[Fljotsdale]

First of 2 posts for Leonidas - but anyone can join in!
Apologies for the length of this

F. “YHVH produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, … I came to be beside him as a master worker, (or architect) “
All things were ‘out of’ God ‘through’ Jesus. A conduit of power is not the power itself, nor the originator of that power. Jesus, both as a man, and after his resurrection, called his Father ‘my God’.
--------------
L. (New) Again, the passage quoted does not refer to any agent, tool, or conduit. Alone is alone, and this apparent contradiction can only be resolved if God the Father and Jesus are one entity, and Jesus was 'put forth' as the Word of God. And wisdom is also an intimate part of God, installed does not equate with created. A car is assembled (or repaired) from pre-exsisting parts... For anything to exist before Creation, it by definition is not created.
F. (new) I’m sorry? I don’t follow your reasoning. I do not see your difficulty. GOD existed before creation. And ONLY God. The pre-human form of Jesus was the FIRST creative act of God. There is no contradiction that I can see. He was ‘the beginning of the creation by God’. WHERE is the contradiction? God did not need any pre-existing parts!
‘Installed’ means ‘put into place’ – and the scripture says ‘from the start’. And anyway, this is Wisdom, not Jesus, and I was just using it as an example. The pre-human Jesus, as ‘the beginning of the creation by God’ and as ‘the first-born of creation’ could NOT be there BEFORE the beginning of creation!
----------------
F. (old) How can Jesus call his Father his God, refuse to grasp equality with God, and yet be considered God himself? It makes no sense.
L. (new) Yes, it makes sense, in this way - Jesus was/is/always will be an integral part of God, as shown by the above quote from Matthew. As shown in the quote from Philippians below, he humbled himself, and refused to hold on to (not grab or snatch) his equality, and made himself as a servant to God, and showed deference to God in humility, and continues to show deference to God in heaven in his role as chief priest and mediator for the believers (Hebrews). Furthermore, it is in accordance with the scriptural facts, as I have only used scripture, in context, to come to this conclusion.
F. (new) I will come back to this scripture because it is vitally important. I aim to make it a separate post, ok?
L. (new) Can be, but should be? I think not, as Jesus was the price of redemption in himself, as only one who is pure as God the Father is pure could provide that price. It is the penalty for all sinful men to die as a result of their sin, and the price that was paid could only be paid by sinless God-as-man, not mortal man that represents God. The contradiction I referred to is your contention that Jesus is 'a god - little g' in John 1, but in Isaiah, it clearly states that there are no 'little g' gods exisisting before, or created after, God the Father. Another difficulty in separating a divine Christ from a divine Father.
F. (new) No! no! no! no! no! Look. What did Adam lose for mankind? PERFECT HUMAN LIFE! God required an EQUIVALENT ransom. The equivalent ransom could ONLY be ANOTHER PERFECT HUMAN LIFE. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life - a perfect man for a perfect man. God did not demand something greater for something lesser. He demanded what was EQUAL to what was lost. A person who put out the eye of another person was to lose an eye in return, not an arm or a leg or a life. God demanded exact justice.
Adam lost the right to perfect human life for mankind. Another perfect human life had to be ransomed for it. The perfect human life of Jesus – perfect MAN, not God-made-man!
But that is a different topic – we are talking about the Trinity. We can come back to it later, if you like, when we run out of Trinity stuff!
L. (old) that Son is the EXACT representation of the being of YHWH.
F. (old) A ‘representation’ is NOT the original. Not even an ‘exact representation’ is the original. A clone of you is an ‘exact representation’ as far as it is possible to be exact (origin, birth, life, etc are different) but the clone is not you.
L. (new) But, the point is, only Jesus is stated to be an exact representation of all people to ever have existed on Earth. To look on him is to see the Father on earth.
F. (new) I already went into this, and I think I answered it adequately.
L. (new) I think that this refers to Genesis, when God walked on the Earth and talked with Adam, that it was Jesus in some form that talked to Adam and anywhere else in the scripture that says someone was face-to-face with God. That incarnation repeatedly accepted worship intended for God, and for anyone to receive such worship without being God would be blasphemous. The response of a faithful, created heavenly being to such a mistake was to refuse it, and to tell the offender to redirect it to God. But in the OT, we do see an entity walking the earth multiple times, receiving worship and not refusing it.
F. (new) You are going to have to give me the scriptures for this! I look up enough on my own account, lol!
L. (new) But who does the worshipping? *All* in heaven and earth and below the earth. Jesus is given the Name above all names. I should think that you, as a former JW, know the only Name that is above all other names... YHWH!
F. (new) I have queried this regarding the name too, but I think Revelation itself answers it in part. We are not, however, told what that name IS. Nonetheless, it is obviously different than the name of his father:
Rev 3:12; ‘…I will write on him the NAME of my GOD, and the NAME of the city of my GOD, the New Jerusalem, that is coming down out of the heaven from my GOD; and my NEW NAME.’
So the faithful believer has THREE names written on him/her - JHWH, New Jerusalem, Jesus’ New Name.
Rev 19:12 ‘And his (Jesus’) eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many diadems; having a NAME written which no one knows except himself.’
----------------
L. (new) This gets back to my earlier post, if God has knees and a tongue, then this passage states that He bows to Jesus!!! God bowing to a lesser? God will never give His glory to another, and so I again contend that Jesus Christ is one with God in a way that mortal man finds difficult to accept, and cannot truly understand.
F. (new) I have no recollection of God bowing down to Jesus anywhere in scripture. In the scripture you are citing, it certainly says ‘in the name of JESUS every knee should bend, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those beneath;’ (Philippians 2:9.) But did you go on to read verse 10? ‘and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, FOR THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER.’? They were bowing down to Jesus to glorify the father. It is therefore evident that God did not bow down to Jesus. Indeed, how could God bow down to God?
Note this as well: ‘Then the end, when he shall give up the kingdom to the God and Father; when he shall have abrogated All Government and All Authority and Power. … for he has subjected all things under his feet. But when he says that All things are subjected it is manifest that HE is excepted, who HAS SUBJECTED ALL things to him. And when he shall have subdued ALL things to him then the SON himself will be subject to HIM who SUBDUED ALL things to him, that God may be all in ALL'’ (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)
F. (old) A Prince is the heir of a King, but not in the same way that Jesus is called an heir. Yes. It would imply that the Father would die, would it not? And since God is eternal Jesus would never inherit the position of his father. Note, though, that an heir is separate from the one he inherits from!
L. (new) Not in the sense that occurred in middle eastern oriental culture - Co-regents took the form of king and prince ruling at the same time.
F. (new) Yes, but in different places.
L. (new) You state that Jesus would never inherit, because his Father would not die. That would mean that the position of heir is empty and false... Just what do you think that he inherits?
F. (new) ‘Tisn’t what I think, Leonidas, it is what the bible says: What Jesus inherits is the Kingdom of David and the Kingdom of the earth, according to the Promise. But this is a different topic. We can go into it later if you wish.
L. (new) The male heads of families could give the portion due to an heir (see the story of the Prodigal Son) before their deaths.
F. (new) Yes. Not quite the same, though, is it?!
L. (new) In this case, it is re-establishment of his former position in heaven upon his return from the realm of the dead, and eventually, at the end of days, as ruler over the recreated and renewed Earth, all of which he gave up willingly. Again, see Hebrews 1:3, he inherited his name, the name above all names. And yes, an Earthly heir is separate, but a heavenly one need not be, and clearly isn't in light of all I have written.
F. (new) I understood he was to be exalted to a higher position than he had before? But I think I answered this somewhere already. ?
F. (old) Hm? JW’s are not misrepresenting anything by saying Jesus was created. The bible said it first, lol! He is ‘the beginning of the creation by God’. Nor have they ever suggested an earthly primogeniture! I should know! I was one for 25 years!
L. (new) But, the whole argument for Christ being a creature is the title 'Firstborn of all Creation'.
F. (new) Erm… I think I must be a bit dim: what is your argument here? Are you saying there is some contradiction between Jesus being the ‘firstborn of creation’ and his being created?
L. (new) This is the scripture that you refer to, right?
F. (old) Revelation 3:14 bears this out. Rev 1:1 says of itself that it is ‘The revelation of Jesus Christ…’

and in Ch. 3:14 Jesus, in heaven, years after his resurrection, says this:
‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God…’
Duay, AV, AS.

So, the Word, theos, Jesus, was a creation – the FIRST creation of God.
L. (new) But, the NIV has it this way... 14 ...These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation. The corresponding Greek interlinear has that same passage as: 14 ...These things says the Amen, the witness - faithful and true, the chief of the creation of God.
In context, then, the proper understanding is not one of temporal order or sequence, but of authority, so that chief in the greek is best understood as ruler, in the same way, as I contended above, that the title Firstborn of all Creation is one of position of authority, not temporal order, time sequence, or indicative of primogeniture - rulership by right of position of birth (first created).
F. (new) The word in the text translated ‘chief, ruler, beginning’ (depending on translation), is ‘ARCHE’.

THIS NEXT BIT IS IMPORTANT:

I just looked up ‘ARCHE’ in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Bible Words. Under the heading BEGIN, BEGINNING, BEGINNER it say this, in part (too much to quote it all):
ARCHE means a beginning. The root arch – primarily indicated what was of worth. Hence, the word archo meant ‘to be first’ and archon denoted a ruler. So also rose the idea of a beginning, the origin, the active cause, whether a person or thing.
Under the heading RULER it says:
Archon, a ruler, chief, prince…
Arche, a rule, sovereignty, … (see BEGINNING)
There follow more specific words for rulers
So I think we can see that arche usually denotes ‘beginning’ rather than ‘rule’, though it CAN be used as ‘rulership’, ‘sovereignty’, which do not really fit this context – (it makes a very clumsy sentence). This is born out in the use of the word at other locations, for example: Colossians 1:18 ‘os estin arche – who is a beginning’. Hebrews 2:3 ‘etis archen – which a beginning’. John 1:1 ‘En arche en o Logos…’ – ‘In the beginning was the Word…’

L. (new) Jesus Immanuel is to be treated as an authority equal to God. I believe that this also shows a weakness in the JW interpretation of John (note the little g god in Isaiah 43:10).
F. (new) I only have two versions of the OT: The Good News Bible and the New World Bible. The second reference to god (small g) is about pagan gods as the context shows. Did you not know that the bible also refers to the Devil as God – with a capital G?
Jesus/Immanuel has ALL authority, yes, GIVEN to him by his father. (Daniel 7: 13,14)
F. (old) All authority has been GIVEN to Jesus. GIVEN. By his Father. It was not his originally, it was GIVEN.
L. (new) Given, or given back? He (Jesus) *made himself nothing*, see my quote of Philippians below.
F. (new) Well, it could be. But it does not alter the fact that it was GIVEN in the first place. (See script from Daniel above). And the name above all other names was also ‘kindly given’ (Phil 2:9) to him. It is most probably the name mentioned in Revelation (see above).

(Cut a lot that was repeat of Phil 2 above)

F. (old)The only places you may find the Divine Name in the NT are in quotes from the OT. You will notice throughout the bible that the word LORD in capital letters denotes the places where YHVH (or YHWH) occurred in the text.
L. (new) I would like to have the titles of your references, please, on the removal of God's name, as I am not a formal theology student, and have no information on this...
F. (new)Neither am I! I’m embarrassed to say that I don’t know where to find the info I was referring to. I remember reading it somewhere, but I don’t know where. It was not JW literature, because I have checked that out on the theme ‘Jehovah’s name in the bible’ and can’t find what I was looking for. I KNOW I have read about the removal of the name, though, even the details about all the purification ceremonies they had to go through before writing the name, and having to use special ink and pens (or whatever). I will keep looking. However, I have found SOME info for you, though I do not know what the reference given applies to; maybe you can find out?
Gins. (Mas [Masoretic? Massorah?]), Vol IV, p 28,& 115, says: “We have seen that in many of these one hundred and thirty-four instances in which the present received text reads Adonai in accordance with this Massorah, some of the best MSS and early editions read the Tetragrammaton, and the question arises how did this variation obtain? The explanation is not far to seek. From time immemorial the Jewish canons decreed that the incommunicable name is to be pronounced Adonai as if it were written (here follow 4 Hebrew letters) instead of (4 Hebrew letters YHWH). Nothing was, therefore, more natural for the copyists than to substitute the expression which exhibited the pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton which they were forbidden to pronounce.”

L. (new) But blasphemy against the Spirit of God will not be forgiven, and it cannot be blasphemy unless it is God being blasphemed. This doesn't mean that Christ is not God, because blasphemy against him is forgivable, as Jesus was sent to be reviled, persecuted, and sacrificed.
F. (new) The spirit revealed that Jesus was the son of God. I think, but have not checked, since it is off topic, that it was denial of this fact that was blasphemy against the spirit.
L. (new) Furthermore, when you compare it to scripture that states that God dwells in the heart of the believer, Christ dwells in the heart of the believer, and the Spirit also dwells in the heart of the believer, then it seems to me that one has a bit of a problem if they don't accept the concept of the Trinity.
F. (new) Not at all! You can have the love of more than one person in your heart. ‘Heart’ is in any case figurative, not literal. Your literal heart is a blood pump.
L. (new) The doctrine of the Trinity is expressly stated in scripture, it is just stated in context, not verbatim with the title Trinity, just as you will not see the term 'spiritual Jew',
F. (new) P’raps you should read the ‘authorities’ in my post to John D Harris above.
Actually, the scripture says ‘but the Jew is hidden within, … spiritual not literal’ (Romans 3:29), which is virtually the same thing.
L. (new) Again, the only way to resolve the apparent contradictions in scripture about seeing God and dying, and those who were said to have seen God face-to-face is to accept that there is a representation of God that has the authority of God, and is worthy of the worship, glory, and honor of God, and therefore, is God, as God gives His Glory to no other being, nor will He allow others to give worship to any other being guiltlessly.
F. (new) The other thing to do is to acknowledge that the scripture is speaking the truth. John, who wrote John 1:18 knew Jesus personally but felt well able to say ‘no man has seen God at any time.’! I think we can take his word for it!
--------
L. (new) But, I believe, with interpretations that are not warranted in context, and not with the full weight of the entirety of the scripture.
F. (new) I have no worries at all about context of the scriptures I use, since such contexts bear out what I am saying.
Which brings me back to Philippians. See the post below, since this one is long enough (!!) and Philippians 2 is better dealt with separately.
Regards



------------------




[This message has been edited by Fljotsdale (edited 07-09-2001).]