Colossians 1:15

Hi H.

Let's see.... Proverbs 8 is discussing Wisdom, as a personification.

“The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.

So, I see that god possessed wisdom at the beginning. I don't see where wisdom was created.
The Hebrew קָ֭נָנִי can refer to "creating"(, and seems to be how it was understood per the translators of the LXX:
κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ
Revelation 3:14
“And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:

I'm not seeing where the beginning of the creation of God, is the first created.
He's the Beginning of God's creation, not the creation.
Being called "the beginning of God's creation" can refer to being the "first created" (as ἀρχὴ + genitive connotes "first in a series").
John 1:3 states

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

John 1:2 states that he was in the beginning with God.

So.... This matches what is stated in Proverbs, and Revelation 3:14.

He was in the beginning with God. AND HE created all that exists.
You are 1/2 correct. (All things were made through him shows that he is the agent of creation--not the Creator).
Hebrews 1:2-3 states

2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
Note that Hebrews 1:2 refers to him as the one "through whom He/God made the worlds".
Ephesians 3:9 states

9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ
Note again that Ephesians states that God created all things through Jesus Christ(--not that Jesus Christ created all things).
So, the only way this firstborn of creation being the first created works is if you ignore the rest of the bible.
Or, if you understand the meaning of "firstborn"(, "only-born", and "son").
 
Pretty good answer Steve. Your right about Proverbs 8:22, the context is about wisdom. Regarding Revelation 3:14 here is the "rub" for the Jw's. "The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God." The Greek word for beginning is "arche." We get our English word "architect" from that word.
What does an architect do? He draws up the plans for something that is going to be made. He is the "originator" of those plans. Or the "origin" or "source of action etc." It does not mean being the first created.
Actually, Greek has a word for "architect"--τεχνίτης.
Now, they also use Colossians 1:15-16 and you touched on this verse by bringing up Hebrews 1:1-3. Jesus is the exact image of God His Father. This means Jesus has the same nature as His Father.
No JW denies this, so this point is moot.

(The problem, however, is that you think God's nature is "God" when it is not.)
This can be proven wrong if you can give me an example of a son that does not share the same nature as its father. This is a universal law. This is also why at John 3:16 is the "one and only begotten Son of God as in there are no others.
While he is the "only born son", there are other sons that are "begotten" as well (1 John 5:1).
And of course the word first begotten means at Colossians 1:15 that Jesus' "preeminence is in view or the supremacy of Christ. Hope this helps and keep up the good work.

In Him,
herman
"Firstborn" means 'first (one) born'--which carries the connotation of "preeminence".
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
When I said "what happened" I was referring to anything or anyone existing before the beginning in the text(, as well as your reference to "the beginning" before the beginning in Genesis).

IOW, you have constantly argued that the Word was (logically) before th

To say that something exists, is not a "happening", it is not an action, it's a state of being, a statement of an indicative reality.
IOW, you have constantly argued that the Word was (logically) before the beginning because of HN(. However, HN does not work that way).

En, is an imperfect, so the existing is an ongoing state of being. I don't think that En would be used if John intended to say the Word was created or being created in the beginning, as in Gen 1:1. More on this later.
This is why your argument is flawed. He doesn't have to exist before the beginning to be in the beginning.

If the "beginning" is the commencement of creation, which is the only logical beginning that can be posited IMHO. It may be, as said before, the creation of "the heavens and the earth", as in Genesis 1:1, or it may be the creation of the heavenly spiritual beings like angels, but the Creator is necessarily existent before that which he created.
For instance, if you look at Genesis 1:1 and ask yourself these three questions:

When was the earth created according to Genesis 1:1? "In the beginning".
Since the earth was created in the beginning, can someone say that "the earth was in the beginning"? Yes.
Since one can say the earth was in the beginning, does that mean it existed before the beginning? No.

1) I think you are using the broad concept of "the beginning" of Gen 1:1 and applying it to John 1:1 unnecessarily. The beginning is a very long period of time, whereas John is pointing to a point at the beginning of that process, the point when the beginning started. This is because John 1:3 establishes the Word as being the one through which all creation would be realized. As the NET Bible, the translation by one of the world's leading Greek scholars, if not the best, Daniel Wallace, says,

All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing
was created that has been created.

The "heavens and the earth" were created in the beginning, but the Creator by means of which they were brought to be, could not have been created himself according to John. " ...apart from him (the Word) not one thing was created that has been created." In other words, the Word is the maker of everything that has ever been made! And as I've pointed out in another post, Jehovah clearly says that he created all that is personally (by his own hand/right hand) and alone (by himself), so the presence and operation of the Word as declared by John can only mean that the Word in seamless unity of the Godhead, is the eternal Creator of all things that have been created!

My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together. Isa 48:13

"This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself..." Isa 44:24




Yes, the Word simply had to exist before all that was made through him.

See above comments! He created everything ever created! (Not, as the NWT so despicably and desperately renders it, "all (other) things.")


he couldn't have existed before he was begotten (John 1:18; Revelation 3:14).

μονογενής, according to Thayer, in its primary meaning, means "single of its kind, only". Strong says, "only, only-begotten; unique."
Helps Word Studies, breaks down the etymology this way:

3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).

Offspring, or begotten, is used only as a human parenting usage. There is no mother figure, no "parenting" or pregnancy. In reference to the eternal, "the only of its kind" is the only possible meaning.

As for ἀρχή, Bill Mounce, describes the definition and usage of the 55 instances of the word as:

Gloss:
beginning, origin, first; ruler, power, authority; position of authority, domain

Definition:
a beginning, Mt. 24:8; an extremity, corner, or, an attached cord, Acts 10:11; 11:5; first place, headship; high estate, eminence, Jude 6; authority, Lk. 20:20; an authority, magistrate, Lk. 12:11; a principality, prince, of spiritual existence, Eph. 3:10; 6:12; ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ἐξ ἀρχῆς, from the first, originally, Mt. 19:4, 8; Lk. 1:2; Jn. 6:64; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Jn. 1:1; 2:7; ἐν ἀρχῇ, κατ᾿ ἀρχάς, in the beginning of things, Jn. 1:1, 2; Heb. 1:10; ἐν ἀρχῇ, at the first, Acts 11:15; τὴν ἀρχήν, used adverbially, wholly, altogether, Jn. 8:25

Strong lists the usage as:
(a) rule (kingly or magisterial), (b) plur: in a quasi-personal sense, almost: rulers, magistrates, (c) beginning.

while Thayer, in reference to Rev 3:14, says:

3. that by which anything begins to be, the origin, active cause (a sense in which the philosopher Anaximander, 8th century B.C., is said to have been the first to use the word; cf. Simplicius, on Aristotle, phys. f. 9, p. 326, Brandis edition and 32, p. 334, Brandis edition (cf. Teichmüller, Stud. zur Gesch. d. Begriffe, pp. 48ff 560ff)): ἡ ἀρχή τῆς κτίσεως, of Christ as the divine λόγος, Revelation 3:14 (cf. Düsterdieck at the passage; Clement of Alexandria, protrept. 1, p. 6, Potter edition (p. 30 edition Sylb.) ὁ λόγος ἀρχή θεία τῶν πάντων; in Ev. Nicod. c. 23 (p. 308, Tischendorf edition, p. 736, Thilo edition) the devil is called ἡ ἀρχή τοῦ θανάτου καί ῤίζα τῆς ἁμαρτίας).

As I'm sure you probably know, Thayer was a Unitarian, whose Christology is more akin to your thinking than orthodox teaching, and you would think he would lean more in your direction regarding the meaning of ἀρχή in Rev 3:14. But he aligns this with John's thoughts in John 1:3, saying he is the one who began all things, the "Beginner", which is, if memory serves, the way Origin, another thinker more akin to you than me in Christology, puts it in his rendering of Rev 3:14.

Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
The Word made nothing because the him is the Father at vs 4 because the life in the him is Jesus and that means the him can not also be Jesus. We have been over this and you keep coming back as if the life in the him was not Jesus and try to say it means Jesus is the creator. Prove that the life in the him is not Jesus? Otherwise the creator has to be the Father because the him and life in the him can not be the same one.

No, grammatically, "the Word" in Jn1:1a is the nomanitive/subject of John's thought in the prologue. All the pronouns in verses 2-4 are referring back to "the Word" in verse 1.

1In the beginning was the Word, [nomanitive/subject] and the Word [nomanitive/subject] was with God, and the Word [nomanitive/subject] was God. 2He [nomanitive/subject] was with God in the beginning. 3Through him [nomanitive/subject] all things were made; without him [nomanitive/subject] nothing was made that has been made. 4In him [nomanitive/subject] was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome a it.


Doug
 
To say that something exists, is not a "happening", it is not an action, it's a state of being, a statement of an indicative reality.
Ok...
En, is an imperfect, so the existing is an ongoing state of being. I don't think that En would be used if John intended to say the Word was created or being created in the beginning, as in Gen 1:1. More on this later.
I'm not sure why you think that as HN simply refers to a past event.
If the "beginning" is the commencement of creation, which is the only logical beginning that can be posited IMHO. It may be, as said before, the creation of "the heavens and the earth", as in Genesis 1:1, or it may be the creation of the heavenly spiritual beings like angels, but the Creator is necessarily existent before that which he created.

1) I think you are using the broad concept of "the beginning" of Gen 1:1 and applying it to John 1:1 unnecessarily. The beginning is a very long period of time, whereas John is pointing to a point at the beginning of that process, the point when the beginning started.
If that were the case, John could've said "at" or "from" (rather than 'in').
This is because John 1:3 establishes the Word as being the one through which all creation would be realized. As the NET Bible, the translation by one of the world's leading Greek scholars, if not the best, Daniel Wallace, says,

All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.
I can't tell where Daniel Wallace's quote ends, so I'll cut it here.

Even if one uses "by" to translate DI(A), one should understand that "by"---as pointed out by Louw-Nida--signifies (among other things):

> DIA a. by (agent)
> b. by (instrument)
> c. through (means)
So, even if the text reads "All things were created by him", it is still understood as the "instrument" used by Another(, ie, the "means by which God creates"). This is why DI(A) is also translated as "through" in this verse:
John 1:3, NIV: "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:3, NLT: "God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him."
John 1:3, CSB: "All things were created through him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created."

TibiasDad:

The "heavens and the earth" were created in the beginning, but the Creator by means of which they were brought to be, could not have been created himself according to John. " ...apart from him (the Word) not one thing was created that has been created." In other words, the Word is the maker of everything that has ever been made!
Two things must be mentioned about the phrase "apart from him not one thing was created that has been created":

1) for reasons I don't wish to discuss (as such could deter the thread), some scholars believe John 1:3, 4 should read:
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made. That has been made in him was life, and that life was the light of men.
However, even if one doesn't agree with such a translation, one still has to acknowledge 'without him nothing was made that has been made' refers to 'all things that were created through him' which would automatically exclude himself (since the Word was not "created through him" but begottten by God his Father).

TibiasDad:


And as I've pointed out in another post, Jehovah clearly says that he created all that is personally (by his own hand/right hand) and alone (by himself), so the presence and operation of the Word as declared by John can only mean that the Word in seamless unity of the Godhead, is the eternal Creator of all things that have been created!

My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together. Isa 48:13

"This is what the LORD says-- your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself..." Isa 44:24

Besides the textual issue which causes two different translations:
World English Bible
Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and he who formed you from the womb: "I am Yahweh, who makes all things; who alone stretches out the heavens; who spreads out the earth by myself;

Young's Literal Translation
Thus said Jehovah, thy redeemer, And thy framer from the womb: 'I am Jehovah, doing all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, Spreading out the earth -- who is with Me?
The text is still addressing the gods of the nations (idols) as demonstrated by Isaiah 44:9.

TibiasDad:

See above comments! He created everything ever created! (Not, as the NWT so despicably and desperately renders it, "all (other) things.")
No text says "he created everything ever created". At Colossians 1:16, the passive verb EKTISQH is used in reference to what someone else did EN AUTWi. This could not
grammatically be construed as an instance where it is said that Christ created all things. The same is true of EKTISTAI in vs 17, where we also find DI' AUTOU, which, together with the passive verbs, clearly involves the idea of agency, namely, Christ as the medium or instrument through which someone else(, ie, God) created.

On the other hand, when speaking of God's role in creation, active verbs are used (eg Revelation 4:11).

TibiasDad:

μονογενής, according to Thayer, in its primary meaning, means "single of its kind, only". Strong says, "only, only-begotten; unique."
Helps Word Studies, breaks down the etymology this way:

3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).

Offspring, or begotten, is used only as a human parenting usage. There is no mother figure, no "parenting" or pregnancy. In reference to the eternal, "the only of its kind" is the only possible meaning.
μονογενης means "only born" just as Hermogenes (ερμογενης--2 Timothy 1:15) means "born of Zeus/Hermes" (and ευγενής means "earth born").
TibiasDad:

As for ἀρχή, Bill Mounce, describes the definition and usage of the 55 instances of the word as:

Gloss:
beginning, origin, first; ruler, power, authority; position of authority, domain

Definition:
a beginning, Mt. 24:8; an extremity, corner, or, an attached cord, Acts 10:11; 11:5; first place, headship; high estate, eminence, Jude 6; authority, Lk. 20:20; an authority, magistrate, Lk. 12:11; a principality, prince, of spiritual existence, Eph. 3:10; 6:12; ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, ἐξ ἀρχῆς, from the first, originally, Mt. 19:4, 8; Lk. 1:2; Jn. 6:64; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Jn. 1:1; 2:7; ἐν ἀρχῇ, κατ᾿ ἀρχάς, in the beginning of things, Jn. 1:1, 2; Heb. 1:10; ἐν ἀρχῇ, at the first, Acts 11:15; τὴν ἀρχήν, used adverbially, wholly, altogether, Jn. 8:25

Strong lists the usage as:
(a) rule (kingly or magisterial), (b) plur: in a quasi-personal sense, almost: rulers, magistrates, (c) beginning.

while Thayer, in reference to Rev 3:14, says:

3. that by which anything begins to be, the origin, active cause (a sense in which the philosopher Anaximander, 8th century B.C., is said to have been the first to use the word; cf. Simplicius, on Aristotle, phys. f. 9, p. 326, Brandis edition and 32, p. 334, Brandis edition (cf. Teichmüller, Stud. zur Gesch. d. Begriffe, pp. 48ff 560ff)): ἡ ἀρχή τῆς κτίσεως, of Christ as the divine λόγος, Revelation 3:14 (cf. Düsterdieck at the passage; Clement of Alexandria, protrept. 1, p. 6, Potter edition (p. 30 edition Sylb.) ὁ λόγος ἀρχή θεία τῶν πάντων; in Ev. Nicod. c. 23 (p. 308, Tischendorf edition, p. 736, Thilo edition) the devil is called ἡ ἀρχή τοῦ θανάτου καί ῤίζα τῆς ἁμαρτίας).

As I'm sure you probably know, Thayer was a Unitarian, whose Christology is more akin to your thinking than orthodox teaching, and you would think he would lean more in your direction regarding the meaning of ἀρχή in Rev 3:14. But he aligns this with John's thoughts in John 1:3, saying he is the one who began all things, the "Beginner", which is, if memory serves, the way Origin, another thinker more akin to you than me in Christology, puts it in his rendering of Rev 3:14.

Doug
There are no example of ARCH with a following genitive expression that means "source". Instead, whenever ARCH + genitive is used, the ARCH always part of the group denoted by the
genitive.

Now, if one accepts "beginner" for ARCH then who did the creating, η αρχη or hO QEOS(--for the text says "hH ARCH" of God's creeation")?
 

SteveB

Well-known member
The Hebrew קָ֭נָנִי can refer to "creating"(, and seems to be how it was understood per the translators of the LXX:


Being called "the beginning of God's creation" can refer to being the "first created" (as ἀρχὴ + genitive connotes "first in a series").

You are 1/2 correct. (All things were made through him shows that he is the agent of creation--not the Creator).

Note that Hebrews 1:2 refers to him as the one "through whom He/God made the worlds".

Note again that Ephesians states that God created all things through Jesus Christ(--not that Jesus Christ created all things).

Or, if you understand the meaning of "firstborn"(, "only-born", and "son").
yeah.... being drunk CAN refer to having drank happiness too....

The problem here is that what CAN be, does not make it ACTUALLY be.
My parents did not create me. They begot me. They passed their nature as humans, and their DNA on to me. Humans do not possess this technology to create other humans.
 
yeah.... being drunk CAN refer to having drank happiness too....

The problem here is that what CAN be, does not make it ACTUALLY be.
One could argue if they wish to ignore the fact that QANANI is translated as EKTISEN in the LXX.
My parents did not create me. They begot me. They passed their nature as humans, and their DNA on to me. Humans do not possess this technology to create other humans.
One should note:
To beget is defined as to create children or to cause something to happen.
(That may be why it is also referred to as "procreation".)
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
I'm not sure why you think that as HN simply refers to a past event.

Because it refers to the indicative reality of an established state of existence! Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", it does not say, "In the beginning was the earth". John says the Word was in the begining, not the Word was beginning to be. The Word was, and the Word was the means through which the Father's will to creat was accomplished! The Creator existing prior to the beginning of the creation process.

If that were the case, John could've said "at" or "from" (rather than 'in').
Well, if memory serves, you've already pointed out that John says of him that he was "from" the beginning (1Jn 1:1).
1) for reasons I don't wish to discuss (as such could deter the thread), some scholars believe John 1:3, 4 should read:
"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made. That has been made in him was life, and that life was the light of men."

If you don't want to discuss it, don't bring it up! But since you did there is no reason to translate it like that, and the third clause doesn't even make since. Who are these scholars and what is their supposed logical reasoning for such an obvious non-starter of an argument?

However, even if one doesn't agree with such a translation, one still has to acknowledge 'without him nothing was made that has been made' refers to 'all things that were created through him' which would automatically exclude himself (since the Word was not "created through him" but begottten by God his Father).

Circular reasoning at its finest (which in any language is a bad thing)! Nowhere does John or anyone else say the Son is created.

Begotten doesn't mean created, it implies to come forth from. As I've said before, begotten in the human means to procreate by bearing children, but you cannot make a literal comparison of the physical with the spiritual, the temporal with the spiritual. God doesn't give birth, but things do proceed from God. (John 15:26, 16:28) ( ἐξέρχομαι and ἐκπορεύομαι convey the same idea) And that which proceeds from out of God is equal to God because it has the same essence as that from which it proceeds. This is evident even in human children, for the offspring of human parents, are obviously necessarily human! That which proceeds directly from God is God just as that which comes directly from humans is human.

More later,


Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
No text says "he created everything ever created". At Colossians 1:16, the passive verb EKTISQH is used in reference to what someone else did EN AUTWi. This could not
grammatically be construed as an instance where it is said that Christ created all things. The same is true of EKTISTAI in vs 17, where we also find DI' AUTOU, which, together with the passive verbs, clearly involves the idea of agency, namely, Christ as the medium or instrument through which someone else(, ie, God) created.

On the other hand, when speaking of

John 1:3Through him all things (πάντα) were made; without him nothing (οὐδὲ ἕν) was made that has been made.

This says with unequivocal certainty "he created everything ever created". πάντα (plural, neuter, noun) leaves zero margin of error; "all things" has no outliers, and then John doubles down with οὐδὲ ἕν, saying "not one" thing is excluded from the list of things that have been made. And yet you say precisely, in the face of what John went the extra mile to preclude, that indeed "one thing", if only one thing, is excluded from πάντα! This is an undeniable fact of Watchtower doctrine, that Jesus, in his preincarnate state, was a created Archangel named Michael! There was a time that he did not exist!
At Colossians 1:16, the passive verb EKTISQH is used in reference to what someone else did EN AUTWi. This could not
grammatically be construed as an instance where it is said that Christ created all things. The same is true of EKTISTAI in vs 17, where we also find DI' AUTOU, which, together with the passive verbs, clearly involves the idea of agency, namely, Christ as the medium or instrument through which someone else(, ie, God) created.

In case you didn't realize this, but nobody is talking about Colossians 1:16, and it is an irrelevant diversion to the fact that John 1:3 does in fact say the Word is the effectual agent of the making of all things without a single exception. It is not a passive description, it is an indicative statement of detailed fact that πάντα were brought into being (γίνομαι), and that οὐδὲ ἕν thing that was γίνομαι exists without him!

Doug
 
Because it refers to the indicative reality of an established state of existence! Gen 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", it does not say, "In the beginning was the earth". John says the Word was in the begining, not the Word was beginning to be. The Word was, and the Word was the means through which the Father's will to creat was accomplished! The Creator existing prior to the beginning of the creation process.
Again, you're reading into the text something that is neither stated or implied. HN only points to something in the past.

Thus, the Word was in the beginning just as the earth was in the beginning. (At what point "in the beginning" is not established in the text at John 1:1.)
Well, if memory serves, you've already pointed out that John says of him that he was "from" the beginning (1Jn 1:1).
Of course.

So, while John 1:1 says "in the beginning", 1 John 1:1 says "from the beginning".

Therefore, in order to believe John 1:1 is referring to "from the beginning" is to read (1 John 1:1) into the text--not to read what the text actually says. Likewise, to believe John 1:1 means "the Word existed before the beginning because he was in the beginning" is to read into the text.
If you don't want to discuss it, don't bring it up! But since you did there is no reason to translate it like that,
and the third clause doesn't even make since. Who are these scholars and what is their supposed logical reasoning for such an obvious non-starter of an argument?
The JBL has an article here.
Circular reasoning at its finest (which in any language is a bad thing)! Nowhere does John or anyone else say the Son is created.

Begotten doesn't mean created, it implies to come forth from. As I've said before, begotten in the human means to procreate by bearing children,
As one source states:
To beget is defined as to create children
which is why it is referred to as "procreation".
but you cannot make a literal comparison of the physical with the spiritual, the temporal with the spiritual. God doesn't give birth, but things do proceed from God. (John 15:26, 16:28)
God does not need to "give birth" to beget (as 'beget' refers to the male's role in the procreation of offspring).
( ἐξέρχομαι and ἐκπορεύομαι convey the same idea)
Actually, they don't.
And that which proceeds from out of God is equal to God because it has the same essence as that from which it proceeds. This is evident even in human children, for the offspring of human parents, are obviously necessarily human! That which proceeds directly from God is God just as that which comes directly from humans is human.

More later,


Doug
In order for your argument to be true, God would have to be a species or nature(. For instance, the reason humans beget humans is because "human" is a species. Thus, when one human begets another human, you end up with two humans).

However, "God" is not a species, but (functions as) a name (eg Genesis 1:1) as does Adam (eg Genesis 5:1):
God is capitalized when it functions as a name. In this use, God is a proper noun like any other name and does not take a definite or indefinite article.
Hence, just as Adam didn't beget Adam (even though adam/human begets adam/human), God didn't beget God.
 
John 1:3Through him all things (πάντα) were made; without him nothing (οὐδὲ ἕν) was made that has been made.

This says with unequivocal certainty "he created everything ever created". πάντα (plural, neuter, noun) leaves zero margin of error; "all things" has no outliers, and then John doubles down with οὐδὲ ἕν, saying "not one" thing is excluded from the list of things that have been made.
If πάντα were absolute, it would include God (and the Word), for the text (literally) says "all were made through the Word".

However, since it is not being used in an absolute sense, πάντα refers to "everything else"--ie, that which was created through the Word.
And yet you say precisely, in the face of what John went the extra mile to preclude, that indeed "one thing", if only one thing, is excluded from πάντα!
John himself excludes two things by saying "through him"--for "through him" necessarily excludes the Word (since he is the means) and God (who is the Source).
This is an undeniable fact of Watchtower doctrine, that Jesus, in his preincarnate state, was a created Archangel named Michael! There was a time that he did not exist!
If such were true, he couldn't be referred to as the MONOOGENHS QEOS (only born god) as stated at John 1:18.
In case you didn't realize this, but nobody is talking about Colossians 1:16, and it is an irrelevant diversion to the fact that John 1:3 does in fact say the Word is the effectual agent of the making of all things without a single exception. It is not a passive description, it is an indicative statement of detailed fact that πάντα were brought into being (γίνομαι), and that οὐδὲ ἕν thing that was γίνομαι exists without him!

Doug
John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 say the same thing(. Well, Colossians expounds on John 1:3 by not only using DI' AUTOU as in John 1:3, but adds EN AUTOU and EIS AUTOU).

(BTW, you need to brush up on your Greek since it's clear you don't understand passive and active verbs.)
 
Last edited:

TibiasDad

Well-known member
In order for your argument to be true, God would have to be a species or nature(. For instance, the reason humans beget humans is because "human" is a species. Thus, when one human begets another human, you end up with two humans).

However, "God" is not a species, but (functions as) a name (eg Genesis 1:1) as does Adam (eg Genesis 5:1):
Hence, just as Adam didn't beget Adam (even thou

And now I understand why and where you, and all your languages and degrees, are wrong. God is not a proper name, and you English grammar source is merely speaking in term of English grammar rules in general. Grammar does not determine meaning, and God is is a title, not a proper name. You, as a Jehovah's Witness, should be the first to acknowledge that. When Moses asked God what his "name" was, he did not say Elohim, he said Yahweh, Jehovah, I will be what I will be! And he then said, “This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation." (Exodus 3:15)

As I have said before, being a who, a personal being, is an attribute of God as well as humanity, but that is not what differentiates Humans from Deity, man from God! It is not a "name", it is the type of being that we are: He is uncreated, we are created; He is Eternal in existence, we are temporal; He is impeccable, we are peccable, etc, etc. For me, the singular thing that differentiates the being and nature of God from that of man (and all other personal beings) is his being Eternal and thus uncreated. There are many elements of God's being, his natural attributes, that were imparted to us in the Imago Dei, even though his use of these attributes is "omni" in their execution. But a being is either eternal or they are not, created or uncreated! They may not be all powerful, but they do have power, they may not be all knowing, but they are cognitive, they may not be all wise, but they are rational. The only thing that cannot be passed on to one degreed or another is whether you are created or not. That, being eternal and uncreated, is what distinguishes God from man and the rest of all created.

God is not a name, but a designation. God is a person, but it is not what makes him God. He has a name, and it is Yahweh! And Yahweh is God by nature!


Doug
 
And now I understand why and where you, and all your languages and degrees, are wrong. God is not a proper name, and you English grammar source is merely speaking in term of English grammar rules in general. Grammar does not determine meaning, and God is is a title, not a proper name.
You, as a Jehovah's Witness, should be the first to acknowledge that. When Moses asked God what his "name" was, he did not say Elohim, he said Yahweh, Jehovah, I will be what I will be! And he then said, “This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation." (Exodus 3:15)
It seems you do not understand translation either. The reason hA ELOHIM/hO QEOS is translated (into English) as "God":

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν//In the beginning God created heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1)
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.//In the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was god (John 1:1)
κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεός//the head of the Christ, God)
is because it functions as a name. If it did not function as a name, it would not be capitalized in translation(. Rather, it would be translated into English as "the god"). Again, as stated in the source I provided earlier:
God is capitalized when it functions as a name. In this use, God is a proper noun like any other name and does not take a definite or indefinite article.
Now, it functions as a title when coupled with a name ("YHWH God", eg Genesis 2:4)
As I have said before, being a who, a personal being, is an attribute of God as well as humanity, but that is not what differentiates Humans from Deity, man from God! It is not a "name", it is the type of being that we are: He is uncreated, we are created; He is Eternal in existence, we are temporal; He is impeccable, we are peccable, etc, etc. For me, the singular thing that differentiates the being and nature of God from that of man (and all other personal beings) is his being Eternal and thus uncreated. There are many elements of God's being, his natural attributes, that were imparted to us in the Imago Dei, even though his use of these attributes is "omni" in their execution. But a being is either eternal or they are not, created or uncreated! They may not be all powerful, but they do have power, they may not be all knowing, but they are cognitive, they may not be all wise, but they are rational. The only thing that cannot be passed on to one degreed or another is whether you are created or not. That, being eternal and uncreated, is what distinguishes God from man and the rest of all created.

God is not a name, but a designation. God is a person, but it is not what makes him God. He has a name, and it is Yahweh! And Yahweh is God by nature!

Doug
While most of what you stated is incorrect(, and because I've addressed it already), YHWH is 'divine' (QEIOS) by nature (eg 2 Peter 1:4).

He is QEOS(, ie, 'god') per classification.
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
It seems you do not understand translation either. The reason hA ELOHIM/hO QEOS is translated (into English) as "God":


is because it functions as a name. If it did not function as a name, it would not be capitalized in translation(. Rather, it would be translated into English as "the god"). Again, as stated in the source I provided earlier:

Now, it functions as a title when coupled with a name ("YHWH God", eg Genesis 2:4)

While most of what you stated is incorrect(, and because I've addressed it already), YHWH is 'divine' (QEIOS) by nature (eg 2 Peter 1:4).

He is QEOS(, ie, 'god') per classification.

I'm glad I didn't spend all the money and time for your "degrees" in biblical languages if this is what they taught you! One thing is correct, however, God is a classification, just like human is a classification. They are a specific type of being as differentiated from another type of being, i.e., he is God not human. He is God, not Angel. He is God, not Canine. And what differentiates him from others is what makes him God!


Doug
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
While most of what you stated is incorrect(, and because I've addressed it already), YHWH is 'divine' (QEIOS) by nature (eg 2 Peter 1:4

Specifically speaking, what is incorrect and why? If being uncreated (which is something he is by nature) is not the distinguishing truth that separates God from all other beings, what is? It's not being a who, a person! What makes God God?

Doug
 
I'm glad I didn't spend all the money and time for your "degrees" in biblical languages if this is what they taught you! One thing is correct, however, God is a classification, just like human is a classification.
God is not a classification (just as Kiheiji is not a classification).

This can be seen when looking at Jesus' geneaology:

When Jesus entered public life he was about thirty years old, the son (in public perception) of Joseph, who was—

son of Heli,
son of Matthat,
son of Levi,
son of Melki,
son of Jannai,
son of Joseph,
son of Mattathias,
son of Amos,
son of Nahum,
son of Esli,
son of Naggai,
son of Maath,
son of Mattathias,
son of Semein,
son of Josech,
son of Joda,
son of Joanan,
son of Rhesa,
son of Zerubbabel,
son of Shealtiel,
son of Neri,
son of Melchi,
son of Addi,
son of Cosam,
son of Elmadam,
son of Er,
son of Joshua,
son of Eliezer,
son of Jorim,
son of Matthat,
son of Levi,
son of Simeon,
son of Judah,
son of Joseph,
son of Jonam,
son of Eliakim,
son of Melea,
son of Menna,
son of Mattatha,
son of Nathan,
son of David,
son of Jesse,
son of Obed,
son of Boaz,
son of Salmon,
son of Nahshon,
son of Amminadab,
son of Admin,
son of Arni,
son of Hezron,
son of Perez,
son of Judah,
son of Jacob,
son of Isaac,
son of Abraham,
son of Terah,
son of Nahor,
son of Serug,
son of Reu,
son of Peleg,
son of Eber,
son of Shelah,
son of Kenan,
son of Arphaxad,
son of Shem,
son of Noah,
son of Lamech,
son of Methuselah,
son of Enoch,
son of Jared,
son of Mahalaleel,
son of Kenan,
son of Enos,
son of Seth,
son of Adam,
son of God.

They are a specific type of being as differentiated from another type of being, i.e., he is God not human. He is God, not Angel. He is God, not Canine. And what differentiates him from others is what makes him God!


Doug
It seems you're breaking grammatical rules to suit your theological argument, for when speaking of class/category:

You cannot say 'Angel'--you'd say "angel";
you cannot say 'Canine'--you'd say "canine";
you cannot say 'Adam'--you'd say "adam"; thus,
you cannot say 'God'--you'd say "god".

(Please learn the difference between a "common noun" and a "proper noun".)
 
Specifically speaking, what is incorrect and why? If being uncreated (which is something he is by nature) is not the distinguishing truth that separates God from all other beings, what is? It's not being a who, a person! What makes God God?

Doug
Saying "what makes God God" is like saying "what makes TibiasDad TibiasDad", "what makes Kiheiji Kiheiji", or "what makes Adam Adam".

If you're looking for grammatical accuracy, you can say "what makes God 'god'"--just as you'd say "what makes Kiheiji 'adam'", "what makes Eve 'adam'", or "what makes Adam 'adam'".

(I've addressed this question already though.)
 

jamesh

Active member
The Hebrew קָ֭נָנִי can refer to "creating"(, and seems to be how it was understood per the translators of the LXX:


Being called "the beginning of God's creation" can refer to being the "first created" (as ἀρχὴ + genitive connotes "first in a series").

You are 1/2 correct. (All things were made through him shows that he is the agent of creation--not the Creator).

Note that Hebrews 1:2 refers to him as the one "through whom He/God made the worlds".

Note again that Ephesians states that God created all things through Jesus Christ(--not that Jesus Christ created all things).

Or, if you understand the meaning of "firstborn"(, "only-born", and "son").
So how do you determine regarding Revelation 3:14 that it means, "can refer to being the "first created" as opposed to being the creator like I understand the verse?

My understanding is the correct way because it's based on other scriptures that clearly identify the Son as the creator. John 1:3, Hebrews 1:10, Colossians 1:16 and others. When you make the statement, "it can mean this or that" this means your not sure, your speculating.

You also made an issue on Jesus Christ being the "agent/instrument" of creation? What does that mean? How is He "specifically" used by God as the "agent/instrument" of creation? Does not God say He created the heavens and the earth "All ALONE AND BY HIMSELF" at Isaiah 44:24?

For you position to be correct you have to go out of your way, especially at Colossians 1:16 to add the word "other" in the text when it is not there in the original Greek. Please tell me specifically why the Watchtower Society felt the need to insert that word "other" into the text? What was the exact reason? Secondly, explain what these so-called "other" things are in view of God saying He created all Alone and by Himself as well as John saying at John 1:13 ALL things were created by Him since the word "all" means without exception?

Oh yea, I almost forgot what you said about the word "through" which I already gave you the definition of the word and the definition of "by." Even Unitarian Thayer agrees that Revelation 3:14 is refering to Jesus being the "origin/creator.

In Him,
herman
 

TibiasDad

Well-known member
Saying "what makes God God" is like saying "what makes TibiasDad TibiasDad", "what makes Kiheiji Kiheiji", or "what makes Adam Adam".

If you're looking for grammatical accuracy, you can say "what makes God 'god'"--just as you'd say "what makes Kiheiji 'adam'", "what makes Eve 'adam'", or "what makes Adam 'adam'".

(I've addressed this question already though.)

You're evading the question! I don't care how you say it, it means the same thing; what makes God different from all other beings. If God is God, what is he that no other creature can claim as true of them?

Doug
 
Top