways, I will take the “high” road and present what the WT has obviously offered on the area of John 1:3, and not the “possible” understandings that they have not elaborated on so maybe we can dispense with so much verbage about the WT and what it requires of me in relation to exegesis. Beside, you are already familiar with the “other” explanations I have offered, so, you can choose which one you want to address, maybe both, because either interpretation can be shown to be valid as I hope to demonstrate.

Ray replies: LOL…you’re a good man, Wrench, and I take nothing away from you. But the outward appearance of things doesn’t look very good when you try to run away from the WT Organization…no matter what excuse you use.  I have no doubt about your sincerity either.  If I were in your shoes, I also would dread having to defend the shifting sands of Watchtowerism.  It’s about like trying to hold down seven jack-in-the-boxes…no small order!……over here!…….no, over here! …….no, over here!

 
Ray had said: As I understand it, the GB is the spokesman for the Slave, and the Slave is made up of the whole class of anointed. And you say that they “for the most part write things for the rank and file.” Well, what about Greg Stafford, isn’t he part of the rank & file? It looks to me like you either don’t understand the authority of the Faithful and Discreet Slave, or you are simply doing the Tennessee bird walk to pass off the problems created by both God’s bypassing of the Slave, and then Greg’s bypassing of the Slave as well when he did the independent research and published his book. This wasn’t bad enough, apparently, but then you guys likewise bypass the Slave and eat at the table set by Greg.

Wrench said: What Greg presents is not outside or in opposition to the teachings of the WT. He too, presents both explanations of John 1:3 in his book, and doesn’t land on either one conclusively. He also presents the reasons why he feels the WT has “hinted” at the possibility of the understanding that I have previously presented. You see, Ray, I try to use not only my brains, but all the brains I can borrow, too. When I say that the WT writes primarily for the rank and file, I mean they don’t generally write things from a highly technical Greek point of view. I wasn’t trying to remove Greg or myself or anyone from the status of rank and file, I was merely stating that as one reason why they have never presented the information as such because of the highly technical Greek aspects of what is presented. They probably don