Biblical
Discussions
To Ray-The Son of God Created-Part 1 Sunday, 23-Apr-2000 10:28:42 Hi Ray:
Oh boy , is this thing ever long.
Shall we begin? My recent comments are in blue. You stated: 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".
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
My, you do like to exaggerate, don’t you. I see you explain later what you mean
about attributive and not predicate of itself, so I will address those concerns
later. What do you mean when you say it is in apposition. I am not familiar
with this so if you want to get more Greek on me you are going to have to
explain. If I were to venture a guess, I would say that none of those things
mentioned necessitate us reading the phrase under discussion any differently.
Am I right? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
On the other hand, if we approach the issue with a proper set
of priorities, and thus look to see what the teaching of the New Testament is
on this particular subject (elsewhere), we shall have to conclude with the
general consensus of reliable scholarship that the NT elsewhere clearly shows
that Christ was NOT the first of Jehovah's creations, but actually pre-existed
all creation (John 1:1-3, Col 1:15-17).
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I agree that we must take all that the scriptures say on any matter to be
conclusive, but, I am sure as you know, so far, the two scriptures you
reference have not been shown to weigh heavily enough against the natural
reading of Rev. 3:14 OR Col. 1:15, to cause anyone to read them in an
unprecedented manner. But, much more on this later. It’s interesting how you
conclude that my priorities are the wrong ones and yours are the right ones
when I think it is obvious that the things I present are PART of what ALL the
scriptures demonstrate concerning those phrases and the way they naturally
read. So, although, they are not specifically speaking about Christ’s
relationship to creation, they certainly give a criteria for how those phrases
are naturally understood. I don’t see how you can promote the idea that they
are of no concern, to the degree of comparing their significance to a
side-blinded horse with tunnel vision. Me thinks you protest too much.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It is important to note that
each of these two examples presents clear predication of the subject material,
thus John 1:3 makes the statement two different ways to prevent confusion....it
first says positively that all things "came into existence" THRU the
logos, and then seals it by stating negatively that there were no exceptions to
this (not even one!). Thus the logos is distinguished from all creation without
exception at the beginning, and that by priority of existence. Then Col 1:16-17
says the same thing just as clearly, even stipulating things visible and
invisible. So clear was this that even the NWT translators could not allow it
to stand as Paul said it. So, Wrench, if we approach Rev 3:14 with the right
set of priorities, the orthodox interpretation will have the precedence, and
the appositional expression in Rev 3:14 should be taken in conformity with it.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, I don’t see
John 1:3 the way you do, obviously. The “all things’ came THROUGH Christ
without exception, with that, we both agree, but, we disagree as to what the
“all things” constitutes, or do we? (more on that later) Now, obviously, the
“all things” does not include Christ, again, we would agree, but we disagree as
to the reason he is not included. Again, it is evident that Christ PRE-EXISTED
the “all things”, otherwise they could not come THROUGH him, again we would
agree, but we would disagree as to how far back Christ pre-existed the ‘all
things’. So. As far as the way we both read the verse 3 we agree as to the
natural way that it reads. The “all things’, without exception came through
Christ, who pre-existed the “all things”. So, I don’t see me reading anything
unnatural in to that phrase at all. Where the difference comes in, is in
relation to the “beginning” and what it means and HOW it affects the context. I
think it is quite obvious that the “all things” came THROUGH Christ after the
“beginning” elapsed. There is nothing unnatural in looking at it that way.
The “really” big difference is what we
believe the “beginning” was. I believe that the beginning was that period of
time, which had a beginning and an end of it’s own, in which God created the
Son. Once that beginning ended, then came the “context dependent” all things
THROUGH the Son. I see absolutely nothing unnatural about the way that
reads. You say I am “asserting” this
position without proof, but let me remind you of what it is I “have” to do in
relation to John 1:3. Contrary to your insistence that I have to absolutely
prove that the interpretation I offer is the correct one, all I really have to
do is to demonstarte that it does not carry a Trinitarian force behind it
strong enough to overturn the natural reading of Rev. 3:14. You have stated
that the scholars and what-not evidently felt that John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 were
so solid for a Trinitarian interpretation that they were “heavy” enough to
cause one to interpret Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 in the “light” of those two
scriptures. What I have demonstrated, without corrupting any natural reading of
John 1: 3 is that it does not possess that kind of Trinitarian “weight” behind
it. (I believe that is also true in the wau we read Col. 1:16, but much more on
that below) I don’t have to prove it at all, Ray. I just have to show that it
isn’t strong enough to overturn the natural reading of “beginning of the
creation by God”.
That is what you
were relying on in order to not accept the the interpretation that JW’s have of
Revelation 3:14. You were counting on John 1:3 being understood “naturally”
only one way, your way, but what I have shown, and I have done so without
appealing to any unprecedented elements, without destroying the natural meaning
of the words, and well within the bounds of grammar and syntax, I have shown,
that really, are far as verse 3 is concerned, we both read it the same way. We
differ as to whether “all things” means “everything created”, but as far as the
way the sentence reads, it’s not much different. The real difference in our
understanding is the phrase “in the beginning” and the effect that it has on
the rest of the passage, as I explained above.
(I understand that the Trinitarian interpretation might be a way of
looking at those verses but that interpretation is far from a “given”, it is
far from a necessity to see it that way, and because of that, John 1:3 is far
from making any natural reading of “beginning of all creation” to be
overturned. As I have stated before and will state again, it is not a
“pendulum” scripture as you and others have hoped it to be.) The reason, again, that the “all things”
does not include “everything that was made” is because it doesn’t go so far as
to say that. Now, as you have noted, some translations read that way, but we
know that is not an absolute by a long shot and many Trinitarians and
translations acknowledge the NWT reading as the correct one anyway. So, the
verse did not say with any certainty “and apart from him not even one thing
came into existence that HAS COME INTO EXISTENCE”. What it says is “all things
without exception came through the Word”, but, that pre-supposes the existence
of the Word, which you agree upon, so again, the real problem is, did the Word
exist eternally or was he created. I am saying, and now that you have made me
analyze this interpretation fully, I’m not so sure that it is not the more
valid way of looking at it, that the phrase “in the beginning” is the
“beginning of God’s creation”, which according to Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15 and
Proverbs 8:22, read in their most natural manner, is the creation of the Son of
God. (Please take note that from here
on out I’m not trying to promote the idea that the “all things” is John 1:3 is
just the “physical creation”. You wanted me to take the high road and agree
fully with the WT, so that is what I am doing. Not that I think the other
explanation is no longer a consideration, because I do, but, I think I can now
see that the explanation I am currently offering, the one you have been wanting
me to offer all along, is really quite adequate and answers all the tensions
very well. I suppose I should thank you for your persistence because in all of
this I’ve learned something.) I’m sure
you are going to complain that this argument concerning John 1:3 is circular
when I use Rev. 3:14 and Col. 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22 to support the belief that
the “beginning” is the creation of Christ, since these are the very scriptures
that are being questioned, but, frankly, I don’t see how this discussion can’t
become some what circular for there are only so many scriptures that deal with
the Son’s connection and relationship to creation, and it is those very
scriptures that we have to use to figure what that relationship is. I don’t see
it any more circular then when you say that Rev. 3:14 can’t remain in it’s
natural state of understanding because of John1:3 and Colossians 1:16, when the
very understanding of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 are also under question.
Circularity does not necessarily mean error, so many times, if the argument is
necessarily somewhat circular, as this one will probably remain so, you have to
go with where the weight of the evidence leads you. And the way I see the
weight of that evidence is like this:
(This is just a brief summary. Detailed discussions of these will follow
either in this post or subsequent posts)
Rev. 3:14 I see as weighing heavily in our favor from a grammatical,
syntactical and phraseological point of view. (I realize of course you disagree
because of John 1:3 and Col. 1:16, but I will talk about those in a
minute.) Colossians 1:15 I see as again
weighing heavily in our favor from grammar, word meaning, syntax and
phraseologically.(Colossian 1:16 below)
Proverbs 8:22 I see as weighing again heavil;y in our favor since most
Trinitarians that I have read on the subject agree that it refers to Christ and
because of the consistent, exceptionless meaning given to “qanah”. John 1:1-3 I see as a passage that could be
taken either way but I see things in the context and other lexical problems
with the way trinitarians interpret the verse. (For instance, the difference in
meaning between the first God and the second god that they must employ in order
to retain their doctrine). If this verse were alone in revealing the Son’s
connection with creation, I don’t think we could do much to settle the
question. I think there are still some grammatical considerations left to
consider about this verse, concerning intermediate agency, which I will address
later in this post. I don’t see this as a Trinitarian plus by any means. Col. 1:16 I see as very much in the same way
as I see John 1:3, but because of the qualifying statement in verse 15 that
Christ is “part” of creation, at least according to all the examples of
“prototokos” in a genitive phrase, I have even less concern over this being a
Triunitarian stronghold. Verse 16 by itself wouldn’t really “settle” the issue
for Trinitarians because again of the intermediate agency that it puts the Son
in, and also because of that fact that Trinitarians themselves admit that the
phrase in 15 could be partitive, as you have admitted. I think that in itself
plays a crucial role as to whether the “all creation” and “all things” are
identical. I will address those things more fully later in this post. But, all
considered so far, I don’t see this as a Trinitarian plus either, even less so
than John 1:3. Hebrews 1:2 we haven’t
talked about much, but I don’t see this as very helpful to the Trinitarian
cause either since the Son is again obviously the agent of creation rather than
the active cause. 1 Cor. 8:6 I see as
no help whatsoever to the Trinitarian side of the issue even when it is
compared to Romans 11:36 but this is still yet to be discussed in detail which
I will address later in this post. I just wanted to give you a quick glance at
my thoughts on these things. Details will follow where necessary. Now, it seems to me that we are going to
have to solve the problems we are faced with primarily with the scriptures that
I mention above, because as far as I have seen, these are the ones that deal
with creation, God and the Son all in the same context. Obviously they are
going to be used to bolster each other on both sides of the argument, so things
are just going to be a little circular. I see no way out of it. Anyway, when I look at the above scriptures,
and when I think of the way I approach any question of doctrine, I always interpret
the non-absolutes in the light of the absolutes. Or maybe I should say, I
interpret the ambiguous contexts and scriptures in the light of things which
are not ambiguous. Or maybe even more accurately than that, I interpret the
ambiguous things in the light of the “less” ambiguous things. I do not see
ambiguity in Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22 for the reasons that I have
outlined in my treatise. When it comes to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 and the others
that you have offered in defense, I see ambiguity galore. That is why, in my
honest opinion, you don’t have a case. But, I also know we are not done yet
either, so, I will resist being too dogmatic at this point. More on John 1:3
later and Col. 1:16 below.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You seem to be taken up with
a non sequitur based on what you see as a consistent pattern. Thus you use
expressions like "everywhere else..."...or "EVERY OTHER
TIME", with regard to "arche with the genitive". However, the
conclusion you reach is non sequitur because the pattern, no matter how
consistent it seems, cannot negate or overrule the clear teaching of Scripture
elsewhere. And we must recall that even the WT Society has not relied on or
used yours (or Greg's) argumentation in the past, and they would have no
natural bias against it since they teach the same conclusion. Therefore I don't
think the scholars have "missed" what you think they have, rather
they have simply recognized that clear, unambiguous, and predicated statements
of scripture elsewhere (like John 1:3 & Col 1:15-17) carry the day. Obviously we will go into this more deeply
later in this letter.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yes, I’m sure we
will. But, as I mentioned above, I see plenty of ambiguity in John 1:3 and Col.
1:16. I think I have outlined my reasons concerning John 1:3 clearly above, but
we will discuss this again below as well. Col. 1:16 will be addressed below,
too. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
As a loyal witness you
should be eager to stick with the WT since you SAY you consider them God's
authority on such matters. What was it Jesus said about "honoring me with
their lips"? And so you say you trust them as a safe guide, but you
couldn't prove it by me so far in our discussion.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
All I can say is
that you are mistaken about what you have surmised as to my feelings toward the
WT. More below. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ?
Watch as you haggle and boggle
over your previous attempt to connect up "the beginning" of Gen 1:1
with "the beginning" of John 1:1 in order to sustain your attempt to
restrict the "all things" of John 1:3 to only the physical universe.
I brought it to your attention that any attempt to connect up these two
beginnings opposes the WT's teaching that there was an interval of time between
them during which the creation of the spirit angels occurred. Note: $$$$$$ ". I don’t want you to think
that I am somehow opposed to the explanation of John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1 being
different time references, because I am not. I simply happen to think that them
being the same time reference makes more sense TO ME. I have offered that to
you and you have objected by means of appealing to the WT as being in
disagreement with me, who I claim to uphold as God’s authority on these
matters. That disagreement, as I hope to show, is debatable in itself, but,
regardless, don’t be fooled into thinking that I can’t defend the position that
you say the WT is insistent upon, that being John 1:1 and Gen. 1:1 are
referring to “different” time references with the phrase “in the beginning”. I
can defend it just as easily as the position that I personally prefer, in fact,
you may find that it doesn’t require much “tweaking” at all to simply “shift”
to the other position, because it is certainly valid and defendable. I just
happen to think that the explanation I have offered makes better sense to ME.
But, more on this later as we continue." $$$$$$$ Ray replies: As we shall see in a bit the problem for you lies
in your attempt to restrict the "all things" of John 1:3 to just the
physical universe in order to escape the clear and unambiguous language that
the logos pre-existed all creation. Since the passage actually states no
exceptions, this could only mean that the first thing that ever came into
existence did so THRU him. So your motivation for wanting to place a
restriction on the "all things" is exceedingly obvious. More on this
later...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, according
to your wish, I am no longer trying to link the two together, nor am I trying
to say that the “all things” is just physical creation, so, the point is a
little moot from here on out. You
mention time and time again in this post about clearing up this problem with
the WT between me and the things I have presented in the “other” explanation. I
will address those things at the appropriate places below, but please take note
that I am no longer offering that explanation, according to your wish.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
After clarifying my meaning
about exactly how Christ has identified with creation as a result of John 1:14,
you make further inquiry as follows:
$$$$$$ "However, I would like to inquire further if you don’t mind.
First, I am wondering, other than the possibility of Col. 1:15-17 implying to
you that Christ was considered a ‘creation” (in the manner you describe), what
other scripture do you know of that ACTUALLY CALLS Christ a “creation”? What I
mean is, it appears that this would be the only one that does so. Although you
mention Phil. 2 as calling him a servant and a man, it doesn’t actually speak
of him as “included” in creation. It doesn’t call him a creature or a creation.
Is there a scripture other than Col. 1:15-17 (possibly, as you say), that
actually calls Christ a creation via his incarnation in the flesh?"
$$$$$$$$ 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.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Actually no, Ray.
It says he pre-existed “all things”, not all creation, specifically. We both
agree that the Son pre-existed all things. We both agree that the “all things”
came through him and we both agree that the all things do not include him. As
you say, that is the natural way to read the words of verse 3. We simply
disagree as to the reason that the all things do not include him. You say it is
because he is the Creator and that the words MUST include anything that was
made. You appeal to the words that you say are generally appended to verse 3
“that was made” as more evidence for your interpretation but you must have forgot
that many Trinitarians agree with the rendering of NWT. (JB, NAB, NEB, RS
ftnote). You claim that the NWT “solved” the problem in an interesting way. You
failed mention that these Trinitarians agree with that rendering, some even
suggesting it as the stronger rendering. (NAB) What were these Trinitarians
trying to “solve”, Ray? You claim that
regardless, the words state negatively what they just stated positively, so,
according to you, this HAS to include all creation. But, it really necessitates
no such thing, Ray. All it tells us, positively and negatively, is that there
were no exceptions in the all things that came through the Son. Can’t you see
that the word “through” already presupposes his existence? Well, yes, you can,
because you believe that, too. The “all things” are “all things” after the
beginning took place, Ray. This is exactly like the “former” explanation, only
the “beginning”, instead of refering to the beginning of just the “physical
creation”, it refers to the “beginning” which is the “creation” of the Son,
which is attested to by Rev. 3:14, Col. 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22. The all things,
which we know is context dependent, are “all things”, again, that came after
the point in time known as “in the beginning”. Hardly anything changes from one
explanation to the next, except the definition of what the beginning is. The
“all things” that came into existence without exception through the Son, are
“all things” that were brought about “AFTER” the “BEGINNING” had elapsed. There
is nothing unnatural or stretched in order to look at this verse that way. The
“all things” include “all things” after the “beginning”, which was the creation
of the Son. I see you as having the same problem with this explanation as you
did with Greg’s, and your only defense against Greg’s presentation was the fact
that you have figured that it is in disagreement with the WT. Well, since this
agreement is not in conflict with the WT, that certainly can’t be your
objection. Again, John 1:3 does not hold sufficient weight to overturn the
threefold natural readings and word meanings of the three scriptures I offered
in my treatise.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
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, its 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.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I have read the
above two or three times, Ray, and I am still having a hard time deciphering
exactly what the confusion is. Let me go through this agian in realtion to
Colossian 1:15 and see if this helps. Verse 15 tells us that Christ is part of
creation, of that, I am convinced, and nothing you have said undermines that,
especially when you admit that in a “special” way, you could agree. (More about
that “special” way later). Now, when the “all things” comes up, it must be
understood in the light of what verse 15 just stated, that Christ is part of
creation, one way or another. I listed numerous examples of how “pantas” could
be supplied with the word “other” as it happens in other translations as well.
In response to these examples you say that Col. 1:16 is different because it
doesn’t make it obvious, as did the other verses, that the first referent was a
part of the group. However, I beg to differ, because that is exactly what verse
15 does. Let me explain it this way. In
each of the cases I cited you stated that there was no argument as to whether
the first referent was a part of the group mentioned, whereas there was a big
argument as to whether Christ was or not. First of all, I don’t think the
argument is that big since you yourself admit that in a “special” sense it
could be including him among creation, regardless of whether we settle the
“first one of creation” issue or not at this juncture. We both agree that the
words could place him among the creation that is spoken of, right? I certainly
agree and you admit the possibility. I also notice that Grimm himself considers
Col. 1:15 partitive asdoes Nigel Turner. The problem I have with this then is,
if you admit that he could be among creation (specially), how can you say that
the “all things” then discards him from creation in the very next breath if you
also think that the “all things” and the “all creation” are identical? I do not
happen to think that the “all things” are identical with the “all creation” and
I believe the NWT translators inserted the word ‘other’ to be sure no one would
confuse the two. I don’t see it as a left-handed admission that they felt the
“all things” would naturally be “all creation”, by their inserting of the
‘other’. I believe that the verse could have stood without the “other” in there
just as readily because there is no reason to conclude that the “all things”,
which are context dependent, are identical with the “all creation”. Again, I
believe God’s choice of words were for a purpose. Could he not have simply
repeated the words “all creation” in verse 16 instead of saying “all things”?
He certainly could have, but he didn’t, and, again, I think it to be for a
reason. The “all things” are all things that came through the “firstborn” of
all creation. Again, I see a time indicator involved, as is in John 1:1-3.
After the firstborn of all creation, the “all things” came through that
“firstborn”. Again, we agree that the “all things” do not include the Son. We
disagree as to WHY the Son is not included. You say his exclusion removes him
from “all creation”, but you contradict yourself and Grimm and others surely
contradict you when they admit that Col. 1:15 is partitive. Can’t you see that
if 15 is partitive that there is no way for the Trinitarian to hold to the view
that the “all creation” is therefore identical with the “all things”? More on
this below. I say his exclusion removes him from the “all things” which are
JUST those things that came THROUGH him, NOT all creation. We agree that the
“all things” came THROUGH the Son, which presupposes his existence. Why did he
exist? Because verse 15 tells us he was part of creation. I see verse 15 as
giving the reason why he is not included among the “all things”, that being he
was already a part of creation by being the firstborn, which again,
predominantly means the “first one in sequence”. I see nothing unnatural or
twisted in reading that passage in that manner. Where does it violate the words
used? Where is the unambiguous Trinitarian stronghold in this scripture to
cause us to read “firstborn of creation” to not be a ‘partitive genitive’, or
to cause us to read Rev. 3:14 differently then the way it naturally reads
whether it is in apposition, or attributive or not predicate if itself? It
doesn’t carry enough weight, Ray, to do so. I don’t see how you will ever
convince me otherwise. Because of that I see the three fold witness
presentation to clearly show where the precedented understanding of those
phrases should rule the day, and not the Trinitarian option.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
On the other hand, as the
Trinitarian view believes, Christ could enter the category of creation later
(Jn 1:14), thus becoming part of creation without being the first in the
series. Then He could be recognized as deserving of the title
"firstborn" because He was before all creation and was hands on
responsible for it at the beginning, and also hands on responsible for its
redemption as our Kinsman Redeemer. Just like David, he wasn't the first king
of Israel, was he? No, but he was elevated to the STATUS of firstborn, most
high of the kings of the earth. (Ps 89:27) He wasn't the first King, but
dovetailed into category. As the WT says, because he was
"preeminent". Thus we can accomodate Paul's language with no problems
in both verses 15 and 16. But the WT's view stumbles clumsily over Paul's words
in verse 17... " he is before all things". You see, the same problem
that you tried so hard to escape in John 1:3 clings to you in full measure at
Col 1:16-17. Moreover, as we shall see, your attempt to restrict the "all
things" in John 1:3 to only the physical universe is fraught with all
sorts of difficulties.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, I see the
phrase “firstborn” as meaning “first one born” which carried with it the
“preeminent” position among sons. The WT didn’t stumble at all. They merely
“clarified” the passage with the word “other” so there would be no confusion,
just like many other translations put the word ‘other’ in, even where it was
not absolutely needed, just to help ‘clarify” the passage. Even among the
Trinitarians who adhere to the partitive genitive in 15, the word “other”
should not be a problem, because if it is partitive, and Christ is PART of the
“all creation” in verse 15, the Trinitarian then can not hold to the opinion
that the “all things” are identical to “all creation”, because whereas Christ
is included in the “all creation”, he would not be included in their “all
things”, so, they can not be identical, and the word “other” would clarify
that. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
After I rehashed our see-saw
argument about "bias" in the Grimm/Thayer Lexicon, noting the slow
progress we have made...to the point where you now see that whoever relies on
"corruption based on bias" as an explanation must show specific
examples of it right where he claims it must have occurred... in order to
verify the explanation. You present your understanding of the problem as
follows:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Let me
review the steps that I see so far in this “bias” discussion, and you tell me
if this is how you see the progress. When it came to Grimm’s definition for
“arche” (source), I stated that you could not dismiss the possibility of bias
as the reason for him choosing that as a definition. Obviously, that can’t
stand alone, I have never intended for that stand alone. It seemed to me
though, that from your words in defense of a ‘non-biased’ position for Grimm,
you were trying to claim that there was no possibility of bias (I realize now
that you are not claiming that) on Grimm’s part because of what you perceive as
a sweeping endorsement of Trinitarian and Unitaraian scholars alike of his
work. You supplied an example of where Grimm exhibits a ‘non-biased’ assessment
in relation to the word “theos”. Therefore, you are challenging me to supply
evidence in relation to Rev. 3:14, that Grimm’s choice was one of a biased
leaning. Without that, then I am presenting a meaningless defense. Does that
sound like a fair assessment of what is happening? If not, you can point out
what you feel has been missed. I suppose if I had heard you say the words that
you say later in this post, much of this dialogue could have been avoided, but
then again, maybe not. We seem to shoot right past each other sometimes and not
quite understand what then other one is getting at. Anyway, later you say,
---Wrench, did you really think that anyone would deny that everyone who does
such a work has personal convictions, and that fact alone ALREADY establishes
the possibility.--- From the start of this “bias” conversation, Ray, believe or
not, that was what I was waiting to here from you. Thankyou. "
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Your analysis doesn't
quite go back far enough. Actually I was the first to broach the subject in my
very first letter in anticipation of your reply to my presentation about Rev
3:14. I made a short statement at first as follows: "And I think it would
be difficult to suggest that Thayer was a biased witness in favor of the
Orthodox viewpoint that Christ was not an original creature." Now, how you
could have taken from this that I was claiming it was impossible is beyond me.
A little further down the same letter I said this: " If they weren't
ignorant of them, should we assume that they were all prejudiced against your
view including Dr. Thayer? I don't think we could successfully maintain that
..." Again I fail to see how you could have gotten "impossible"
out of such words. But actually, Wrench, you started off claiming PROBABILITY
rather than just possibility anyway.
Your response was to echo your friend's claim that Thayer was actually
translating the words of a Trinitarian and therefore "the probability of
bias is still very much in tact". You of course adjusted this to
"possibility" later, whereas I have been steady from the beginning in
saying that "corruption based on personal conviction (bias) in this
Lexicon is going to be very difficult to establish", consistently
reminding you that since you are relying on such a claim, it's up to you to
show specific examples of such corruption right where you claim it
occurred....in order to verify your explanation. Otherwise you have no
explanation as to why your interpretation of Rev 3:14 has such little support
among the reputable Lexicographers and Greek Scholars. I'm just glad you now
acknowledge the necessity to verify your explanation. The failure to do so
right where you claim it occurred remains as a mark against the goals you have
set for yourself when you reframed your treatise.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, I believe I
have pointed out that in order to establish “probability”, you have to at least
establish “possibility”. I switched to “possibility” because, as I stated
above, I wasn’t even sure I was getting that from you in relation to “Grimm”.
Now that we are straight on that, we can talk about the “probability” factor.
So, I wasn’t trying to change my original contention about the probability of
bias. Keep in mind, Ray, that the ‘probability of bias” remark has to do with
Grimm’s definition of ‘arche’ as “active cause” or “source”. That’s what I cast
the “bias” shadow on. Now, you say I have
to show bias “right where you claim it occurred”. Are you actually suggesting
that I’ve got to show from Grimm’s own words where he admits he’s bias. You
know, it’s one thing for a person to be able to say things that make them
appear unbiased because that is what they want everyone to think, but to find
something that they say in their own publication that spells out bias is a
little ridiculous to ask for. They are not going to do that. I’m not going to
find from Grimm’s words himself that he is biased, so what exactly is it you
are asking for? If I can’t even understand the abbreviations of those bracketed
remarks, Ray, how am I even supposed to track them down? The only other choice
that I have is to go outside of that publication and find what other
“Trinitarian” scholars have to say about that renedering. The only way for me
to show that Grimm was probably biased in his choice is to gather evidence from
his own doctrinal comrades that would show his choice of definitions of “arche”
to be a bad choice and a bad choice that he should have known about, and that
is what I have been doing. I have been asking and searching high and low for
those bracketed quotes and have found a little bit of nothing. Let me ask you,
then, Ray. Do you know what they are and you’re just holding out on me? Now, if
you do know what they are then point me in the right direction and I’ll go do
the research but if you don’t know either then what other choice is there but
to go outside the publication and look elsewhere. The result is the same if
“Trinitarians” agree that source is “improper” or highly questionable or
controversial. Let’s face it, those bracketed quotes direct us to information
that is OUTSIDE Grimm’s publication so what is the differenc when I find the
same thing by other scholars that may not be mentioned in Grimm’s or Thayer’s
references? You say later that even if the evidence points to disagreement with
Grimm it still wouldn’t “prove” that Grimm had bias. Well, don’t YOU change it
from “probabililty” to “proof”, Ray. Just like you tried to chasetise me for
changing it from “probability” to “possibility”. I’m not out to “PROVE” bias,
merely to raise the “probability” of it, which I believe that the quotes I gave
you certainly head in that direction. And, as well, I am continuing to research
that meaning as to whether it is valid or not. So, patience, friend, this
doesn’t have to be setltled in the span of one letter. And please be reminded
that the “bias” claim really had nothing to do with my treatise to begin with.
I stated that the reason Grimm gave that definition as “source” or “active
cause” was probably due to bias, because of not being able to show ONE clear
example of where “arche” means “source” from the scriptures. I think the fact
that he does have to go outside the scriptures to find an example for support
is another telltale sign of bias. Beckwith, who surely should have been
familiar with Grimm’s research, did not opt for the “SOURCE” meaning. He opted
for “agent” as the meaning. The reason I say he was ‘struggling’ with it is
because he mentions the three possibiliies of the meaning of the word,
beginning, source and ruler and doesn’t choose any of them, he actually invents
a new meaning for the word by opting for “intermediate agent”. In my opinion, that
looks like he was having a difficult time trying to fit the phrase into his
theology since he opted for a non-lexical meaning.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
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 exihibits 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).
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, I certainly
do have a problem with having to use only extra-biblical examples for a
support. I think the scriptural precedent should weigh far more than anything
extra-biblical. And, as well, the fact that Rev. 3:14 is the only occurence
with Christ and creation as referents doesn’t change the natural way it should
read, it is still “arche” followed by a genitive and we know how those read
everywhere else. And what you call PLAIN teaching is far from being plain or
unambiguous.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yet even if further
searching reveals a disagreement in one or more of the bracketed remarks, that
still would not prove that Grimm's work was corrupted by his personal
convictions (bias), for he may not have had access to the referenced material.
Nor should it be assumed ipso facto that the opposing view is correct. No
matter how you approach it, as I've repeatedly stated, bias (corruption based
on personal conviction) in this Lexicon is going to be very difficult to
establish. But the burden is on you to do so in order to verify your
explanation. In the absence of
specific examples of corruption based on bias, you next go on to cite three
references that acknowledge your meaning as "linguistically
possible". First is the BAG or better known now as the BAGD. But as I
pointed out in my initial reply, although they acknowledge your meaning as
"linguistically possible", their scholarly opinion, however, is that
the orthodox meaning is better supported by the evidence...and with that I
agree. Would you agree that since they actually adopt the orthodox meaning,
this is not meant as a "ringing endorsement" of your view? The next source you cite is Beckwith's
"The Apocalypse of John", 1922, p.488: Where although, like the BAGD
above, he acknowledges that your meaning is grammatically possible, he
nevertheless believes that the orthodox meaning has the better case in the N.T.
However, what you've shown so far seems more supportive of my view than yours.
Let me address this point from you about Beckwith... $$$$$ "....” Even Beckwith struggles with the problem.
Notice what he says: After giving his reasons as to why “first created” is not
right he goes on to say. “The words mean rather “the one from whom creation
took its beginning,” i.e. through whom it came into being; NOT THE CREATOR AS
THE PRIMARY SOURCE, for that is God in our book (4:11, 10:5), as elsewhere in
the Scriptures, but the CREATIVE AGENT of God, as in Jno. 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb.
1:2.” It sounds as though Beckwith understands the problem with “source” and
then vies for a totally different meaning as the “agent” of God’s creation. I
think it is interesting that he uses the word “agent”, for we would agree that
Christ was God’s “instrument” (agent) for creation. And, he applies that same
“agency” (instrumentality) to all the “pendulum” scriptures that you have
mentioned for swinging away from the natural and precedented meaning of those
words. I think it is quite apparent that the problem with “source” as a “highly
questionable” if not “incorrect” rendering of “arche” is well known among the
Trinitarian camp. It is because of these statements presented that I think
Grimm succumbed to his ‘personal conviction’ rather than to the facts
surrounding the “proper” meaning of the word. I would find it hard to believe
that someone so highly regarded among the scholars of his day, did not know
about this controversy as Barnes was one of his contemporaries and Beckwith
wasn’t far off. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I looked over Beckwith's presentation,
Wrench, and I honestly can't see what makes you think he's "struggling
with the problem"? I believe exactly as he does, but I don't feel in the
least as if I'm "struggling" with anything. Since the bible portrays God
as a plurality of Persons (US MAKE--OUR IMAGE...GOD (Gen 1:26-27), we don't
have a problem with one member of the Godhead occupying an intermediate role as
the hand's on Creator of all things. As he says, This would be quite properly
referred to as "the instrument of true deity"...within the framework
of the Trinity, we often recognize the Father as the Primary source...for the
simple reason that we hold that such was God's plan for the members to occupy
different primary roles...yet all the while we may say that God did this or God
did that. Trinitarians do not feel it is a "struggle" at all, in
certain contexts where more than one member of the Godhead remains in view, to
distinguish the Personalities by applying distinctive terms.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Regardless, he
did not opt for and objected to the meaning of “source”. I wonder how even you
can opt for the meaning of source. How can the “Son” be the “source” and the
“intermediate agent” at the same time? The FATHER is not the SON, and the
Father is the source, right? How then can you opt for source in a text that is
clearly speaking of the SON? I think Beckwith makes a good point that it is
surely not “source”, for that is GOD (meaning no doubt the Father), to him.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
A good example of this in
the bible itself is in 1 Cor 8:6...where Paul is constrasting the true Deity
over against the false deities in paganism. So on the true side of the
comparison he at once maintains the distinction of Personalities by applying
the term God to one and the term Lord to the other....yet note that he's in
context contrasting the true over against the false! Now, does Paul really include these two ultimately in the "true
God, Jehovah"? Sure, notice that he says of all things...they are
"out of" the Father, and "thru" Jesus Christ. Do you see
the "out of" and "thru"??? OK, now turn to Romans 11:36 in
the NWT, and what do we find? It tells us that "all things" are out of
(ek) and thru (dia) Jehovah...same Paul...so when he wants to distinguish them,
he does, and when he wants to meld them together as Jehovah, he does that
too...no big deal. Would you say that Paul was "struggling" here? ?
When I pointed this out to SOTB, he attempted to argue that the preposition
"dia" doesn't mean "between or through..or agency" when
used of the Father, citing the BAGD. However, as I replied to him, there is
nothing in the context of Romans 11:34-36 that restricts its application to only
the Father.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
And there is
nothing in the context to suggest that the Son is included in this either. It’s
merely your wish that includes the Son, certainly not a necessity, so there is
no reason to think that they were ‘melding’ something together here that was
clearly differentiated elsewhere such as was done at 1 Cor. 8:6.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Instead terms are used that elsewhere are applied also to Jesus.
Hence the BAGD's opinion is neither here nor there and must be recognized for
the assumption that it is. There is nothing to prevent the preposition from
having the same force here as in John 1:3, 1 Cor 8:6, and Col 1:16. And since
Romans, 1Cor., and Col. were written by the same Paul, and all inspired by the
same Holy Spirit, the burden is on any who would claim a different meaning for
these prepositions. What is most important for us is to compare scripture with
scripture, and let the bible speak for itself. So, when we compare Roman 11:36
with 1st Cor. 8:6, keeping in mind that Paul wrote both, and both were inspired
by the same Holy Spirit, we see that Jesus occupies the intermediate role as
the agency of true Deity ( Jehovah being a plurality of Persons including
Jesus). So, the logos occupied the intermediate role NOT from the standpoint of
being an original creature, but from the standpoint of being God (not the
Father!), as depicted for us in John 1:1c through 1:3.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You have to keep
in mind that in John 1:3 and Col. 1:16, there are two in the context and only
one in Romans. In both John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 isn’t it true that God is in the
‘active’ role where the Son is in the “passive” role? I don’t see a ‘passive’
role in Romans, but then my greek is poor. It is just God throughout the
context, with no differentiation between the Father and the Son as there is in
the other two examples of John and Colossians. Are you saying that Paul has to
include the Son whenever he speaks of the Father’s role in our existence? I
don’t think so. I don’t see any reason why he would have to do so and I think
it is presumptuous to think that Romans 11:36 is a melding of what is stated 1
Cor. 8:6. Paul simply spoke of the Father’s role in Romans and he spoke of both
the Father and the Son’s role in 1 Corinthians. There is no “weigfht” to your
claim, Ray, it’s simply your interpretation and Trinitarians like BAGD would
certainly not be biased against you, would they? You claim their estimation is
an assumption, well, what is yours other than that? Nothing you have presented
carries enough weight to overturn the natural reading of the ‘three’ different
verses that touch on the relationship of Christ to creation as being the “beginning”
and the “firstborn”, John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 included.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
From the above we can see
that anything God does is done directly by the Logos as the intermediate, not
from the standpoint of him being ultimately a creature, but from the standpoint
of him being ultimately God Himself (not the Father now). When one wants to go
to God for salvation, he must go directly to Jesus "no man comes to the
Father, but by me" (John 14). But Jesus is the intermediate agency again,
NOT from the standpoint of being ultimately a creature, but from the standpoint
of being ultimately true God by nature...just as he is depicted as the
intermediate agency in John 1:1c—1:3. When Jehovah predicted in Isaiah 40:3
that the baptist would prepare the way for "our God", Jehovah, guess
who showed up? You betcha, it was Jesus "our God"..."God with
us". Now the same tension occurs here as with the intermediate role the
logos played in the creation of all things. Witnesses are taught to think ONLY
in terms of representation...meaning the Son is merely representing the Father.
Thus they continue the assumption that only the Father is Jehovah. Whereas if
they would only stop to think and LOOK at the language of Scripture at the same
time (instead of listening to the WT), they could see that the bible actually
said in plain words right there in Is 40:3 that the baptist would clear the way
for Jehovah "our God"! So when the Logos came in the name of Jehovah
he came representing God ...NOT as a mere creature representative, as the WT
would claim, but as true God Himself by nature (my Lord and my God, confessed
Thomas).
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I understand what
you believe in regard to this, Ray, but I think you realize that there are
other ways to look at the passages you cite, including Isaiah 40:3. I think we
have enough to discuss with out bringing in other scriptures that don’t have a
pertinent bearing on the Son’s relationship to creation. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
How best to represent but to
do so as an actual member or the Godhead? This is the actual language the
Scripture used...but the WT couldn't handle it, so they made up something else for
you to accept. The Son is a mere creature representative who comes in the name
of Jehovah. Jehovah is not to be restricted to only the Father like you are
taught to assume...rather the Son is included within Jehovah, for Jehovah is in
reality a plurality of Persons.."LET US MAKE....IN OUR IMAGE"..(Gen
1:26) Us make is more than one, Wrench, and yet they are said to be God! The
Bible shows that we had a plural MAKER, and we should we believe the bible, not
cling to the doctrines of men?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
There is a
difference between make and create, Ray. I find it significant that that
scripture didn’t use the word create. It was certainly available, wasn’t it?
The Father created that which was needed for the Son and Him to make all
things. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
So I think you've merely
participated in your own deception when you kid yourself into thinking that
Trinitarians are "struggling" when they are simply accepting and
working out the actual language of Scripture pertaining to Christ's ultimate
identity, and then going on to reason from that standpoint. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Well, I
don’t expect you to agree Beckwith was struggling with it, that is just how it
appears to me. I did say that was how it “appears”. It wasn’t a dogma.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ So we see the interdependence of the
members of the Godhead as an eternal reality (frozen in the context of
eternity). This of course is primitive, since I am myself only a finite
creature, but try to think of the sun...the sun rays...and the heat...I think
of the nature of true Deity as eternally existing in a frozen state where as
long as the sun is alive the rays will be...and so also the heat. So by
correspondence, as long as the Father is alive so also will the Son be...and
the Holy Spirit. Now we could approach this example with our finite minds, and
thus reason, "well, then the rays and heat are dependent upon the sun for
life", and if God were finite and subject to the limitations of time and
space, that may well be so. On the other hand it may also be God's
condescending way of helping us to understand something about his infinite nature
from our finite platform. So if we correct for God's eternal and infinite
context, perhaps it is the heat that keeps the sun going with the intermediate
rays performing as the eternal lifeline of God. So, condescending to our level
(Isaiah 55:8-9), the bible presents the eternal God as a plurality of Persons
who have arranged themselves according to their own plan...to bring to pass the
will of God for His creation. Maybe that will help you to see that the terms
"source" and "intermediate" are not things trinitarians
"struggle" with. In fact I'm of a mind that those who are REALLY
"struggling" are those who try to escape the plural God reality and
excuse themselves on the false notion that it's "unreasonable", as if
the incomprehensible God must be reasonable and explainable in order to deserve
acceptance. hmmm...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, that’s why
we are here, Ray. The way I see it is when people have to appeal to the
unprecedented or the remote options or to the unlikely to hold on to their
doctrine time and time again, that would feel like a struggle to me, and so
far, from what I have seen, that is what the trinitarians do over and over.
When it comes to defending their doctrine they more often than not find themselves
opting for an unlikely meaning or an unprecedented one altogether or for some
remote explanation that doesn’t fit with anything else. I think that is called
‘special pleading’ their case. I wouldn’t mind if a teaching opted for a remote
meaning in a case or two, I am sure that can happen, but it seems to me that
this remote, unprecedented, and unlikely stance has to be taken many, many
times by trinitarians to hold on to their doctrine. I don’t see them as
allowing the scriptures to form their doctrine as much as they try to form the
scriptures “around” their doctrine.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
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.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
All I can say is
that it is too bad Barnes wasn’t consistent. Too bad he is not around to ask
him to clarify what he meant. But now, we have to ask ourself, was he careless
in his explanation of Rev. 22:13 or was careless in his words about “arche”
earlier. In my opinion, since he spent nearly two pages on his rejection of
“source” for arche that he would feel his error lied in his explanation of Rev.
22:13 but, I guess we will never know without getting it from him.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yet you don't think he
considers his own choice, "ruler", as wrong, do you? Of course
not...Instead, the right and correct meaning is the one he finds support for
elsewhere in the bible. But notice also how easily the "ruler"
meaning ties in with the meaning, "originator"...the one being
naturally ancillary to the other. Then note what he said with regard to the
meaning YOU contend for "That this is not a necessary signification of the
phrase, since no one can show that this is the only proper meaning which could
be given to the words, and therefore the phrase cannot be adduced to prove he
is himself a created being."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, of course
he has to disagree with the “created being” meaning. What else would we expect,
but he does make it apparently obvious that without his disqualifiers, it could
certainly mean that. And, as I said before, even if ruler were opted for,
although John doesn’t use “arche’ for ruler anywhere else, it doesn’t remove
him from creation. I would like to
present some more to you in relation to the word “arche” and the meaning
“source”. Besides what Barnes and Beckwith said about that emaning for “arche”,
I keep finding things in relation to that meaning that are interesting. It just
doen’t seem to add with everything I find. Let me explain what I mean by that.
(Please note this isn’t what I am calling conclusive, bit certainly indicative
of something peculiar about that meaning)
For instance: When I looked up
arche in Kittel’s TDNT, under it’s usage in the LXX, I see no mention of the
“source” meanign at all, under the NT meanings, the no. 1 meaning is
“beginning” with many examples and no questions asked. The no. 2 meaning is
“power” again with many examples and no questions as to the validity of that
meaning. When it comes to the third meaning they don’t even subhead what that
3rd meaning is but go into an explanation that is hard to make heads or tails
of for me. I surmise that they are offering the “active cause” meaning, in
particular with Col. 1:18, but then they wonder themselves about applying that
to Rev. 3:14, so I didn’t see that as much of an endorsement for “active cause”
as the meaning for Rev. 3:14, especially after what Barnes and Beckwith
said. So then, I went to Vine’s and
found this. “Source” is not listed, so I looked up “cause” which did not list
“arche” as a word that would translate as “cause”. So, I looked up “origin” and
it was not listed. So I looked up “root”, thinking of synonyms, and found
“rhiza” which has the meaning “root, origin, or cause”. But, there was no
“arche” offered as a synonym or a noun that could mean the same thing. So, I
looked up “beginning”. Now here, Vine’s offers the meaning “active cause” only
in relation to Col. 1:18, but strangely enough, doesn’t even mention Rev. 3:14
at all. So, I went to the back under the Greek Word Index and looked under
“arche”. The meaning “source, active cause or origin” was not mentioned in that
index for arche. So, again, it just doesn’t seem to follow through the way it
should. So, I checked Strong’s
Concordance and in their Greek Dictionary you don’t find the meaning origin,
source or cause given. It seems to me it should be in these places if it is
‘really’ recognized as a valid meaning to this word and not some stretched
definition. So, I thought I would just
share some things that seem peculiar with that meaning of “active cause”. It is
interesting what some have to say about the meaning of “active cause” or
“source” such as Beckwith and Barnes and Kittel, and on the other hand, it’s
interesting what others DO NOT say about the word in relation to that meaning
and Rev. 3:14. It seems that many places
that I look in these theological references and others the “active cause” for
“arche” keeps coming up short or under question, And again, I wouldn’t think
that even YOU would think of the Son as the “active cause” of “creation”, when
you and others have indicated that that would be the Father and the Son would
not be the active cause but the intermediate agent of creation, as Beckwith
noted.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Now Beckwith's book was
copywritten in 1919 and reprinted in 1922, this was after Grimm/Thayer, and
after the discovery of the Papyri and Adolph Deissman's "Light from the
Ancient East" 1st ed. Yet in reference to the idiomatic phrase in Rev
3:14, note how he likewise ties in with the Alpha & Omega as a "self-designation"
for Jesus as "the beginning and the end", he says on page 489,
"Since Christ's creative relation to the world does not form one of the
topics of this epistle, or of the book in general, these words are probably
meant to express the preexistence of Christ before all creation (cf. Holtzm.
Theo. I. 547), i.e. one aspect of that eternal existence emphasized in his
self-designation, cf. 1:17, 2:8, 21:6, 22:13. The words, then, like the fuller
phrase, 'I am the beginning and the end', assert the majesty of the Lord in his
eternal being..." Hence Barnes at the earlier time (1852) failed to note
at 3:14 that "arche" is indeed used properly elsewhere in Scripture
to mean "originator", but acknowledges it later on page 501 of the
same book.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
There is no
reason one has to view the “beginning” at Rev. 22:13 as a place where “arche”
means “source” or “active cause”. Even Grimm himself places those references
under a different meaning in his lexicon, as do most that I have seen. I find
the meaning of “source” applied to “beginning” in at Rev. 22;13 to be a little
weird as far as the way it works out with the other half of the phrase, that
being “the end”. To say he is the ‘source’ and the ‘end’ of everything would
mean that he is going to bring an end to everything, and I don’t think either
of us believe that. I agree with Grimm in this case because he let’s us know
that the “beginning” here is the first one in a series. Obviously, God is the
“first and the last and “the beginning and the end” of all that is in the class
of Almighty God. He is in a class by Himself. That is the most natural way to
read those phrases. Surely it doesn’t mean he started everything and then he is
going to end everything, but that is the way it sounds if you opt for “active
cause” at Rev 22:13. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
It is interesting to note
that the general consensus of belief among the scholars we've seen so far... is
that the one thing they AGREE on is that the meaning you contend for is not the
right one, and they all reject it for the same reason too...because it is not
supported by the teaching of Scripture elsewhere. In fact they are of the
opinion that the Scripture elsewhere flatly denies the meaning you contend for
at Rev 3:14. And I have also found that to be the case.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Yes, so far, but
then again, what would you expect Trinitarians to say?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Perhaps I should say
something about what it means to say that something is "grammatically or
linguistically possible". I've noticed that JWs seem so desperate as they
search through different scholastic sources for anything to support them in
their beliefs, that when a scholar mentions that a certain meaning or rendering
they like is "grammatically possible", off they go to the races.They
seldom stick around long enough to hear the rest of the story. As I mentioned
to Kazz once, one might say that "it's possible" to get to the
eastern seaboard of the U.S. by going westbound out of Indianapolis. Yes,
that's possible, but it's not the easiest, it's not the best, and it's not the
right way to go. But it IS possible...if one can maintain his ambition and stay
on course long enough! However, if one wants to get to the eastern seaboard
from Indianapolis, the best and right way to go, for ordinary people, is
eastbound ;-) Now obviously not every little conceivable detail coincides when
comparing bible interpretation with this example, but the main principle is
very clear. When you read that something is "possible", stick around
for a while in order to hear the rest of the story!
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well, I’m still
here. I haven’t seen a big change in the plot, yet.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
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.”… Yes, I agree that we should put that behind
us. So what is next on the agenda is for you to see that you’ve put forth a
claim of corruption based on personal conviction (bias) on Grimm’s part, and so
it is your burden now to show specific examples of such…right where you claim
it must have occurred (Rev 3:14), and the failure to do this will remain as a
mark against your stated goals in the reframing of your treatise. In other
words, your first witness (based on Rev 3:14) will be unable to accumulate to
the sum total you say you intend to “demonstrate”. As we’ve seen above, in the
absence of such specific evidence, you have cited a few scholars who say that
your meaning is “possible”. However, as we also saw, each of them adopted a
DIFFERENT meaning from the one you contend for. This could only mean that they
felt that the other meaning acquitted itself better in the light of the
available evidence, especially elsewhere in the New Testament. This is really
logically difficult for you. How do you take advantage of the one without
acknowledging the other? How do you rely on their “credibility” when they say
your meaning is “possible”, and ignore the same “credibility” when they adopt a
different meaning? But this is just one mark against your demonstration. There
are more that must be cared for, such as the evidence elsewhere in the N.T.
against the conclusion you are contending for. We shall be turning to the other
evidence shortly, but I need to address a few other points you mention first.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
When I quote
Trinitarian scholars who may agree with a certain aspect of my presentation, I
am not quoting it for my support alone, Ray. I am quoting it to show you that
that particular aspect is even agreed upon by some Trinitarians. That should
help you to see that what I am saying in regard to that particular aspect is
not just an invention of the WT or me or someboby else. And you certainly can’t
claim bias when even Trinitatians agree with a certain point I am making. It
doesn’t mean I am in complete agreement with everything they say. Everyone on
both sides of the theological fence uses quotes in the same manner without
agreeing with everything else. I’m sure you do it yourself. You have quoted the
WT to adjust my thinking, and I am sure you don’t agree with all they say. Do
you agree with everything Grimm says because you agree with his “source”
rendering? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You ask about Abbot, namely
“What exactly was the variant-verse notation that he contributed, and what
would that have to do with anything doctrinally?” Thayer doesn’t elaborate
beyond mentioning that these were the result of an investigation later given to
“the learned world” and published in Tischendorf’s “Critica Major”. I know that
Abbot was a very highly respected scholar in the area of textual criticism of
the NT manuscripts, even though he was known to be unorthodox in his personal
beliefs. Hence, then, I would aver that he probably went through Thayer/Grimm’s
manuscript with the latest discoveries of textual variants or disagreements
based on the interpretation of the same,
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Wait a minute,
Ray, I think you are adding something there. Nothing was said about
“disagreements based on the interpretaion of the same”. Your just inventing
that. What was said was “variant verse-notation”. Nothing about “textual”
variants or “disagreements” over them, it was simply “variant verse-notation”.
Now, once again, I would like to ask. What does that have to do with anything
doctrinally? How can you take from “variant verse-notation” that even Abbott
agreed with the “source” rendering from Grimm. There is no way that “variant
verse-notations” amount to what you want it to here. It sounds to me to be not
much more than a variant on how to notate verses. Notation is defined as a
system of signs, figures, or abbreviations used for convenience in recording
something. It doesn’t have to do with text as much as it has to do with how the
verse is notated when it is cited. It certainly doesn’t have to do with
interpretation.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
or other new discoveries
that may bear on the meaning of the NT text. Interestingly he mentions that his
investigation was published in the Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s “Critica
Major”. I know that Dr. Tischendorf was the finder of the Sinaiticus manuscript
“Codex Sinaiticus” so named because he discovered it at at St. Catherine monastery
on Mount Sinai. As I recall he was part
of a team sent from Leipzig University in Germany to the Holy Land to look for
ancient manuscripts. While talking to one of the attendents at St. Catherines
he noticed a couple waste baskets full of what looked like Greek manuscripts…he
casually reached down and picked a page up and discovered that it was indeed
part of an ancient bible writing on parchment (LXX). Years later he went back
to get the rest, this time representing the Russian Czar. He suggested that the
monks should donate as a gift to the Czar the rest of the ancient manuscripts
they had. He showed them the published LXX he had recently done, and the monk
replied “we have one of those too”…and quickly set before him sure enough a
copy of the LXX, but guess what was with it? Yep, the Sinaiticus manuscript in
Uncial script…I think this is the only manuscript that contains the entire NT.
Even the Vaticanus is missing some. So, since this all occurred right around
the same time that Grimm published his first edition (1840-1860), the study of
that manuscript would be contemporaneous with both Abbot and Thayer. Both Abbot
and Thayer were experts at other ancient writings contemporary with bible
times. So, given his zeal for fighting against the Trinity, if he were aware of
some evidence, biblical or otherwise, that either denigrated the orthodox view,
or supported his own personal belief, it’s very hard to think that he would not
have made that unambiguous.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Abbot never got
the chance, Ray, that is all too apparent from what Thayer has to say about
him. “Variant verse-notation” was surely not an avenue for correcting anything
in regard to Rev. 3:14. And since we still don’t know what Thayer was, there is
still no evidence that the Unitarian side of the fence was blown away by
Grimm’s extra-biblical research. In all honesty, Ray, do you think that a
Unitarian would be blown away by that when we all know that the most common
meaning of the word was “beginning”? They would have to be Unitarian idiots to
think that Grimm’s reference to some thing in the eight century bc and Clement
of Alexandria would be so strong that nothing else could fit at Rev. 3:14. Do
you really believe they wouldn’t have something to say in relation to the
meaning “source” with such a glaringly obviously alternative that has all the
scriptural precedent in the world? Do you expect ME to believe that? When I
said that “bias” was probable in relation to Grimm, you automatically think
that I am trying to say that it was an unfair prejudice on his part, but if you
look up the definition of bias, Ray, it can simply mean a mental tendency. Now
you can not deny that it was Grimm’s mental tendency or preference that caused
him to choose “active cause” as his meaning because if he would have relied
solely on the scriptural examples he wouldn’t have chose that option. It was
his belief in the Trinity that caused him to choose “active cause” or “source”
It was his preference or mental tendency, not necessarily his “unfair
prejuduce”. I’m not saying that Grimm was purposely corrupting something, but I
am saying that it was his predisposition, his bias in that sense, to the
Trinity that caused to him to render it the way he did. Bias is not ALL
negative, Ray, because you and I both have it, everyone does, to one degree or
another, you just seem to think it is always a bad thing. When I said bias was
responsible for Grimm’s rendering, I am saying it was his mental tendency
because of the trinity that caused his choice to be what it was. You are making
a stand against this bias comment because you think it means Grimm was corrupt.
BIAS does not equate CORRUPT. If you come to appreciate that maybe we can put
this dead horse to rest.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Years ago I found and
photocopied several pages of Abbot’s “Authorship of the Fourth Gospel”, and he
was quite vocal in his denial of the Trinity. It’s also important to understand
the he and Thayer were friends and neighbors, so to speak, being professors at
nearby Colleges…hence there may have been some influence there as well. So
although you may think he was “sounding a little wimpy when it comes to
standing up for what he believed”, perhaps the real explanation is that the
evidence he needed just wasn’t there for Rev 3:14.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That is just
ridiculous, Ray. The scriptures ar FULL of examples where “arche” means
“beginning”. It is full of examples, as Barnes pointed out in his examples,
where arche followed by a genitive carried the meaning of “beginning”. What,
pray tell, was the lack of EVIDENCE? There was evidence galore to give “arche’
another meaning at Rev. 3:14. Any novice Unitarian student could figure that
out. If Thayer was a Unitarian, he truly dropped the ball, unless those
references reveal something redeeming in his favor) And if Abbot would have had
the opportunity to go through Grimm’s work and add his “remarks”, which he
didn’t, I think we would have seen something from him concerning Rev.
3:14. You know that I have been looking
for these references high and low, Ray. Do you know what they are? If so, why
don’t you share them with me? If you don’t and I can’t find them, then I’m
afraid they are not going to be pertinent to our discussion if we can’t access
them. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
After my further explanation
that the logos took the nature of a creature when he became flesh (John 1:14),
you say the following:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ I understand
that you say he TOOK ON the nature of a creature, but that doesn’t give me the
differentiation I was needing. Does that mean he then WAS a creature? For
instance, when angels would appear, they would take on the nature of a man,
right? But, did that mean that they WERE a man, or were they still an angel
wearing the nature of man? Do you see the difference I’m after? Where, in your
opinion, does the Bible actually SAY that Christ was a creature. Not just the
word “slave” or “man”, but a creature or “part” of creation?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Yes I would say of course he was a creature
when he took that nature on. As I’ve already explained, when angels appeared as
humans they only appeared to be such, and did not come through the birth
process. They were NOT truly human by nature. However, this is one thing the
WTBTS and Orthodox Christianity agree on, that Jesus was truly human by nature
(qualitative) and thus a creature. If you’re looking for the word “creature”
itself, I don’t think the bible explicitly applies the term, as I said earlier,
but it doesn’t explicitly apply the term to lots of characters in the bible
whom we agree were creatures. Should we deny that any of these (Cornelius for
example) really were creatures, if the word was not explicitly applied to them?
Should we doubt that they were really creatures? And we know that he could die,
because he did. So there can be no doubt that he was really a creature.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You know, Ray, I
just don’t see the logic that if God became a man, that he would become a
creature. He might look like a creature, but he wouldn’t BE one. A creature is
something that is created. And something that is created is made from nothing
from God himself. God would have been MADE a man, but I don’t see how anyone
can say he was CREATED a man just because he became one, especially when the
scriptures NEVER come out and say that he was specified as a creature according
to you. The example about Cornelius isn’t really much of a comparison since we
know he was just a man, and always a man, and we can trace all men back to an
act of creation, but what you are talking about is someone who was never
created and became a man. For the life of me, I don’t see how that equates to
being a creature simply because he changed his nature to that of a human and
that seems to be the way the scriptures present it. He took the “form of man”,
“became manifest in the flesh”, things like that, but NEVER he became a
creature, so again, as is often the case with trinitarian word-magic, I just
don’t see the precedence for such a statement. Are there any scholars who
explain this in the way you have, Ray? I would like to see what they have to
say on this. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
And if we interpret the
genitive as partitive in Col 1:15, it may suggest that he was part of creation,
but it would not prove that he was the first creature in the series. The “part
of the category” would be suggested by the “of all creation”, but “prototokos”,
as I’ve shown, does not always have a numerical significance. So then, we would
learn from Col 1:15 that he was “part of creation” (Jn 1:14), but from verses
16 & 17 we also learn that he was not numbered among creation at the
beginning, because he was BEFORE all things.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Well then, it
seems you are doing the same thing I am doing. I am separating the “all things”
from the “all creation” by telling you they are not identical, and you are
doing the same thing, because your above explanation does not allow for the
“all things” to be completely identical with the “all creation”, because your
all creation would include Christ but your all things wouldn’t. It’s funny how
you allow yourself to get by with things like this and you wont allow me to do
the same thing. You’ve been trying to convince me that the “all things” has to
be “all creation” yet here you just came up with an explanation that separates
the two. I’m sure you have heard the expression that if it is good for the
goose it is good for the gander. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Now does the expression “all
things” in Col 1:16 and 17 mean all creation? Yes, decidedly so,
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Not according to
you above.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
and the NWT Committee
inadvertantly establishes this point in the very act of trying to escape it.
They render the passage “all other things”…so had Jesus NOT been included, they
admit that it would be “all creation”.