The Father and the Son are not economically equal.

Yahchristian

Well-known member
The point is that whatever you consider to be the beginning, the Word already existed in relationship with God the Father.

God Bless

Yes, but John 1:1 just proves that the Word existed in relationship with God SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE.

And I agree with that! (see my overview below)

But it does NOT prove that there were multiple separate individuals SINCE ETERNITY PAST.

That is the distinction of the DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.


P.S.

Are you able to post an overview of what YOU believe? Here is mine...

For this creation, YHWH God (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans (living souls) for his glory where he would reign as a living soul himself. The Scriptures describe how God would accomplish his plan. In an instant, transcendent God (called God the Father) created the supernatural and space-time of this universe and also became immanent as a spirit (called the Spirit of God) and in the form of a living soul (called the Word of God) with a glorious body. God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Word of God. But whereas God created a human spirit and soul for each of us, God himself as the Word became the human spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.
 
Yes, but John 1:1 just proves that the Word existed in relationship with God SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE.

Nope, check the Grammar again; "was" is past tense. In the Beginning the Word past tense already existed: "In the beginning was the Word", "He was in the beginning with God". So, it's not since the beginning; it's prior to the beginning the Word already existed. Therefore, it emphatically declares there were multiple distinct persons since eternity past. BTW, we don't believe the Father and the Son are "separate individuals".

God Bless
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Nope, check the Grammar again; "was" is past tense. In the Beginning the Word past tense already existed: "In the beginning was the Word", "He was in the beginning with God". So, it's not since the beginning; it's prior to the beginning the Word already existed. Therefore, it emphatically declares there were multiple distinct persons since eternity past. BTW, we don't believe the Father and the Son are "separate individuals".

God Bless

Where did you get the notion that "in the beginning" means "prior to the beginning." It doesn't mean that in Genesis.
 
Where did you get the notion that "in the beginning" means "prior to the beginning." It doesn't mean that in Genesis.

If something was already true using the past tense in the beginning, then it is prior to said beginning, and John 1:1 says "He was in the beginning with God". Therefore logic demands, he was with God prior to said beginning

God Bless
 
That doesn't work in Genesis.
What doesn't work in Genesis? And, why would that matter to what John is expressing in his prolog? Genesis 1 is a poem about how the world came into being. John 1 is a prolog to a gospel that expresses the fact that the Word, relationally distinct from God the Father while also being God, was already in existence in the beginning. BTW, Genesis 1 is incapsulated in John 1:3 when this Word made everything that was made: "He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men." John 1:2-4. v1 is about this Word, v2 is about this Word. v4 is about this Word, and so on, so, why would anyone think v3 wouldn't also be about this Word who already existed prior to the beginning with God the Father and was God? Face it; John 1 does not agree with any perspective that denys an eternal, distinct from God the Father, personal and divine (i.e. "the Word was God") Word.

God Bless
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
What doesn't work in Genesis? And, why would that matter to what John is expressing in his prolog? Genesis 1 is a poem about how the world came into being. John 1 is a prolog to a gospel that expresses the fact that the Word, relationally distinct from God the Father while also being God, was already in existence in the beginning. BTW, Genesis 1 is incapsulated in John 1:3 when this Word made everything that was made: "He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men." John 1:2-4. v1 is about this Word, v2 is about this Word. v4 is about this Word, and so on, so, why would anyone think v3 wouldn't also be about this Word who already existed prior to the beginning with God the Father and was God? Face it; John 1 does not agree with any perspective that denys an eternal, distinct from God the Father, personal and divine (i.e. "the Word was God") Word.

God Bless

In Genesis, the words "in the beginning" refer to the six days of creation. And that is why your statement doesn't work:

If something was already true using the past tense in the beginning, then it is prior to said beginning, and John 1:1 says "He was in the beginning with God". Therefore logic demands, he was with God prior to said beginning

And that's why your interpretation doesn't work at John 1:1 either.
 

Tanachreader

Active member
In Genesis, the words "in the beginning" refer to the six days of creation. And that is why your statement doesn't work:



And that's why your interpretation doesn't work at John 1:1 either.
Man is only 6k years old and was the 6 day creation.
The earth and universe are of old, much older than 6k years.
The 1st day starts in verse 3 of Genesis.
1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heavens and the eretz.
2 Now the eretz was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
Read the Gap Theory or do you believe in a young earth with dino’s walking around with humans?
 
What doesn't work in Genesis? And, why would that matter to what John is expressing in his prolog? Genesis 1 is a poem about how the world came into being. John 1 is a prolog to a gospel that expresses the fact that the Word, relationally distinct from God the Father while also being God, was already in existence in the beginning. BTW, Genesis 1 is incapsulated in John 1:3 when this Word made everything that was made: "He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men." John 1:2-4. v1 is about this Word, v2 is about this Word. v4 is about this Word, and so on, so, why would anyone think v3 wouldn't also be about this Word who already existed prior to the beginning with God the Father and was God? Face it; John 1 does not agree with any perspective that denys an eternal, distinct from God the Father, personal and divine (i.e. "the Word was God") Word.
In Genesis, the words "in the beginning" refer to the six days of creation. And that is why your statement doesn't work:
If something was already true using the past tense in the beginning, then it is prior to said beginning, and John 1:1 says "He was in the beginning with God". Therefore logic demands, he was with God prior to said beginning
And that's why your interpretation doesn't work at John 1:1 either.

Is this response a joke? It's almost like you didn't bother to read a word I said. BTW, you do realize that what you presented isn't an argument or justification. You just asserted something. Besides, just because Genesis 1:1 is about the 6 days, how does that make my statement not work? For example: If something was already true using the past tense during the 6 days of creation, then it is prior to those six days. The grammatical logic works perfectly. And even if it didn't, such would have zip, zero, nothing to do with how John 1 should be interpreted. Every part of this response is embarrassingly bad. Make better arguments.

God Bless
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Is this response a joke? It's almost like you didn't bother to read a word I said. BTW, you do realize that what you presented isn't an argument or justification. You just asserted something. Besides, just because Genesis 1:1 is about the 6 days, how does that make my statement not work? For example: If something was already true using the past tense during the 6 days of creation, then it is prior to those six days. The grammatical logic works perfectly. And even if it didn't, such would have zip, zero, nothing to do with how John 1 should be interpreted. Every part of this response is embarrassingly bad. Make better arguments.

God Bless

"in the beginning" refers to the six days of creation, not any point in time outside the six days of creation. We know that because it says God created the heavens and earth IN THE BEGINNING.
 
Do you know what a non sequiter is?

Do you? I'm finding it difficult to think of a more straight forward logical argument. If Jesus was when God created the world in 6 days, if "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.", then Jesus preexisted those 6 days.

God Bless
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Do you? I'm finding it difficult to think of a more straight forward logical argument. If Jesus was when God created the world in 6 days, if "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.", then Jesus preexisted those 6 days.

God Bless

In Genesis, "in the beginning" refers to a time period of six days. These words only refer to a time period. They don't do anything to indicate what existed prior to the beginning. Not only so, to imply there was a time before time began is absurd.
 
In Genesis, "in the beginning" refers to a time period of six days. These words only refer to a time period.

What are you arguing about? Did I say anything that would make you think otherwise?

They don't do anything to indicate what existed prior to the beginning. Not only so, to imply there was a time before time began is absurd.

The word "was" in John 1:1-2 means that Jesus already existed during that time period. Therefore, by logic what was at time A must have existed prior to said time.

Besides, what part of
"All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." means Jesus came into existence in those 6 days? It literally says all things were made through Jesus, and without Jesus was not any thing made that was made. Ergo, nothing was made/created that wasn't made/created through Jesus. So, Jesus preexisted the creation.

God Bless
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
What are you arguing about? Did I say anything that would make you think otherwise?



The word "was" in John 1:1-2 means that Jesus already
existed during that time period. Therefore, by logic what was at time A must have existed prior to said time.

Yes, in the time period known as "the beginning" he existed.


Besides, what part of "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." means Jesus came into existence in those 6 days? It literally says all things were made through Jesus, and without Jesus was not any thing made that was made. Ergo, nothing was made/created that wasn't made/created through Jesus. So, Jesus preexisted the creation.

God Bless

The Greek text doesn't say "MADE. Start there.

And even if you pretend that it does, GOD made things IN THE BEGINNING in Genesis. It had nothing to do with what was happening before the beginning. Same thing at John 1.
 
Yes, in the time period known as "the beginning" he existed.

Therefore, my point is made. If he "existed", then he must have existed prior to also. Otherwise, he wouldn't have "existed" in the beginning, he would have started to exist in the beginning.

The Greek text doesn't say "MADE. Start there.

The greek word is ἐγένετο which means
  1. to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
  2. to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
    1. of events
  3. to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
    1. of men appearing in public
  4. to be made, finished
    1. of miracles, to be performed, wrought
  5. to become, be made

It's seem you are simply ignorant of the Greek on this.

And even if you pretend that it does, GOD made things IN THE BEGINNING in Genesis. It had nothing to do with what was happening before the beginning. Same thing at John 1.

You are simply not listing. If he "existed" during the 6 days, then he must have existed prior to the 6 days also. Otherwise, he wouldn't have "existed" in the beginning, he would have started to exist in the beginning.


God Bless
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
Therefore, my point is made. If he "existed", then he must have existed prior to also. Otherwise, he wouldn't have "existed" in the beginning, he would have started to exist in the beginning.



The greek word is
ἐγένετο which means
  1. to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
  2. to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
    1. of events
  3. to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
    1. of men appearing in public
  4. to be made, finished
    1. of miracles, to be performed, wrought
  5. to become, be made

It's seem you are simply ignorant of the Greek on this.



You are simply not listing. If he "existed" during the 6 days, then he must have existed prior to the 6 days also. Otherwise, he wouldn't have "existed" in the beginning, he would have started to exist in the beginning.


God Bless
Therefore, my point is made. If he "existed", then he must have existed prior to also. Otherwise, he wouldn't have "existed" in the beginning, he would have started to exist in the beginning.



The greek word is
ἐγένετο which means
  1. to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
  2. to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
    1. of events
  3. to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
    1. of men appearing in public
  4. to be made, finished
    1. of miracles, to be performed, wrought
  5. to become, be made

It's seem you are simply ignorant of the Greek on this.



You are simply not listing. If he "existed" during the 6 days, then he must have existed prior to the 6 days also. Otherwise, he wouldn't have "existed" in the beginning, he would have started to exist in the beginning.


God Bless
Therefore, my point is made. If he "existed", then he must have existed prior to also. Otherwise, he wouldn't have "existed" in the beginning, he would have started to exist in the beginning.

Good grief man. In Genesis the birds of the air were existed "in the beginning." It doesn't mean they existed before.

The greek word is ἐγένετο which means
  1. to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
  2. to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
    1. of events
  3. to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
    1. of men appearing in public
  4. to be made, finished
    1. of miracles, to be performed, wrought
  5. to become, be made

It's seem you are simply ignorant of the Greek on this.

The ignorance is all yours. The Greek verb "to make" is poieo. This is the verb ginomai, TO BE, or in this form TO BECOME.

You are simply not listing. If he "existed" during the 6 days, then he must have existed prior to the 6 days also.

No, YOU are not listening. If something exists in a period of time, it does not mean that same thing existed before that period of time.


Otherwise, he wouldn't have "existed" in the beginning, he would have started to exist in the beginning.

God Bless
 
Good grief man. In Genesis the birds of the air were existed "in the beginning." It doesn't mean they existed before.

"Were existed" isn't English. Is your goal to throw out every grammatical rule to justify you dogma? The birds of the air didn't exist in the beginning, they were created in the beginning. They existed after being created, but they didn't exist throughout the 6 days of creation.

The ignorance is all yours. The Greek verb "to make" is poieo. This is the verb ginomai, TO BE, or in this form TO BECOME.

Excuse me, this response simply expresses your inability to understand the translational process. Words in a language don't have singular semantic uses. They have a range of meanings that depends on the context. And, different languages don't have one to one correspondence between words. This is simply a fact of linguistics. Poieo can mean to make or to create. ginomai can mean to cause something to come into being. Seriously, I literally quoted the lexicographical definition of ginomai: definition 1-to come into existence, begin to be, receive being. Therefore, John 1:3 says "Through him all things came into being; without him nothing came into being that has come into being." Which means the exact same thing as "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." in context of "In the beginning".

No, YOU are not listening. If something exists in a period of time, it does not mean that same thing existed before that period of time.

Logically, something either exists throughout, doesn't exist in, or came into existence during a particular time period. These options are mutually exclusive. Since the text says he was, not came to be, then he didn't come into existence in that time. QED. Your logic or grasp of grammar is simply flawed at this point.

God Bless
 

Yahchristian

Well-known member
You are simply not listing. If he "existed" during the 6 days, then he must have existed prior to the 6 days also. Otherwise, he wouldn't have "existed" in the beginning, he would have started to exist in the beginning.

Are you able to answer this question...

Hebrews 1:5 NIV... For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?

WHEN does "today" in Hebrews 1:5 refer to?

A) eternity past
B) some point between eternity past and creation
C) the instant God created the supernatural and space-time of this universe
D) Jesus' conception
E) Jesus' birth
F) Jesus' baptism
G) Jesus' resurrection
H) Jesus' ascension
I) Jesus' second coming
J) other, please explain

I believe "today" in Hebrews 1:5 refers C, the instant God created the supernatural and space-time of this universe.

Here is an overview of what I believe...

For this creation, YHWH God (the only one who transcends all creations) determined to create a universe with a kingdom of redeemed humans (living souls) for his glory where he would reign as a living soul himself. The Scriptures describe how God would accomplish his plan. In an instant, transcendent God (called God the Father) created the supernatural and space-time of this universe and also became immanent as a spirit (called the Spirit of God) and in the form of a living soul (called the Word of God) with a glorious body. God the Father then created all things within the universe by the power of the Spirit of God commanded by the Word of God. But whereas God created a human spirit and soul for each of us, God himself as the Word became the human spirit and soul of Jesus. At his conception, Jesus' glorious body was changed to a mortal body to be made like us so he could make reconciliation for our sins. At his resurrection, Jesus' mortal body was changed back to a glorious body and he will also give each of his elect a glorious body when he returns to reign in his kingdom forever.
 
Top