Biblical Discussions

 

To Ray: The Son of God Created Friday, 28-Jul-2000 10:10:51  Hi Ray,  I have read through your response and as I think back over all that we have shared, it seems as though there truly is a difference as to the way we approach scriptural interpretation. I think that is why we end up in so much rhetoric involving what the scholars have had to say on the subject. We talk more about the scholars and their words then we do about the Bible and what it has to say, so it seems. You keep referring to me as having my priorities messed up, and as short-circuiting, and as having blinders on, tunnel vision, spite checking and waiting for a train at the airport, and so forth, accompanied with what I can perceive as nothing more than mockings and sarcasm, but the truth is, I many times feel the you are the one who is truly missing the point. Since you, IMO, seem to think that the word usage and meanings that are derived solely from the Biblical account do not amount to what I feel they do, it seems we have two different sets of criteria for establishiung what is a good and safe exegesis. I am going to try something with this post, because frankly, our correspondences are simply too complex and too long for me to be able to continue as they are. We have truly written what is tantamount to a volume of books back and forth. It was certainly never what I anticipated when I offered my treatise concerning the “The Threefold Witness”. I don’t want you to think that I am bailing out on you, because that is far from the case. What I want to do though is find some way to condense this thing that we are doing. I am currently co-moderating Edgar Foster’s Greek Theology board and I am also going to be moderating a debate between Greg Stafford and Robert Bowman. My work situation has changed so that Monday’s through Wednesdays are going to be extremely busy coupled with the fact that in the interim of me waiting on your response, I have started some other discussions that may take a while to wrap up.

 

   Because of all of this, I want to try to condense our correspondence in any way possible. Also, I think we spend a lot of time repeating ourselves and going deeply into things that only have a slight bearing on the overall picture of what we are trying to accomplish. Please read through this post in it’s entirety Ray, before responding, because if you feel that I have short changed you in anyway, please let me know in an email or a preliminary post what it is you specifically want me to address before you respond in full. I don’t want to short change your efforts or not comment on something that you consider very important to the topic without introducing new material before we cover what is already on the table. So, read it through, please, and tell me up front what it is that I did not comment on that you feel is crucial to the discussion if that is the case.

 

 Since it seems we approach interpretation differently, I would like to clarify for you, first of all, how I approach interpretation and how I approach controversy in interpretation. You seem to think that I stress word meaning and usage over and beyond context, and to a certain degree that is true, but let me explain why. I am sure you would agree that context is determined by the array of words that are used together in a sentence or a phrase. Sentence adds to sentence to continue to build the context, so naturally, words come before context, because words are what establish the context, but there is more to it than that as I am sure you would agree. The problem is when we have two conflicting contexts, or at least two contexts that appear to conflict or a context that is a bit difficult in determining. Let me explain to you the manner in which I approach such a thing and if you see a glaring error in this approach, please point it out, because it may be the entire reason that we seem to not appreciate the points that the other is making.

 

 When we come to a difficult context or to two differing contexts, which are determined by the words used and what they mean, that appear to contradict or is difficult to determine, I would think that safe exegesis would dictate that the “ambiguous” elements should be interpreted in the light of the “unambiguous” elements, or we could say, that at least the “ambiguous” elements should be interpreted in the light of the “LESS ambiguous” elements, until the contradiction disappears. Although stated simply, that is the mainstay of how I approach Biblical interpretation and the subsequent conflicts and I feel that is the only reasonable way to do so. But wait, there is more. Something that I think is a very important consideration to interpretation and understanding.

 

 We know that God tells us that he allows the “spirit of error” to go to those who want to believe the lie and he also tells us to “test the spirits” to see if they originate with God. How do we do that? Or rather, how do I do that in particular, knowing that those who “twist” the scriptures do so to their own destruction as God by Peter tells us.

 

 Do we consult the scholars, or do we consult the scriptures? I am sure you would agree that we have to look to both, for without the scholars, we wouldn't have accuirate scriptures, but, I would also think that you would agree that the scriptures would surely take the precedent above and beyond the words of men. Men are biased, for they all have their theological preferences which can cause their interpretations to veer from the natural way that God intended the words to be understood. God’s words, on the other hand, are not subject to the error that man’s words are. They are pure and always true and always reveal that which is necessary for us to “teach, reprove, correct and to train in righteousness”. Therefore, when we come to a theologically important passage, which scholars line up on at least two opposing interpretations, what do we do to not drift into the spirit of error, to test the spirits and avoid twisting of the scriptures and to subsequently arrive at a safe exegesis? 

 

The way I see the answer to this is as follows: 

 

Take the information that the differing scholars “DO” agree upon., including the information offered by governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses. 

 

Take the unambiguous or less ambiguous elements from the scriptures that bear on the topic. 

 

Minimize that which the scholars on one side or both sides disagree on.

 

  Prayer. 

 

Then, come to a decision with what you collected from that. That is how I approach a controversy over interpretation. Frankly, I know of no other safe way to do it. I do not just read the WT and accept unreservedly what it says without first and foremost, finding evidence for its claims and teachings in the Bible. Through the years, I have come to trust them a great deal because of having found their claims and teachings to be demonstrated by scripture. Have they made errors? Yes. And they will correct the errors as they have done regardless of the embarrasment that it may create. I believe them to be interested in getting to the truth, even if they have faltered along the way. I am convinced that scripture teaches that God has an appointed servant that acts as a protection and guide to Christians and guards them against heresy and corruption, but certainly not in a perfect manner. I see the governing body among Jehovah's Witnesses as being that appointed servant in the world today, but that decision has been reached by a careful consideration of comparing what they teach to what is found in the scriptures. That governing body invites examination of their teachings to see if they align with scripture, and I believe that is what I have done. The governing body is primarily concerned with trying to reach as many as they can with the message of the Kingdom of God before this world ends, they are "not" primarily concerned with debating the scholars and theologians, although I think them to be fully able to do so. The bulk of their work has to do with reaching people of all walks of life, with reaching the genius as well as the idiot. Very little, percentagewise, of what they publish has to do with grammar, syntax, word meaning and usage, etc. of the original languages. It is not their primary concern to publish all they know about a topic in regard to the original languages as it is not generally conducive to edifying the average person, althougn I am quite convinced that they are very aware of many implications from the original languages that they have either never commented on or commented on in a very surface manner.

 

 With that established as the way I approach controversial interpretation, I would like to go through and demonstrate why I don’t see anything that you have offered as a nullifying of my treatise or of the position held by JW’s. Maybe this will help you see why I formulated my treatise as I did and hopefully, this will help us to dispense with so much discussion about scholars and what they are saying or not saying and whether or not I have read them wrong or right. I hope you are with me so far. 

 

NOTE: I use the term “Unitarian” in reference to those who view God as a unity rather than a trinity. It is not a reference to the Universalist Unitarian religion.

 

  CONCERNING REVELATION 3:14

 

 What do the scholars agree and disagree upon?

 

 1. Both Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars agree that the passage could mean that Christ was the first of God’s created things, based merely upon the word meanings and usage. Trinitarians however do not agree that is what the passage actually means because of other statements about Christ in the NT. But at least from this, we know that from mere word meaning and usage, the phrase could be saying that Christ was a created being. On at least that much, the scholars would agree.

 

 2. Both Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars agree that the word can mean ‘a beginning’ or ‘the first person or thing in a series, the leader’ or ‘principality, rule, magistracy’. Some Trinitarians themselves disagree upon the rendering of “active cause” or “source”.

 

  Just from the above, based on how the scholarly evidence pans out, I would think that “ruler’ or “beginning” would be the likely meanings given to “arche” at Revelation 3:14. I would minimize the meaning of “source” or “active cause” since even some of the Trinitarian scholars themselves would contend with that meaning. However, what does the Bible reveal that weighs in on the evidence that the scholars agree upon.

 

 1. There is no clear or obvious case where “arche” means “source/active cause” in either the LXX or the NT. Some may espouse incidences where it “might” mean that, but even those instances are disputed by some Trinitarians themselves.

 

  2. The writer of the book of Revelation. The Apostle John, never uses “arche” in the rest of his writings to mean “ruler”. He used other available words when he designated “ruler”, such as “archon”. 

 

3. Whenever “arche” is used in a genitive phrase that follows, “arche” is a part, typically, the first part, of that genitive noun that follows.

 

  Now, just from the above evidence, and I realize that this does not take into account the other contexts that the Trinitarians believe to cancel the meaning of “the first person or thing in a series” at Rev. 3:14, but, just from the evidence above, from what the scholars DO agree upon and from what the scriptures reveal in relation to the words and their usage, the treatise I prepared was correct in stating that it weighs against the Trinitarian position. I don’t really see how that is even contestable. I relaize you think that other contexts rule against this conclusion, which I will present below, but just from what we have before us at this scripture, I don’t see anything to negate it. I think you know as well as most Trinitarians that taken on the value of the natural meanings of the words and phrases used, it weighs against their position, and that is what my treatise dealt with. It dealt with the precedented and natural meanings of the words and phrases in question and how they were used in the Bible. That evidence alone weighs against the trinitarian camp. I am not trying to say that this evidence alone “disproves” the Trinitarian camp or “disproves” the doctrine of the Trinity, only that it weighs against the doctrine.

 

 Now we might argue what the scholars have to say about this and that and what have you, as to whether I read Kittell right or wrong, or if Thayer and Abbott threw their hands up in defeat over Grimm’s awesome (lol) display of evidence over “active cause”, or why Vine’s and Strong’s didn’t list “active cause” or “source” and on and on which I think would probably drag on for a another year of posts, or we could simply say that from the above evidence, “source/active cause” surely doesn’t pan out as a likely meaning for the word “arche”, that “ruler” doesn’t pan out in Johanine usage of the word and, phraseologically, the Unitarian position is stronger in relation to Revelation 3:14. I am not saying it disproves the Trinity, OK?

 

 I am not saying that after considering other contexts in the NT that the Unitarian position could not be overturned. I am saying from what we have available from the scriptures and what both camps DO agree on, the evidence at Revelation 3:14 weighs against Trinitarianism. I hope you can see that without too much difference of opinion. Don’t worry, Ray, I am in no way saying that this is the end of the discussion in relation to Revelation 3:14. I realize that it is more involved per other contexts. But we will get to that. OK? 

 

CONCERNING COLOSSIANS 1:15ff 

 

What do the scholars agree and disagree upon. 

 

1. Both Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars agree that “prototokos” primarily means “one who is born first”. They also agree that the word can be applied to someone who was not technically born first, but who was placed as or usurped the position of the real firstborn by some means. They agree that “prototokos” carries with it the connotation of a preeminent position in the family.

 

 2. Both (some) Trinitarians and Unitarians agree that the phrase “firstborn of all creation” is a partitive genitive. They disagree as to how the Son should be reckoned as a “creation”. The Unitarians would opt for the preeminent meaning of the word whereas the Trinitarian would opt for the Son having been “placed” as firstborn since his appearing in the flesh as a man, taking the position that he “became” a creation by becoming a man. He would therefore be recognized as a special creation, an uncreated creation, if you will. (I am taking all this from what you have told me, although I have not seen any scholarly evidence from you that this is how these trinitarians view Christ as a creation. Is there any?)

 

 3. Both (some)Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars agree that the Son is portrayed as the intermediate agent in the context. The trinitarian would see him as the intermediate agent as “God the Son”, as the second person of the Trinity Godhead, whereas the Unitarian would view him as the intermediate agent, being the oldest and first son of God through which all “other” things were created.

 

 4. Concerning “pantas”, both (some)Trinitarian and Unitarian would agree that the word “other” can be a semantical part of “all things”. This is attested to by the fact that Trinitarian translations employ “other” with “pantas” in other passages where it is obviously a semantical part of “all things”, taking on the meaning of “all OTHER things”. 

 

 Now, I would think that from the scholarly evidence alone, that one could see that the Unitarian position again has the favor, based upon what the scholars DO agree upon and what the word meanings and usage reveal. I am not saying that Colossians 1:15ff proves that the Son is a creation, because I know that you will still appeal to the “other” contexts that you feel overrule that interpretation. I know that, so, no need to remind me of that here again. Those contexts are coming, but first, where does the word of God direct us with the evidence that it provides in relation to Colossians 1:15. 

 

What do the scriptures tell us:

 

 1. The word “prototokos” always carries with it the meaning of “first one born”, even when it refers to one that was PLACED as the first one born either through appointment or usurpation or figuratively. 

 

 2. There are those who were not the “real” firstborn who were labelled as such because they were “placed” as such by God or usurped the position or was spoken of figuratively. (Job 18:13) Since the example at Job 18:13 is obvioulsy figurative, how can anyone demand one meaning of it over another? You demand it can't mean first one born. Why not? Why could it not be calling it the firstborn of death in the figurative sense of being death's firstborn son which would then hold the prominent position among other figurative sons (diseases) of death?

 

 3. Everytime “prototokos” is placed in a genitive construction, “firstborn of ...” the firstborn is always a part of the group.

 

 When we couple the scriptural evidence, word meaning and usage, with what the scholars agree on, it should still be plain and simple that Colossians 1:15 weighs against the Trinitarian position. Even if there were a few places where “prototokos” does mean nothing but STATUS, which I have not seen to be the case, but even if it were so, none of the cases where “prototokos” in a parttive genitive occurs, refers to STATUS only, they all refer to protokos as the “first one born” in the natural sense and not the sense of usurpation by some means. 

 

 There are however, those other contexts that the Trinitarian camp feels must win the day when it comes to these two passages and their interpretation.  

 

By the way, without going into it here, when we take Proverbs 8:22ff and we collect what the scholars do agree upon and what the scriptures reveal about word meaning and usage, the same result comes about with that scripture. The evidence weighs in favor of the Unitarian understanding. I am not saying that Proverbs 8:22ff alone disproves the Trinity because I know that there are still those other contexts to consider, and we will, but I am first trying to get you to see the mindset behind the treatise that I wrote. I am sure we can discuss Proverbs 8:22 more later.

 

 Now, since, individually, I would think that even a Trinitarian would see that Revelation 3:14 by itself and Colossian 1:15 by itself and Proverbs 8:22 by itself would weigh against the Trinitarian conclusion based on what the scholars would agree on and biblical usage and meaning, and that is basically all my treatise dealt with, I would think that it would be easily seen that collectively they make a very strong case against the trinitarian position, which is what my treatise layed out. Now, I know that the trinitarian is going to say that all of that has to be overruled by the other contexts that reveal something entirely different about the Son of God, namely, that he is the Creator and not the created, and that he is unequivocally taught to be Almighty God. If that is the case, then by all means they would be right, we would have to opt for the more remote and sometimes unprecedented meaning for the words and phrases used in those “three” witnesses against the Trinity, in order for the contradictions to disappear. Are you with me so far?

 

 CONCERNING JOHN 1:1-3  I do not pretend to fully understand all the issues that bear on this passage. There is a tremendous amount of information with each phrase that must be considered. As a whole, this passage is highly debated from the very first phrase “in the beginning”. I will only attempt to supply some of what bears on this passage in an effort to let you see my mindset involved with this passage and what it means. I realize I have much to learn in regard to all that this passage reveals.

 

 This has been offered time and again by Trinitarians as a proof scripture that Jesus is the creator and not the created. It has likewise been offered by you for the same reasons. This is one of your primary “contexts” that you feel should overrule the weight created against the Trinitarian position by the “three” scriptures discussed above.

 

 Now, I agree, that if this context is strong enough to unquestionably identify the Logos as the Creator, than truly the “three” should be overruled for a trinitarian interpretation, even if it goes against the precedented and natural way of looking at those verses. 

 

 John 1:1-3 is truly a theologically important passage when Trinitarians and Unitarians meet head on. Let me try to break this down the best I can and in the way that I see the issues concerning this verse by, again, taking what the differing scholars agree upon, minimizing what they disagree on, and then going to the scriptures to reveal what words and their meanings and usages are, which of course all along, includes grammatical considerations. 

 

John 1:1

 

 “In the beginning...”

 

 What the scholars agree and disagree upon.

 

 1. Interestingly, the word “arche” appears here, and I think that both Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars would agree that it refers to a “beginning”. However. They disagree as to what that “beginning” is.

 

   What are the beginnings spoken of in the Bible that would qualify for this context?

 

 a. Genesis 1:1- Scholars on both sides of the fence have made this connection. What though, does Genesis 1:1 refer to when it says “in the beginning”? That becomes another question that bears on the understanding of John 1:1. Without going into great detail or breaking it down any further, some would say that it deals with the absolute beginning of time and others would feel that it deals specifically with the beginning of “physical” creation. The following context of verse 1 seems to fit the “physical” creation viewpoint, but, it is probably not absolutely determinative from what is present at that passage.

 

 b. Revelation 3:14- In reference to the creation of the Son as the beginning. This of course, uses a scripture that is in dispute to begin with. The same appeal could be made to Colossians 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22, but in each case, these are the very scriptures that are in dispute. However, the same could be stated in regard to John 1:1. It is being used as a witness against the natural view of Revelation 3:14, Colosians 1:15 and Proverbs 8:22, so, it itself is in dispute. The only point of agreeance among all the above that I can see would be a partial agreeance of what is stated in Proverbs 8:22. Both Trinitarians and Unitarians would agree that Proverbs does speak of a beginning and they would agree that the context is clearly creation. They would disagree as to what the “wisdom” would be that was personified. Many Trinitarians would actually agree that the Son was “wisdom” personified” at this verse yet they would disagree as to the meaning of the verb “qanah” which is translated “possessed” or “produced” or “created”. Since there is at least agreeance between some Trinitarians and Unitarians that Proverbs does speak of a beginning in relation to creation that it could be used as a valid reference to qualify for the “beginning” spoken of in John 1:1. So, at this point, we could state that the phrase “in the beginning” either refers to “the beginning of physical creation”,(Gen. 1:1) “the beginning of all creation”(Prov. 8:22), or the absolute beginning of time. (I know of no scripture that specifically addresses this)

 

 With the three possibilities mentioned above the first phrase of John 1:1 could be termed in the following ways.

1. In the beginning of the “physical” creation “was the Word”.

2. In the beginning of creation “was the Word”. 

3. In the absolute beginning of time “was the Word”. 

 

The Unitarian would either opt for 1 or 2, whereas the Trinitarian would opt for 3. Since the phrase, “in the beginning” is in dispute itself, any choice made would be an assumption for either side. If the Trinitarian states that it is the absolute beginning of time, since there is no way to prove that, at least so far in this passage, it is an assumption.

 

  The same would be true of the Unitarian position since there is no way to prove, at this point at least, which viewpoint is the correct one. The individuals theological leaning would come into play as to the beginning he thinks is being referred to at John 1:1.

 

 I realize things that are revealed in the following context of John 1:1ff can significantly affect the interpretation of “in the beginning” but we will deal with that as it comes and if it dominoes backwards to affect that phrase it will be dealt with then, but, I am merely trying to keep this as methodical as I can. 

 

Now, with the viewpoint that “in the beginning” deals with the beginning of creation, the Unitarian, of course, would say that that “beginning” was the creation of the Logos. It is true that this claim is somewhat begging the question since the “creation’ of the Son is the very thing being disputed, gbut then again, the unitarian is not trying to use that phrase to "prove" the Son was created. It is also important to note that begging the question does not necessarily mean that the viewpoint is wrong. It simply means that when one begs the question, the viewpoint holds little weight in the argument. On the other hand, to claim as the Trinitarian would, that “in the beginning” refers to the absolute beginning of time, since that is intrinsically a part of their argument which is in dispute, their claim is an assumption based upon their theological leaning, because there is no way to determine at this point, that the “beginning” has to mean the absolute beginning of time, especially when there is no scripture that specifically refers to the absolute beginning of time or even if the scriptutres entertain the idea that time had a beginning since it does not specifically address the phenomenon known as "time".

 

 In actuality, the viewpoint that the “beginning” refers to the beginning in Genesis 1:1 is probably the better option for the Unitarian to take, since it does not involve begging the question of the Son being the beginning of God’s creation.. It does not mean that this viewpoint is necessarily the correct one over and beyond the viewpoint of the beginning being the creation of the Son, for either could be correct from the viewpoint of the Unitarian, but for the sake of a safer exegesis, and a more correct process of debate, Genesis 1:1 would seem to fit better.

 

 However, that brings us to another element that comes into the picture. That being the religious body that is held by me to be God’s appointed servant against heresy, the governing body among Jehovah’s Witnesses who are responsible for the many publications distributed through the legal organization known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 

 

At this point, since it is relevant to my view of John 1:1, we need to discuss the influence the WT weilds on a decision of this nature. So, I am going to sandwich in between a discussion of John 1:1ff, and my interpretational breakdown of that passage, a discussion concerning the WT and what I am obligated to say in regard to their authority that I view as God-given.  

 

Your concern is that in taking the view of Genesis 1:1 as the “beginning” referred to at John 1:1, I am somehow being disloyal to the organization I view as God’s appointed authority. I have related to you that there is a least some indication that they themselves have entertained that same connection, because of a cross-reference at John 1:2 with Genesis 1:1 and because of a most recent reference in the “Knowledge” book that could be construed, not conclusively, but could be construed as a connection between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1. You seem to think that one has to repudiate the other but that is not the case. In areas of debatable application, where the underlying truth is not jeopardized, the WT has many times entertained more than one view of a scripture and what it means, for example, as I have shared with you, John 20:28. You seem to want some kind of definitive statement about what the “beginning” in John 1:1 is talking about from the WT. You seem to want me to write them a letter or whatever and find out. First of all, the WT would encourage me to look at what the literature has to say on the matter and then, if I still have a question , then write and find out, well, fact is, Ray, after looking at what the publications say, I don’t have the question, you do, so, I will leave the letter writing and inquiries to the WT up to you. Go ahead and write the letter and then tell me what it says when you receive your reply. Now, if you do, and they unconditionally repudiate the Genesis 1:1 connection, then I would be under obligation to unreservedly accept the Revelation 3:14 and Proverbs 8:22 connection, which I have no problem in doing.

 

  c. The absolute beginnig of all time. This would be the option of the Trinitarian as I understand it. I know that Rob Bowman opts for this meaning at John 1:1. However, I am not sure that scriptures decisively even mention something like the “absolute beginning of all time”. Do you know of a scriptural reference that determinatively refers to this “beginning”? I don’t, but then I am not saying it isn’t there either, I just have never considerd it or seen it. That is why I say that the trinitarian interpretation for “in the beginning” at John 1:1 is an assumption as well, for they are trying to prove that the Son is “before” creation by qualifying “in the beginning” as referring to a time before creation began, that being, the absolute beginning of time, but, that is an assumption, and whereas Rev. 3:14 could be considered as somewhat begging the question, the trinitarian position fares no better as an assumption.  

 

 That is why I say that Genesis 1:1 actually weighs out best when comparing what both (some) trinitarian scholars and unitarians would agree upon, even though that is not a provable position itself. It seems, in the end, that “in the beginning” is going to be looked at in relation to a person’s theological leaning, and, the understanding of that phrase sets the stage for the understanding of the rest of the passage.

 

  John 1:1 -“was the Word.”

 

  Concerning the word “was” and the tense that it is presented in and the meaning that it puts upon the first phrase of John 1:1, I do not pretend to understand all of this. As I said before, despite your commendations, I am really not qualified to weigh all this out. I am working at it to understand it, but I am by no means ready to say that I am qualified to deal with it in an extensive manner. I do not know enough about the Greek to be able to debate this with any clarity, and since you already think that I have a problem of short-circuiting and reading things incorrectly, I am going to have to defer this to someone who knows what they are talking about because I don’t think I want to subject myself to any more insults about the way I read things and interpret them. I am sure if I said something that was off base you would have me at the airport again waiting on my train to come in. I would like to see you bring this to Edgar Foster’s Greek Theology board and discuss it there as both Greg and he are active posters to that board. I wish I could say that I understand this well enough to continue this point, but I don’t. So, if you want to use it in the manner that you describe, I am afraid that is where we will have to go with it. The most I could offer is what is stated on page 319 of Greg’s second edition or what is stated about the problem in Rolf’s book on page on page 208. Greg quotes a Trinitarian on page 319 of his book who seems to disagree with what is you are stating about the significance of this verb.

 

  Also I noticed what was stated by K. L. McKay, which seems to land on the problem you present. A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach, p. 26, defines imperfective aspect as that which "expresses an activity as in process (in progress)," and the aorist as that "which expresses it as whole action or simple event." McKay also explains the importance of the context in determining the time reference of the verb tense, "the tenses of ancient Greek do not signal time except by implication from their relationship to their context" (page 39).

 

  I would be very eager to see the outcome of this discussion. I have read the section in your latest post dealing with this again and I know my own limitations and I do not consider myself able to navigate this alone. What do you say?

 

 Again, at this point in our discussion, it would seem that the most ‘agreeable’ position would be that the phrase ‘in the beginning’ refers to the same phrase at Genesis 1:1. Now, I am not sure if you feel that the point about “en” would apply in that case or not. If the ‘in the beginning’ was taken as a reference to the beginning of “physical creation”, would the same problem exist in your estimation for the Unitarian who would take that position? I would be curious to know that? 

 

One thing I think you need to realize, Ray, is that whereas you think that I have abandoned one explanation for the other, I have done no such thing. I think I have made that clear from the beginning of when I offered the understanding that the “beginning” refers to the “beginning of the creation” which I would view as the Son. I have not repudiated one view over the other. I think both views are quite natural in the way they read in that context, in fact, over all, I certainly think that the Unitarian approach is much more natural especially when considering the orthodox view that the Logos is God, yet with God. It appears he would be the same God that he is with, which is certainly an unnatural view, but, more on that below.

 

 I started with the Genesis 1:1 view because of the way I had weighed out the evidence which I demonstrated above. I never indicated that it was the only view that would work, at least I don’t think I did. I offered the other view later to show that I think it works just as well, maybe better, but then again, maybe not. You see, I don’t see myself as having to make a decision here since the NWT indicates that connection itself at John 1:2 and the WT makes the same possible connection in the Knowledge book. To me, it is not a problem that warrants me to write a letter to the Society, because I can entertain both views or one or the other without feeling that I am somehow usurping their authority. I would think since both Nelson Herle and Greg Stafford have both entertained this view, and that the Society has been given copies of their work, and even reproduced certain points from the books, that if they had a problem with the Genesis 1:1 view being adopted, they would have clarified it by now, especially since Nelson Herle’s work has been done for years. I would most certainly think that if they have a problem with this view that they would not go so far as to make the connection that they did in the Knowledge which could easily be taken as a link between John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1 and I think that they would certainly remove the cross-reference from their new NWT's and from their WT CD Library so that there would be no confusion, but they haven't, in fact, since the publication of the Knowledge book they have made no further comment that I am aware of. So, if you want some sort of definitive statement from them, that will be up to you to obtain it. Otherwise, I have no reason to be concerned about whether I “land” directly on one view over the other. 

 

The example you gave about Hess was clearly not a problem with his book, it was a problem that he was promoting “worship” to Christ which the WT would certainly view as a “heresy”. With the phrase "in the beginning" at John 1:1 being applied either way, there is certainly no heresy afoot for both views clearly are in defense of the creation of the Son. We are not required by the WT to make a decision in this regard unless they were to specifically state that one view was definitively incorrect. From the standpoint of a JW, what would be jeapordized by viewing the phrase “in the beginning” in either way at John 1:1.? What would be violated by the way of doctrine from their estimation? Nothing that I can see. What would be violated in regard to scripture from their standpoint? Not your standpoint, but theirs? Nothing that I could see.

 

  John 1:1-“and the Word was with God”.

 

 I would think that the most natural way for anyone to view this phrase is that the Logos was someone different then the one he is said to be with. To me, that seems to be glaringly apparent. How do you view the word God here, Ray? Is it just the Father, or is it the Trinity that the Logos is said to be with? I think that would be important to know. It says “God”, not specifically “Father”. What definition do you give to the word God here in this phrase? I would like to know that as we continue to talk about this verse. I don’t see how we are going to avoid getting into a least some discussion about “theos” in these verses since we are talking about the way things would naturally read. 

 

Because of the fact that it seems natural to view the Logos as someone different from God at this phrase, and since we know that there is but one Almighty God, I don’t think it is a leap of logic for someone to conclude that the Logos was not Almighty God, but "theos" in a different way, but then, that brings us to the third phrase.

 

  John 1:1- “and (God/a god) was the Word)

 

 Since scholars on both sides recognize that the “theos” without the article is significantly different then the “theos” with the article, and since both would agree that angels and men were also given the designation “elohim/theos”, I don’t think it again to be any leap of logic to for the Unitarian to conclude that the Logos was not “theos” in the same way that the first “theos” was. Now obviously, the Unitarian difference is quite a bit different than the Trinitarian difference. But, the way it seems to me, the Trinitarian diffference has to assign meanings to the word “theos” that I don’t even find in the lexicons or anywhere, from what I have encountered. I don’t see how the way that the Trinitarian renderings are presented, that they bring out the difference between their meaning of the first “theos” and the third “theos” in that passage. Their translation can’t really stand alone without some kind of an explanation as to the difference between the 1st and 3rd theos. An the explanation that is offered is very confusing to what we would call natural understanding for it involves grasping a concept that they themselves admit is a “mystery” or as “incomprehensible”. The Unitarian view that the Logos is “a god” in the sense of a “divine being” as the angels themselves are called “gods”, fits very well with natural understanding and does not violate the text of the Greek in any way that I have ever seen. The orthodox view at this point in the progression of this passage can hardly be said to conform to the natural way it would read, certainly not MORE natural than the way the Unitarian would view it at this poiint.

 

 John 1:2 - “This one was in the beginning with God”

 

 A reiteration of what has already been stated, and again, naturally, with this statement, one would not conclude that the one who was with God was the same as God. Sometimes I think the reason this was repeated was to clarify the fact that the Logos was not “theos” in the same way as “ho theos” and since the Jews never had a problem of referring to angels as “theos” or “elohim”, it would not be an unnatural view that the Logos was “theos” in the same manner as they were referred to as theos..  

 

So by the end of verse 2, I would think that the most natural way to view the Logos was as a different person than God.

 

 John 1:3- “All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being.”

 

 This is the phrase that the trinitarian claims unequivocally that the Logos was the Creator, but, it would seem that conclusion would stem back to what the other two verse have already said and the natural way to view them. Coming into verse three, it would be entirely natural to view the Logos as a different person than the God that he was with. And since both Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars would agree that the Logos is put into the position of the “intermediate agent”, it would seem to follow with the natural understanding that the Logos was a different "theos" than Almighty God. (ho theos) 

 

The last half of that phrase, according to you, rules out the semantic element of “other” that can sometimes accompany “pas” or “panta” in a given context, so that in your estimation it means that everything that was created came through him without exception, therefore removing him from the possibility of being created.

 

 However, if that is true, and I am not so sure that it is, but, if it is, at this point, I think it is important to remember what is revealed again back in verse 1 as to the indication of “in the beginning”, so, I will return to that again and come back through the context in an effort to help you appreciate why I don''t see this as something iron-clad for the Trinitarian position, nor do I really see it as having any real weight in their favor because of some of the things I have already mentioned which I will recap as I go back through it.

 

 It would seem natural and logical to take the word “arche” as some kind of temporal indicator, as a reference to a point in time or a segment in time known as the “beginning”. I still am not sure whether your point about “en” affects this understanding so I am a little in the dark in that regard but I haven’t seen anything yet that would make your point a denial of that. I think of the beginning more as a segment in time rather than just a point in time. I am not sure if you would agree with that or not. Maybe you could just indicate yea or nay without getting to involved with the Greek. Would you agree that the “arche” could be referring to a “segment” in time, rather than just a point in time. If not, please try to explain why you feel that way in a manner that a novice at greek could understand, because frankly, I keep reading what you have to say about this “en” problem, and it is not getting any clearer in my head. And please try to do so with out the comments of me having tunnel vision or whatever other cliches and mockings and sarcasm you have used to define your estimation of my ability to understand the concepts we are debating. I really tire of that kind of dialogue in a hurry. If you really think that I am that pathetic in my abilities then I can simply defer the whole conversation to someone else and let you take it up with someone you would feel is better qualified.

 

 Anyway, I think it is natural to think of “arche” as referring to a segment of time in history. From everything that I have considered and read concerning the first two phrases of John 1:1, it appears to me that the exegete can go so far as to say that during this time known as the “beginning”, the Logos and ho theos were with each other. I agree that in this statement that what is true of the Logos is true of ho theos. In reality, there is nothing in John 1:1 that proves that ho theos is eternal either. You would have to go elsewhere to determine that fact, but, from the words that are in John 1:1, you can’t come to that conclusion with those words alone. All you can do is come to the conclusion that during this time the Logos and ho theos were with each other, so, yes, the Logos was in the beginning just as ho theos was, but nothing about eternality can be derived from the words used unless you feel that “en” has significance to do so, but, I haven’t seen that demonstarted. 

 

Back to the point about this segment in time. As I have stated, in either viewpoint of the Unitarian that I have mentioned above, “in the beginning” sets a time marker for us to understand the rest of the passage. Either that time marker is creation of the Son himself or the creation of the physical universe as mentioned in Genesis 1:1. You say that to view “in the beginning” as a reference to the time when the Son was created is begging the question because you claim that I am trying to PROVE the Son was created in that phrase by using other scriptures that are in dispute. As I stated, begging the question does not mean that the viewpoint is incorrect, it simply means that when one begs the question, the viewpoint holds little weight. We could say that the scriptures beg the question when it claims to be the words of God. How does it establish that fact? By claiming that it is the word of God. That in effect is circular, and begging the question, but nonetheless, very true, but one can hardly expect the atheist to accept that without going outside of the written word and comparing what it has to say with history, nature and prophecy. But,initially, from the standpoint of the atheist, the scriptures would be assuming, they would be circular and begging the question because it would be trying to prove it’s argument by using the words that are already in dispute as authentic. I see the same problem for the trinitarian when he tries to state that this “beginning” is in reference to the absolute beginning in time which I don’t think they can find a definitive reference to that beginning anywhere in scripture. They are assuming that it CAN”T mean the creation of the Son and asserting that it must mean a different beginning because of their theology, not because of the context, unless of course, you think that “en” completely changes the picture, but if you do, I am going to have to understand why, and so far, in reading your words, I don’t see the solidity of your point.

 

  Meanwhile, back at the ranch, if “arche” does refer to the segment of time in which the Logos was created, his creation being the “beginning of the beginning” and continuing for some time WITH ho theos, then the all things that came into existance through him as the intermediate agent and as a different person than ho theos, as would be a natural way to look at what was stated, then the “with no exception” would be figured from the time after the time known as the “beginning” elapsed. With that view, the contradictions are gone and overall, I think that view assumes much less than the orthodox view who tries to get us to accept that the Logos was the same God that he was with and that this second person, who is God, is different then the first mentioned God, yet the same by some mysterious relationship labelled as the Trinity and that this combination that is not two Gods, but one, worked it out so one faction of this God was the source and another faction was the agent through which the source worked. I can’t see where you think the orthodox view holds the upper hand in “naturalness’ when everything that they have to put into this verse is brought into the picture, especially when they have to equivocate on the meaning of the word "God",because they must define "God" in the first instance differently then they define "God" in the second instance, but their translation offers no distinction at all.

 

 Secondly, if the viewpoint that the “beginning” refers to Genesis 1:1 and is limited to the time of the physical creation, the same result comes about that the “all things without exception that came through him” are “all things” from a certain frame of time.

 

 Unless you can demonstarte some overwhelming evidence in relation to this “en” problem that you have presented, and I’m talking pretty iron-clad evidence, I don’t know what you could ever say that is going to convince me that the Trinitarian approach to this passage rules the day when it comes to naturalness in reading and understanding. 

 

Those are my thoughts concerning John 1:1-3 and why I do not view them or anything that you have shared as having any overwhelmingly obvious conclusion in favor of the Trinitarian, in fact, I see it as fitting well with the Unitarian view after all that I have considered thus far. It’s possible we are at an impass with this since we seem to continue to repeat ourselves, but, if you think not, if you think that you can present yet some devastating evidence to my position, then please do.

 

 BACK TO COLOSSIANS 1:15ff  I am returning to this because this has also been touted as one of your key scriptures that you feel overwhelmingly supports the trinitarian concept, but I hope from what I stated above concerning this verse you can see why I view it the way I do. It is not a matter of whether you can come up with enough Trinitarian word magic to explain how verse 15 could be partitive and not yet jeopardize the trinitarian view, because I am sure you can if you want to, but it again becomes a matter of what the scholars DO agree upon and with the scriptural evidence of word meaning and usage and the fact that “prototokos” followed with a genitive is always a part of the genitive, that is what I have to base my conclusions on and that is what I based my treatise on as well. I think it incontestable that “all creation” and “all things” are by necessity two different groups no matter when you think of them in relation to time and beginning, because no matter how you try to dovetail the Son into creation and what point you do so, the phrase “all creation” would include the Son and the phrase “all things” would not. You can’t seem to grasp that and I am not going to belabor the point any further at this time because I would think that any reader of this could see the point clearly. IF verse 15 is partitive, “all creation” includes the Son and “all things” does not. To try to explain it the way you have with the dovetailing of the Son into creation at some point, yet he isn’t really created, certainly does nothing for your claim to a natural reading of the words. Do you really think anyone, who would not know of this controversy, were to read that passage would come away with the idea that the Son, who was actually God, somehow became a creation, without technically being a creation? In order for me to “test the spirits” and not partake of that “spirit of error”, I have to rely on what the scholars DO agree on and on what is revealed from the word meanings and uasge as shown from the scriptures. That is what I have done and I do not think that my treatise is incorrect in stating that this evidence weighs against the trinitarian, because their two champion passages that you have used extensively, as I see it, have come no where near presenting a context that demands an overturning of the natural and precedented understanding of the words and phrases used in those “three witnesses” that I have presented, and I believe I have explained sufficiently why I give these elements the precedence that I do when forming my conclusions so maybe this will help you see why I think my Amish horse actually sees quite well.

 

 You stated that I did not address the very first point as I claimed I had when discussing this verse in our last exchange. I will address it now, though I am actually having a hard time trying to figure out what the question is. 

 

You asked: "Why is it necessary for you to believe he was the “first creation”? because of verse 17 “he was before all things”…so, how in your view was he before all things and was yet a creature, if he wasn’t the first one? Think it over. How could he be before “all other things”, and still be a creature, if he weren’t the first one? 

 

What do you mean by "if he weren't the first one?" I am sure you realize that I do believe that he IS the first one. The answer to this seems so plain I don't understand the point of your question or I simply don't understand what it is you are asking. He is before "all other things" because the "all other things" obviusly do not include him, so he is before them by being the first thing created by God and then everything else was created "through" him, not by him, but "through" him as the instrument (agent) of God's creative work. 

 

CONCERNING REVELATION 21:6 AND 22:13 

 

What do the scholars agree and disagree on.

 

 1. Both Trinitarian and Unitarian scholars agree that the word can mean ‘a beginning’ or ‘the first person or thing in a series, the leader’ or ‘principality, rule, magistracy’. Some Trinitarians themselves disagree upon the rendering of “active cause” or “source”.

 

 I would think that the conclusion I would reach would be obviuos from what is already known concerning the way I have weighed this out above. God is the “beginning” in that he is the “first one in the class of things that are Almighty” and he is the “end” in that he is the “last one in the class of things that are Almighty”. I have read through all that you had to say about these verses and I truly don’t see anything that would negate that stance. I am not even sure you understood what I thought the meaning of beginning and end was, nor do I think you have made a case in relation to what the WT has to say on the matter. Because regardless of what it is that you try to squeeze out of their words, they would unequivically disagree with the meaning of “source or active cause” at Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 and elsewhere for that matter. If you don’t believe me, put that in your letter, too, and ask them. I know how they feel about the matter from what I have read in many places, so, instead of me defending what they have written, if you have the problem with it, you should write to them and tell me what they say, because I don’t have the problem with it. The fact that he is spoken of as the one who will bring an end to the issue over sovereignty is highlighting the fact that he IS the one and only God, the first in the series of Almighty and the Last in the series of Almighty. Why will he bring the issue to an end, because he is the one and only Almighty God, in a class by himself, and he will prove it. Him bringing an end to the issue of sovereignty is not what is meant by him being the end but him being the “end” of that class will be proven when the issue of sovereignty has been concluded. Satan challenged God’s sovereignty, Satan would like to be God, but because of the fact that the Father is the “First and Last of the class of Almighty God”, the fact necessitates a recogniton of that by a settling of the issue of sovereignty. His bringing an end to the issue of sovereignty is not a part of the title “begiining and the end” but is a result of what that title signifies. If this answer is not satisfactory, then you will have to write the letter and ask them to explain their position because that is certainly how I see it. 

 

CONCERNING 1 CORINTHIANS 8:6

 

  Your points concerning my viewpoint as being different then the WT statement I think is a little strained because I don’t see the cross-reference highlighting the “all things” aspect as much as highlighting the perspective roles of the Father as the active cause and the Son as the intermediate agent., because Romans 11:36 would be taken by the WT as a reference to the Father as the source which is highlighted in the first phrase of 1 Corinthians whereas John 1:3 and Col. 1:16 would be taken as a highlighting of the Son’s intermediate role as mentioned in the correspondoing phrase in Corinthians. To say that it must carry along the “all things’ with it I think is employing their cross-reference in a way that they did not employ it. 

 

CONCERNING GENESIS 1:26

 

 You don't seem to be able to grasp what I am saying about Genesis 1:26. Verse 1 speaks of God as "creating". Verse 26 speaks of the "us" as "making". Only God created, Ray. He alone created, yet, in verse 26, both Him and someone else "made" things. There is a difference between "create" something and "make" something. The Son did not "create" anything, but he certainly "made" things as God's instrument for creation, carrying out what God's will was for the specific thing being created. Together they "made" things, but only God created, supplying the material for the Son to be able to carry out the will of the Father in creation. I hope this helps. 

 

_______

 

 You ask many other questions about many other scriptures (Hebrews 1:10, Isaiah 44:24, 43:10, John 5:22, etc.) but I think we need to wait before addressing those until we have a better summation of the things that have been on the table for a long time. I get the feeling that you feel like your two key scriptures against the natural renderings of the threefold witness that I presented are slipping away from you and you are calling for reinforcements. I can't think why else you would throw those new considerations into an already unmanageably long post. By the time I got to the end I felt I was in a coma. We need to get some things off the table before we introduce more to talk about. This is the kind of thing that swells our posts to being unmanagable, and from here on out, I will be making a concerted effort to keeping things as succint as possible. If I were to respond in full to everything that you have mentioned by the way of "new" considerations, this post would be another book, so let's deal with what we've had on the table for some time now first. I hope the things that I have tried to summarize in this post answers in one way or another the specifics of your concerns in your last post to me. If I forgot something that is not a new issue, and that you feel is crucial to the discussion, let me know, and I will respond to it so that you can have the information before you respond in full. 

 

Awaiting your responses. 

 

Agape,

Wrench