"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. "The remnant shall return, {even} the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God"
Also, In John 17:3 Jesus is saying that the Father is the only true God, in opposition to all false gods. What is said here is in opposition to idols, not to Jesus himself, who, in 1 John 5:20, is called "the true God and eternal life."
Anytime I watch or experience these kinds of debates, I always notice how puffed up trinitarians get and how calm the non-trinitarians are lol. It's crazy lol.
@123RafaelPerez Is Jesus disciples the only true God to? John 17:23 in your bible it states that Jesus disciples is in Jesus so if we use your logic then the disciples are also the True God
@123RafaelPerez no for this reason Acts 2:36 says that God made Jesus Lord so it was a time period when Jesus was not Lord witch is in the Old Testament, also you have to know what Lord mean Lord can be referred to anyone who has authority witch Jesus has over us and the Father Jehovah has over Jesus. Jehovah is Jesus God 3:12 witch make Jehovah Jesus Lord because he has authority over him so your scripture in Jude 4 fails
@123RafaelPerez let me guess you use the King James VERSION smh if I was you I would leave that translation alone wait I'm sorry I will leave that Version alone, I do not trust a bible that takes Gods name out and replace it with LORD, then replace 1 John 5:7,8 with a scripture that is not even in the original Greek the misquotation of Hebrews 1:8, and many more scriptures
@clevelandshero23 1 John 5:7 is not found in the earliest manuscripts of the Greek.
Some say that it was only in the Latin Vulgate.
But many believe that it shouldn't be in Bible.
the Latin Vulgate versions of 1 John 5:7 can be found in the KJV, AKJV and DRB translations and some more. Even if 1 John 5:7 is translated this way, the translation would be true only if you believed in the doctrine of the Trinity. - Thanks for your question, it was a good one.
@123RafaelPerez that is beside the point the point is that this scripture does not belong in the bible they put this scripture in their Revelations 22:18 “I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll so if the 1 John 5:7 is not in the original Greek scriptures why is it in these other bibles?
@clevelandshero23 1 John 5:7 is in some English translations, but I believe it shouldn't be in the Bible if it is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts . But more English contemporary bible version now omit the words: "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
But even if this is not in Scripture, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is still not somehow repudiated, because their is still much evidence for this doctrine. - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God.
@123RafaelPerez their is no evidents of the trinity maybe in your bible but if they insert scriptures that is not in the original Greek and take out Jehovah's holy name I would not trust what is written in that bible.
@clevelandshero23 I think we should all try to pray for the truth from God, so that we may be able to love one another. Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us the commandment to love one another, therefore we should not be quarreling and hating each other, because all it does is drive people away from the salvation that can only come by faith in our Lord Christ Jesus. If you want clevelandshero23 I can pray for you and you can pray for me, because I know that were just seeking the truth. God Bless You!
@123RafaelPerez can you please tell me how Immanuel God with us proves Jesus is God? I thought Jehovah his God was the one who sent Jesus into the world to die for our sins? I don't know maybe I am reading the scriptures wrong
@123RafaelPerez yes Isaiah says Jesus is the Mighty God does it say he is the Almighty? or the Only True God or the Most High God? in the Old Testament Jesus was not referred to as the Mighty God Isaiah 9:6 was just a prophecy telling people what he would be called he was not always the Mighty God
@123RafaelPerez all theses scriptures are from your bible it reads different in mine so we really can't debate on this scriptures I have given you scriptures that is in both bibles but also how I know for a fact that Romans 9:5 was not saying Jesus was the Almighty God because of these scriptures "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Corinthians 1:3). "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ephesians 1:3).
@123RafaelPerez right thats my point in John 10:30 he says I and the Father are one but then in 17:23 he said he was one with his disciples also just like he and the father are one so again let me ask you is Jesus disciples one with Jesus just like John 17:23 brings out?
@123RafaelPerez Also 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 again goes hand and hand with John 17:3 this is what it says 5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him. Jesus and Jehovah are not the same God Jehovah is the True God Jesus is the son
@clevelandshero23 My friend please hear me out: Jesus is God, let's not argue.
I understand that we are all seeking the truth about God, And I'm sorry for calling Jehovah's Witnesses people who are in error. Concerning what bible translations or version I use here are some: NIV, ESV, NLT, KJV, NKJV, NASB and many more. And don't think that I'm backing away from the challenge of whether Jesus Christ is God, but I just wanted to apologize. Christians shouldn't be fighting with one another.
It is truly amazing that J.W. would even attempt to use Jn.17:3 as a proof text for their heretical claim that Jesus is not God in the fullest sense of the word.
1) Jn.17 is Jesus' high-priestly prayer...it is an intercessory prayer involving a divine communication of the Son toward the Father.
2) It is NOT the primary intention of Jn.17 to explain the fullness of the deity of Christ; but, rather, His deity is only a SECONDARY CONSIDERATION in this passage.
@BeardScot Yes, by "J.W." I meant Jehovah's Witnesses. I should have probably been more clear by saying "Mr. [Greg] Stafford". Sorry about the confusion ;)
I love it Jesus is not the True God Jehovah if he was it would have not made a distinction between the only true God Jehovah and his son Jesus who he sent forth I do not understand why trinitarians do not understand that
Trinity beliefs does not make sense at ALL. WOW. I can't believe some people actually fall in to this nonsense trinity teachings. It only confuses people, so sad. The Bible itself explained clearly that Jesus have a GOD and his name is Yahweh (his heavenly father) that him only we should worship. Stafford proved this too many in the scriptures that JESUS is the SON OF TRUE GOD YAHWEH. So, how can him and his father be one persona? COMMON SENSE.
Guys, guys, guys, it's just a book - made up by a stone age middle eastern tribe. Get over it, move on, live your life without the fear this myth spreads.
Just in case you were also talking to me, why should someone who became a convinced Christian after studying the Holy Scriptures listen to an atheist (agnostic maybe?) regarding the Bible?
@Sabianfan I wasn't talking to you, I was commenting on the video... however to answer your question - you should ALWAYS take into account opposing views - how else do you know you are not biased?
Are you sure that you're not biased concerning the Bible? Calling it a myth that spreads fear violates a lot of our Jewish/Christian heritage. Furthermore, we DO take opposing views in account, because -besides scriptural knowledge- a good study of the bible also involves some knowledge of history, science, nature, cultural backgrounds, other religions, knowledge of the human mind/behaviour and much more. So, what you call "just a book", is considered by many as the best way of life.
@Sabianfan 1) No you don't take opposing views into account - you said it yourself - quote: "why should someone who became a convinced Christian after studying the Holy Scriptures listen to an atheist"
2) If you understood science you wouldn't be duped into believing fairy tales like this. Science requires measurement and observation before conclusions. There are no scientific measurements or observation of these 'supernatural' claims, therefore there can be no conclusion. Period.
Since I'm easy going ;-) let me try to be more specific in order to explain my point again:
reaction to 1) Since I'm not referring to blind faith or blindly following others, are you assuming that a Christian, after leaving atheism behind, should listen to an atheist's statement that the bible is a fear spreading myth? Would you expect him to be enlightened and become an atheist again?
reaction to 2) Ahh, attacking the person, a classical fallacy. The bible doesn't change science.
@Sabianfan 1) A person leaving a faith should *listen* to all statements (theists and non-theists). And then make up their mind.
2) If you read my comment you would see that I am attacking your beliefs not YOU. Get over yourself for a second, sit down and think about what you believe in an WHY you believe it. Can you DEMONSTRATE that what you believe is as close to the truth as is possible? If not, why do you continue to believe it?
1) In fact, I did listen to all statements and then made up my mind. What statements do you think I missed?
2) You "attacked" me by assuming a lack of knowledge on the subject from my side. By saying "if you understood science..." you assume that I believe the Bible only because I'm uninformed. That's simply not true, it's the other way around. The more I see, read, observe and know, the more I believe in an intelligent designer.
@Sabianfan 1) I'll repeat what you said " why should someone who became a convinced Christian after studying the Holy Scriptures listen to an atheist". You said yourself you didn't listen to what I have to say.
2) You don't understand science. If you did, you would KNOW that life in fact is much, much more likely to have come about by natural means than some magical invisible man in the sky. In fact you have absolutely NO demonstrable evidence to support your claim that God did it at all.
1) Do you know a broader meaning of "listening to"? To me, the way you talked about the discussion between Stafford and White sounded like the way someone is trying to quit someone's chessgame because he thinks they are just childishly playing with pieces of wood. Do you have any clue what these men really are talking about?
2) We see intelligence (sprouting from minds) creating specified information and purposeful design on a daily basis. Why deny design when NATURE reeks of design?
@Sabianfan 1) Yes, I do have a clue. They are talking about what they cannot demonstrate to exist - they are debating (arguing) about no 'thing' - a.k.a 'nothing'.
2) Nature has the appearance of design, however one simply needs to go a little deeper (not much deeper) into understanding how molecules can self arrange themselves (and, yes, this can be demonstrated) to realise that the appearance of design can come about naturally. This happens, here, in reality.
1) Wrong. They are talking about the way a real book, the Bible, describes God. Whether you consider God fictional or not, there is a lot to read about Him as a spiritual, powerful, yet invisible person. Stafford and White are discussing the nature of that person.
2) I agree that we don't need to go that deep to understand that molecules can self arrange. The question is....is it demonstrated that non-living molecules can self arrange to living matter? Does that happen in reality?
@WaitingforChrist No, Mr. White did indeed answer the question. Whether you could hear, and understand is quite different. See my comments in regards to this video, which were addressed to Sabianfan.
When Rome became a world power and started to take over and rule other nations they told these nations they had to worship their pagan gods but they also had to worship and do obeisances to Rome's god also. Same thing happened when Rome (Constantine) adopted Christianity as its state religion. In order to soften the shock of conversion of pagans to Christianity, the Church adopted pagan ideas, beliefs, traditions, celebrations, etc. into the Church as teachings of the Bible.
@Plantpartaker -most scholars recognize this to be a plural of excellence or majesty not a multiple personality or a number of gods. Elohim is used in the Hebrew of Moses, Judges, Angels and Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim) or Jehovah the (true) God. (YHWH ha Elohim)
I personally think the part from 5:55 to 6:59 is crucial and says it all. White is clearly beating around the bush.
And, just in case you still don't get it, you can also look at the body language and notice that White is feeling uncomfortable, with all respect, just look at his face at the end of this excellent video!
@Sabianfan because all what he says doesnt make any sense i didnt see a answer that makes me think that Jesus is God. So how can i see this whole video?
Why is this so difficult for people to understand? Jesus is a form of God, an extension of God, a physical manifestation of God. It's in the book (the bible), just as the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God.
Ivan, ur biases do not allow u to accept the simplicity of what it means to read a verse in context. Listening to Stafford will do that to you. In this debate as well as the one with Bowman, Greg clearly goes against the majority of scholarship in order to establish his point.
Unfortunately, u side with the few minority of secular scholars that will side with him and others like Beduhn. Funny that NO SCHOLARS have come from the WTBTS.
That's the point, Ivan. It doesn't. It explains what He means. White did an excellent job of pointing that out. Stafford took one statement out of the midst of context to make a weak point. Again, scholarship is against u, stafford, WTBTS. Jesus equates himself to the Father's glory, and the need to know him is equally (not less) important to have eternal life. Why not just the father? Context, my friend.
@supermanny That's my point too. That the context doesn't change Jesus' statement. James' response is quite silly when he said that the "only true God" for Jesus is the Father, but not for him. For if God were Triune he would have not excluded the Holy Spirit, but yet he did.
@IvanDefendingTruth please point out where White said that the only true god for Jesus is the Father, "but not him".You may be putting words into his mouth.
"That the context doesn't change Jesus' statement." I don't think anyone here is saying that, unless you want to imply that.I certainly am not and neither is White.What u refuse to observe is that through exegesis and context, one can properly understand exactly why Jesus calls the Father "only true god" and puts himself at thesame level.
@supermanny73 Watch the video.. Stafford asks "is the father the only true God" White says "for Jesus christ certainly" Stafford "for you?" White "in the sense that Jesus meant it." That's horrid theology if you have to deny the God that Jesus worships in order to uphold another God, namely, a triune one for your theology to make sense.
Trinitarianism makes Jesus' statement inaccurate because the Father isn't the only true God, there 2 others whom are also, yet Jesus never says as much.
@IvanDefendingTruth c'mon, Ivan. That's a cheap shot coming from you. Obviously White was trying to avoid a snare that Greg was laying out for him. He answered exactly as any smart person should have. And once again, you are putting words into White's mouth.
@IvanDefendingTruth >"Stafford asks "is the father the only true God" White says "for Jesus christ certainly" Stafford "for you?" White "in the sense that Jesus meant it." "
Absolutely nothing wrong with this statement.
Ivan>"I'm more comfortable putting "words into White's mouth" than I am of White putting words into Jesus' mouth."
It's a shame that you would lower yourself to slander someone's comments in that way to make your points.
Ivan, thank you so much for posting this thrilling debate. The vibe is incredible! Although John 17:3 is very clear, White cannot really answer directly because the dogma he presents is a supposed concept, not a real biblical doctrine.
@Sabianfan Actually, I argue quite differently. If you are actually hearing the words from James White's mouth, he is answering the question quite eloquently. Stafford keeps asking, "If the Father is the only true God, what kind of God is Jesus?" Stafford, along with many Jehovah's Witnesses that have commented here don't seem to understand that though Trinitarians believe the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct Persons, we do not believe they are separate Gods, but One in Essence, in unity.
>"Stafford, along with many Jehovah's Witnesses that have commented here don't seem to understand that though Trinitarians believe the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct Persons, we do not believe they are separate Gods, but One in Essence, in unity."
Oh we understand, but we just don't agree! To claim "we do not believe they are seperate Gods" is a fallacy because the Father alone is Almighty. Jesus had a beginning and could never be coequal with God in power or eternity.
Also, calling the spirit a possible God, is a category error if you ask me. It's God's active force!
Please consider what Catholic theologian Edmund J. Fortman said: “The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . .The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power.”
So, regarding the spirit, how can you possibly consider a FORCE one in essence with two seperate living PERSONS (The Father & the Son)? At best, I think that only the Father and the Son can be considered "one" and in "essence" in the sence that they are both divine and united in thought and purpose.
Therefore, considering them as distinct persons, but not seperate Gods forces me to agree with those who consider the trinity to be beyond the grasp of human reason.
@Sabianfan John 17:3 reads, "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." And Trinitarians agree, the Father is the only true God; however, you suggest that this leads to exclusion of the Son. And as pointed out, what you forget is that Trinitarians believe the Father and Son are One in terms of Essence/Being, not in terms of Persons -- One in unity with the Father.
@Sabianfan Consider Jude 1:4, "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our ONLY MASTER AND LORD, Jesus Christ."
@Sabianfan If Jude 1:4 does not exclude the Father as you would so ardently defend, then why must John 17:3 exclude the Son? To put it more clearly, if Jude 1:4 identifies Jesus as the ONLY Master and Lord, does this disqualify the Father from also being Master and Lord? Of course you'll say no, which only shows the inconsistency in your argumentation. For the Trinitarian, Jude 4 does not exclude the Father, nor does John 17:3 exclude the Son.
@Sabianfan You should note that [every time] the phraseology, “true God” is used, such as in 2 Chronicles 15:3, Jeremiah 10:10-11, Thessalonians 1:9, and 1 John 15:20-21, it’s contrasting true Deity with false deity, and that is precisely what Jesus is doing here in John 17:3. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown put it in a way that I think fits this conversation in a much more precise way, “In glorious contrast equally with heathen polytheism, philosophic naturalism, and mystic pantheism.”
> "You should note that [every time] the phraseology, “true God” is used, such as in 2 Chronicles 15:3, Jeremiah 10:10-11, Thessalonians 1:9, and 1 John 15:20-21, it’s contrasting true Deity with false deity"
Are you serious? Why does Jeremiah 10:10,11 call Jehovah a singular God in contrast to pagan gods (plural)? Doesn't that refute your argument regarding Jesus' words in John 17:3, since he is not talking to the unfaithful Jews there? It's a totally different context.
@Sabianfan Ultimately, John 17:3 doesn’t pose a problem for Trinitarians, rather, it’s in perfect harmony with our theology. Rather, may I suggest to you that this does however, pose a problem with the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses polytheistic/hellenistic “a god” theology.
>"John 17:3 doesn’t pose a problem for Trinitarians, rather, it’s in perfect harmony with our theology."
Your theology? That doesn't really impress me, since ALL religions have their own theology!
It should pose a problem for Trinitarians since it's not in harmony with THE BIBLE.
“To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it.” (Origin and Evolution of Religion - professor E. Washburn Hopkins)
@Sabianfan Should you argue that the Father be the only true God, and you affirm that Jesus is a distinct “god” (not to be confused with "distinct Persons") or “a god,” to use the enemies guns against them, and as Stafford asked, "If the Father is the only true God, what kind of God would that make Jesus?" Is Christ a true god, or a false god?
Christ is a true god. That's obvious. He always was and will be loyal and faithful to his Father, the Almighty God YHWH, who created him as a divine, godlike person. (Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation)
@Sabianfan There's several problems with your comments all around. And if this is the core of your argument, then allow me punch holes into the hull of your battleship. First, allow me to say that this response is going to be very, very long. The few words that you have spoken and asked, has gathered in my mind, pages of responses that need to be presented.
@Sabianfan I’m going to address the comments you have made, not in any particular format, just in a sequence that I think would make this flow as an all-around response.
@Sabianfan To quote a very brilliant man, and fellow Trinitarian,
“It seems an appropriate time to settle one of the most important issues regarding the Trinity and the text of Scripture. If all Christians would simply understand the following statement, their task of explaining and defending the Trinity would be much easier. Here is a basic, simple truth that is lost in the vast majority of discussion (or arguments) on this topic:
@Sabianfan Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.
Not exactly an earth-shattering concept? It isn’t, but the vast majority of material produced by those who oppose the deity of Christ ignores this basic truth. What do I mean? It’s really quite simple. Let’s take a common argument against the deity of Christ: ‘The Father is the Creator of all things.
>"Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature."
Although I like simple things (that's why I don't like the trinity, it's too vague ), you are not going to enlighten me with this trinitarian "tool".
>"Not exactly an earth-shattering concept? It isn’t, but the vast majority of material produced by those who oppose the deity of Christ ignores this basic truth."
Jehovah's witnesses don't deny the deity of Christ, because it's a BIBLICAL basic truth.
@Sabianfan He creates THROUGH Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus Christ is not fully God.’ Or here’s another argument against the deity of the Spirit: ‘The Spirit is sent to testify of Jesus Christ and convict the world of sin. Since the Spirit is sent by the Father, the Spirit cannot truly be God.’ Both arguments share the same error: they ignore the above cited truth, ‘difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.’
@Sabianfan That is, just because the Father, Son, and Spirit do different things does not mean that any one of them is inferior to the others in nature.” (The Forgotten Trinity, James White, p66)
@Sabianfan Before I dig into the core of your argument, allow me first to just address what could potentially turn into a case of “proof-texting,” that is, shooting random out-of-context verses out to prove a certain position, and to make text in the Scripture say something that just isn’t there. Two common examples are 1 Corinthians 11:3, and John 14:28. I know someone is bound to start shooting “proof-texts” at me, so allow me to address a couple of the most popular early on:
>"allow me first to just address what could potentially turn into a case of “proof-texting,” that is, shooting random out-of-context verses out to prove a certain position, and to make text in the Scripture say something that just isn’t there."
You might just as well refer to White in this video and his attempt to say something that isn't in John 17:3, namely his claim that Stafford assumes unitarism and that there can be more than 1 person in the category "the only true God".
‘But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.’ -- 1 Corinthians 11:3
For those that would argue that this specific text shows that Christ is lesser than God, I must ask , “Does this show that Jesus is inferior to the Father by nature?”
@Sabianfan If one will insist that it does, then for the sake of consistency, he would have to say the same regarding the woman to the man. That is to say, the man must be more ‘divine,’ for the lack of a better term, than his wife. However, this is not what the Scripture proclaims.
>"If one will insist that it does, then for the sake of consistency, he would have to say the same regarding the woman to the man. That is to say, the man must be more ‘divine,’ for the lack of a better term, than his wife."
Wouldn't it be better to think of these verses as a hierarchic situation between seperate persons? No, the man isn't more flesh than the woman. Still they are both seperate & created persons and he's the head of the woman.
@Sabianfan Uh, well, your first mistake is that Trinitarians DO believe that Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct Persons. We don't believe that Jesus is His own Father.
The spirit a distinct person? Please Clint, if you have read our "Trinity" brochure, do you also consider water and blood to be persons, because they are said to be witnesses?
1 John 5:7-8 For there are three witness bearers, 8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.
Clint, you wrote: "If this is going to be the basis of your argument, why would you insist that the "Word" in John 1:1 is a Person?"
I'm glad you asked, because the answer is clear, scriptural, doesn't violate context & isn't hindered by farfetched human interpretations.
John 1:14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.
@Sabianfan You argue that the Spirit is not a Person, although it possesses features of a Person -- it can talk, has it's own mind, can be grieved, blasphemed, and lied to. Can you blaspheme or lie to an impersonal force?
As a JW, you believe Jesus pre-existed as a spirit, and you believe that when He was resurrected, He ascended into heaven as a spirit. You argue that the Holy Spirit is not a Person, but if Christ pre-existed as a spirit, is He considered a Person? And of the Father?
@clintjordan thats a good question however the bible brings about to different spirits. spirit persons witch Jehovah, Jesus and the Angels are, also the spirit that keeps us alive the breath of life James 2:26 we need the spirit to survive. the holy spirit is Jehovah's active force not a actual person the bible give many things personalities that are not actual persons for example wisdom
@Sabianfan This specific text does not identify the husband as being greater in nature than the wife, or the Father greater in nature than Christ. Though a wife is subject to her husband in the Lord, she is not inferior to him by nature. The same is true with the relationship between the Lord Jesus and the Father -- Father and Son are equal in nature, just as a man and his wife are equal in nature.
@Sabianfan 1 Corinthians 11:3 has nothing to do with anything being created. You say Jesus is created, but He is not. Colossians 1 actually says all things were created by Him, not all "other" things. Paul goes on to define what he meant by "all things." He says that all things visible, and invisible. All things in heaven, and on earth. Every throne, and principality. Literally, everything.
See my further arguments in regards to Colossians 1:15, and Revelation 3:14.
>"You say Jesus is created, but He is not. Colossians 1 actually says all things were created by Him, not all "other" things."
Ok Clint. If Jesus is not created, he didn't have a beginning right?
So let's talk about Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14. On page 408, the "Reasoning" book asks: Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning? After quoting Colossians 1:15, 16, the book continues by asking...
In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation?
But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel;
“the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (Revised Standard Version 1971) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created...all things were created through him and for him”?
The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan′ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all...other”; JB (The Jerusalem Bible 1966, Alexander Jones, general editor) reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in The New English Bible 1970 and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son,
The New World translation assigns the same meaning to pan′ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created...All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.
Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him...‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar‧khe′] of God’s creation.”’” (King James Version 1611; as printed in 1942, Catholic Challoner-Douay Version 1750; as printed in 1941, The New Testament 1941; as printed in 1947, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Revision, and NW, as well as others, read similarly).
Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar‧khe′. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning.
Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)
Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.”
Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.
1) If being a trinitarian is so essential for being a Christian, then why isn't the word mentioned in God's word? Why didn't it already take its present form during 1st century Christianity?
2) If the Father and the Son are not seperate gods, who raised Jesus up from the dead?
3) What are people supposed to think of when they read "father and son"? Do you know any example of a Son who didn't came into existence AFTER his Father?
"You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." -- John 14:28
@Sabianfan As stated in regards to 1 Corinthians 11:3, the Father is not greater than Christ in terms of nature. Here in John 14:28, the word "greater" refers to office or position, not nature or essence! God is God because of His nature (Galatians 4:8). John 14:28 tells us that the Father has a "greater" office or position than Christ does. This is how the word "greater" is used as clearly seen in Genesis 41:40, which reads,
@Sabianfan "You [Joseph] shall be over my [Pharaoh] house, and all my [Pharaoh] people shall order themselves as you [Joseph] command. Only as regards the throne will I [Pharaoh] be greater than you [Joseph].”
@Sabianfan Pharaoh was "greater" than Joseph only by office or position, but not by nature. The nature of Pharaoh and Joseph were the same, that is, they are both human beings. Similarly, the president of the United States is "greater" than we are, as far as office or position is concerned, but certainly not by nature!
@Sabianfan Compare the usage of “meizon” (“greater”) in John 14:28 with the term “kreitton” (“better”) in Hebrews 1:4. You’ll notice, “kreitton” is used as a descriptive term of quality. Christ was qualitatively better than the angels (Hebrews 1:4). Likewise, “meizon” is used to describe the Father being “greater” in terms of position. John 14:28 does not say that the Father is qualitatively better, or qualitatively greater than the Jesus.
@Sabianfan As Dr. Walter Martin wrote in regards to Christ, “Since His intrinsic Nature is that of deity (John 8:58, compare Colossians 2:9), therefore qualitatively He was God manifest in the flesh, while quantitatively speaking He was limited as a man and could in all truthfulness state 'My Father is greater than I.’”
You assert that Christ is created, but on what basis do you speak of such blasphemy?
You assert that Colossians 1:15 speaks of Christ as being a creature. However, contextually, that’s not what Paul is saying in his letter to the Colossians. Allow me to explain the meaning of the word “firstborn,” and briefly touch on the context.
@Sabianfan Colossians 1:15 states, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word 'firstborn' (Greek: prototokos) is an adjective. While in a literal sense, it can denote the first that comes from the womb, but frequently is an expression of supremacy, not chronological order.
@Sabianfan 1 Samuel 16:11-13 tells us that David was the [youngest] son of Jesse; however, Psalm 89:27, God said in regards to David, that He would appoint David to be His 'firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.'
@Sabianfan Also in Jeremiah 31:9, where Ephraim is called the Lord's 'firstborn,' although, Manasseh was Ephraim's older brother, the 'firstborn' from the womb (Genesis 48:14). In this context, and as shown in Genesis 48:19, as well as Psalm 89:27, the term 'firstborn' is a title of superiority, of supremacy.
@Sabianfan Notably, although Psalm 89:27 is in reference to David (vv. 20-36), this verse in particular is a Messianic prophecy. The context of Psalm 89:27 only strengthens the argument that the term “firstborn” does not imply Jesus to be “a creation,” rather, it implies that “firstborn” is in reference to His preeminence, “the highest of the kings of the earth.”
@Sabianfan With that said, given the context of Colossians 1, the term 'firstborn' in Colossians 1:15 does not refer to an actual physical birth, but rather, refers to Christ's position of supremacy (see Colossians 1:15-18 ).
@Sabianfan “The meaning, then, is, that Christ sustains the most exalted rank in the universe; he is pre-eminent above all others; he is at the head of all things. The expression does not mean that he was ‘begotten before all creatures,’ as it is often explained, but refers to the simple fact that he sustains the highest rank over the creation. He is the Son of God. He is the heir of all things."
@Sabianfan Other notable texts that use the term “firstborn,” in reference to supremacy/preeminence are Exodus 4:20-23, where the nation of Israel is called the “firstborn son;” Job 18:13, where an illness/disease is referred to as “firstborn;” Isaiah 14:30, where the poorest of the poor is referred to as the “firstborn of the poor.” Likewise, Christ is “firstborn of all creation,” the Originator, the “first Parent” of all creation, “For by Him all things were created… ."
Ironically enough, like Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14 is also a text used to assert that Christ is a mere creation. I say “ironically,” because it is quite ironic indeed, that of all the texts to twist, Arians have to use one of the most obvious and clearest proclamations of Christ’s authorship over all of creation in order that they may teach a diabolic heresy.
@Sabianfan “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:” – Revelation 3:14
@Sabianfan ‘Beginning’ here, translates from the Greek word ‘arche,’ meaning ‘the origin,’ ‘the active cause,’ ‘that by which anything begins to be,’ ‘leader,’ ‘the person or thing that commences,’ ‘magistracy,’ ‘rule.’ Revelation 3:14 does not in anyway teach that Christ was created. No, it teaches that He is the ‘active cause,’ ‘the origin’ of all creation, that He is the Creator, the source of all things, the Originator, the Lord -- the Beginning of all things.
@Sabianfan This is the same word used when speaking of Christ in Revelation 1:5 (“ruler”), and Revelation 22:13 (“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End”).
“And to the angel (messenger) of the assembly (church) in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the trusty and faithful and true Witness, the Origin and Beginning and Author of God's creation:” – Amplified Bible
“This is what you must write to the angel of the church in Laodicea: I am the one called Amen! I am the faithful and true witness and the source of God's creation. Listen to what I say.” – Contemporary English Version
@Sabianfan “To the messenger of the church in Laodicea, write: 'The Amen, the witness who is faithful and true, the originator of God's creation, says this:’” – International Standard Version
“To the messenger of the church in Laodicea, write: The amen, the witness who is faithful and true, the source of God's creation, says:” – GOD'S WORD® Translation
@Sabianfan “And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness -- the faithful and true -- the chief of the creation of God;” – Young’s Literal Translation
“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.” – New International Version
So if the Father is the ONLY true God, what kind of god is Jesus?
October31st1517 1 month ago
White is constantly equivocating, backpedalling. On the ropes.
MaxGravitas 1 month ago
@MaxGravitas How so?
October31st1517 1 month ago
White is on the ropes ready for ko.
blutobelushi 2 months ago
White got thumped by Stafford.
blutobelushi 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 5 months ago
The trinity is like this
........An EGG......
The Shell, The White, and the Yoke
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
They make one.
Shell, White, and Yoke
iamthebest6367 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. "The remnant shall return, {even} the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God"
vinijesusismylife 6 months ago
Thanks for posting this. I would recommend tagging the names of these guys. I had a hard time trying to find this video.
Superapeaholic 7 months ago
@Upermonotheismos Sure, let me find it first.
IvanDefendingTruth 9 months ago
Also, In John 17:3 Jesus is saying that the Father is the only true God, in opposition to all false gods. What is said here is in opposition to idols, not to Jesus himself, who, in 1 John 5:20, is called "the true God and eternal life."
123RafaelPerez 9 months ago
Anytime I watch or experience these kinds of debates, I always notice how puffed up trinitarians get and how calm the non-trinitarians are lol. It's crazy lol.
1Shawndra 10 months ago
Stafford is awesome. It's too bad James White lied to him concerning Isaiah 53 in the LXX speaks of glory in verse 2.
GODcreatedCHRIST 10 months ago
Comment removed
123RafaelPerez 10 months ago
@123RafaelPerez Is Jesus disciples the only true God to? John 17:23 in your bible it states that Jesus disciples is in Jesus so if we use your logic then the disciples are also the True God
clevelandshero23 10 months ago
Comment removed
123RafaelPerez 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez no for this reason Acts 2:36 says that God made Jesus Lord so it was a time period when Jesus was not Lord witch is in the Old Testament, also you have to know what Lord mean Lord can be referred to anyone who has authority witch Jesus has over us and the Father Jehovah has over Jesus. Jehovah is Jesus God 3:12 witch make Jehovah Jesus Lord because he has authority over him so your scripture in Jude 4 fails
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
@clevelandshero23 The name "Immanuel" means: God with us. Jesus Christ is God with us (Matthew 1:22-23)
And he is also the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6)
Thomas calls Jesus his Lord and God, and Jesus doesn't rebuke but rather says: "You believe because you have seen"
Titus 2:13 - Paul calls Jesus God
Romans 9:5 - Paul calls Jesus God
John 1:1 - John calls the Word (Jesus) God
1 John 5:20 - Jesus is called the true God
And this is not from the New World Translations, but from real legitimate bibles.
123RafaelPerez 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez let me guess you use the King James VERSION smh if I was you I would leave that translation alone wait I'm sorry I will leave that Version alone, I do not trust a bible that takes Gods name out and replace it with LORD, then replace 1 John 5:7,8 with a scripture that is not even in the original Greek the misquotation of Hebrews 1:8, and many more scriptures
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
@clevelandshero23 1 John 5:7 is not found in the earliest manuscripts of the Greek.
Some say that it was only in the Latin Vulgate.
But many believe that it shouldn't be in Bible.
the Latin Vulgate versions of 1 John 5:7 can be found in the KJV, AKJV and DRB translations and some more. Even if 1 John 5:7 is translated this way, the translation would be true only if you believed in the doctrine of the Trinity. - Thanks for your question, it was a good one.
----- God Bless You ----
123RafaelPerez 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez that is beside the point the point is that this scripture does not belong in the bible they put this scripture in their Revelations 22:18 “I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll so if the 1 John 5:7 is not in the original Greek scriptures why is it in these other bibles?
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
@clevelandshero23 1 John 5:7 is in some English translations, but I believe it shouldn't be in the Bible if it is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts . But more English contemporary bible version now omit the words: "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
But even if this is not in Scripture, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is still not somehow repudiated, because their is still much evidence for this doctrine. - the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God.
123RafaelPerez 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez their is no evidents of the trinity maybe in your bible but if they insert scriptures that is not in the original Greek and take out Jehovah's holy name I would not trust what is written in that bible.
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
@clevelandshero23 I think we should all try to pray for the truth from God, so that we may be able to love one another. Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us the commandment to love one another, therefore we should not be quarreling and hating each other, because all it does is drive people away from the salvation that can only come by faith in our Lord Christ Jesus. If you want clevelandshero23 I can pray for you and you can pray for me, because I know that were just seeking the truth. God Bless You!
123RafaelPerez 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez Jah bless
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez can you please tell me how Immanuel God with us proves Jesus is God?
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez can you please tell me how Immanuel God with us proves Jesus is God? I thought Jehovah his God was the one who sent Jesus into the world to die for our sins? I don't know maybe I am reading the scriptures wrong
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez yes Isaiah says Jesus is the Mighty God does it say he is the Almighty? or the Only True God or the Most High God? in the Old Testament Jesus was not referred to as the Mighty God Isaiah 9:6 was just a prophecy telling people what he would be called he was not always the Mighty God
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez in refrence to Titus 2:13 type it in google then go to video click on Granville Sharp Rule: Titus 2:13 & John 20:28
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez all theses scriptures are from your bible it reads different in mine so we really can't debate on this scriptures I have given you scriptures that is in both bibles but also how I know for a fact that Romans 9:5 was not saying Jesus was the Almighty God because of these scriptures "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Corinthians 1:3). "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ephesians 1:3).
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez right thats my point in John 10:30 he says I and the Father are one but then in 17:23 he said he was one with his disciples also just like he and the father are one so again let me ask you is Jesus disciples one with Jesus just like John 17:23 brings out?
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez Also 1 Corinthians 8:5,6 again goes hand and hand with John 17:3 this is what it says 5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him. Jesus and Jehovah are not the same God Jehovah is the True God Jesus is the son
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
@clevelandshero23 My friend please hear me out: Jesus is God, let's not argue.
I understand that we are all seeking the truth about God, And I'm sorry for calling Jehovah's Witnesses people who are in error. Concerning what bible translations or version I use here are some: NIV, ESV, NLT, KJV, NKJV, NASB and many more. And don't think that I'm backing away from the challenge of whether Jesus Christ is God, but I just wanted to apologize. Christians shouldn't be fighting with one another.
123RafaelPerez 9 months ago
@123RafaelPerez I am not about to hear you out Jesus is not God lol, tell me why did translators change 1 John 5:7 in your bible?
clevelandshero23 9 months ago
It is truly amazing that J.W. would even attempt to use Jn.17:3 as a proof text for their heretical claim that Jesus is not God in the fullest sense of the word.
1) Jn.17 is Jesus' high-priestly prayer...it is an intercessory prayer involving a divine communication of the Son toward the Father.
2) It is NOT the primary intention of Jn.17 to explain the fullness of the deity of Christ; but, rather, His deity is only a SECONDARY CONSIDERATION in this passage.
rkg62976 11 months ago
@rkg62976
By J.W. I take it you mean Jehovah's Witnesses?
I mistakenly took it to mean James White when your comment came up on a search!
8-)
BeardScot 11 months ago
@BeardScot Yes, by "J.W." I meant Jehovah's Witnesses. I should have probably been more clear by saying "Mr. [Greg] Stafford". Sorry about the confusion ;)
rkg62976 11 months ago
02:52 "I assume"
03:43 "Im NOT assuming"
...right.
truthoutmedia 1 year ago
Stafford got at him
clevelandshero23 1 year ago
White give it up you lost
clevelandshero23 1 year ago
I love it Jesus is not the True God Jehovah if he was it would have not made a distinction between the only true God Jehovah and his son Jesus who he sent forth I do not understand why trinitarians do not understand that
clevelandshero23 1 year ago
I pray that more and more people come into accurate knowledge of the Holy scriptures, including White.
-D-
DarkShadowM99 1 year ago
Trinity beliefs does not make sense at ALL. WOW. I can't believe some people actually fall in to this nonsense trinity teachings. It only confuses people, so sad. The Bible itself explained clearly that Jesus have a GOD and his name is Yahweh (his heavenly father) that him only we should worship. Stafford proved this too many in the scriptures that JESUS is the SON OF TRUE GOD YAHWEH. So, how can him and his father be one persona? COMMON SENSE.
raqyrose 1 year ago
Guys, guys, guys, it's just a book - made up by a stone age middle eastern tribe. Get over it, move on, live your life without the fear this myth spreads.
simcult 1 year ago
@simcult
Just in case you were also talking to me, why should someone who became a convinced Christian after studying the Holy Scriptures listen to an atheist (agnostic maybe?) regarding the Bible?
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan I wasn't talking to you, I was commenting on the video... however to answer your question - you should ALWAYS take into account opposing views - how else do you know you are not biased?
simcult 1 year ago
@simcult
Are you sure that you're not biased concerning the Bible? Calling it a myth that spreads fear violates a lot of our Jewish/Christian heritage. Furthermore, we DO take opposing views in account, because -besides scriptural knowledge- a good study of the bible also involves some knowledge of history, science, nature, cultural backgrounds, other religions, knowledge of the human mind/behaviour and much more. So, what you call "just a book", is considered by many as the best way of life.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan 1) No you don't take opposing views into account - you said it yourself - quote: "why should someone who became a convinced Christian after studying the Holy Scriptures listen to an atheist"
2) If you understood science you wouldn't be duped into believing fairy tales like this. Science requires measurement and observation before conclusions. There are no scientific measurements or observation of these 'supernatural' claims, therefore there can be no conclusion. Period.
simcult 1 year ago
@simcult
Since I'm easy going ;-) let me try to be more specific in order to explain my point again:
reaction to 1) Since I'm not referring to blind faith or blindly following others, are you assuming that a Christian, after leaving atheism behind, should listen to an atheist's statement that the bible is a fear spreading myth? Would you expect him to be enlightened and become an atheist again?
reaction to 2) Ahh, attacking the person, a classical fallacy. The bible doesn't change science.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan 1) A person leaving a faith should *listen* to all statements (theists and non-theists). And then make up their mind.
2) If you read my comment you would see that I am attacking your beliefs not YOU. Get over yourself for a second, sit down and think about what you believe in an WHY you believe it. Can you DEMONSTRATE that what you believe is as close to the truth as is possible? If not, why do you continue to believe it?
simcult 1 year ago
@simcult
1) In fact, I did listen to all statements and then made up my mind. What statements do you think I missed?
2) You "attacked" me by assuming a lack of knowledge on the subject from my side. By saying "if you understood science..." you assume that I believe the Bible only because I'm uninformed. That's simply not true, it's the other way around. The more I see, read, observe and know, the more I believe in an intelligent designer.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan 1) I'll repeat what you said " why should someone who became a convinced Christian after studying the Holy Scriptures listen to an atheist". You said yourself you didn't listen to what I have to say.
2) You don't understand science. If you did, you would KNOW that life in fact is much, much more likely to have come about by natural means than some magical invisible man in the sky. In fact you have absolutely NO demonstrable evidence to support your claim that God did it at all.
simcult 1 year ago
@simcult
1) Do you know a broader meaning of "listening to"? To me, the way you talked about the discussion between Stafford and White sounded like the way someone is trying to quit someone's chessgame because he thinks they are just childishly playing with pieces of wood. Do you have any clue what these men really are talking about?
2) We see intelligence (sprouting from minds) creating specified information and purposeful design on a daily basis. Why deny design when NATURE reeks of design?
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan 1) Yes, I do have a clue. They are talking about what they cannot demonstrate to exist - they are debating (arguing) about no 'thing' - a.k.a 'nothing'.
2) Nature has the appearance of design, however one simply needs to go a little deeper (not much deeper) into understanding how molecules can self arrange themselves (and, yes, this can be demonstrated) to realise that the appearance of design can come about naturally. This happens, here, in reality.
simcult 1 year ago
@simcult
1) Wrong. They are talking about the way a real book, the Bible, describes God. Whether you consider God fictional or not, there is a lot to read about Him as a spiritual, powerful, yet invisible person. Stafford and White are discussing the nature of that person.
2) I agree that we don't need to go that deep to understand that molecules can self arrange. The question is....is it demonstrated that non-living molecules can self arrange to living matter? Does that happen in reality?
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@jehovahistheonlytrue See the above post I made addressing Sabianfan.
clintjordan 1 year ago
ROFL! White did nothing but beat around the bush and dodge his questions the whole time lol
WaitingforChrist 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
clintjordan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WaitingforChrist No, Mr. White did indeed answer the question. Whether you could hear, and understand is quite different. See my comments in regards to this video, which were addressed to Sabianfan.
clintjordan 1 year ago
When Rome became a world power and started to take over and rule other nations they told these nations they had to worship their pagan gods but they also had to worship and do obeisances to Rome's god also. Same thing happened when Rome (Constantine) adopted Christianity as its state religion. In order to soften the shock of conversion of pagans to Christianity, the Church adopted pagan ideas, beliefs, traditions, celebrations, etc. into the Church as teachings of the Bible.
Darqhadouken 1 year ago
Comment removed
Darqhadouken 1 year ago
@Darqhadouken Before Christianity and Judaism there were pagan nations that had triune gods. Do the math.
Darqhadouken 1 year ago
@Plantpartaker -most scholars recognize this to be a plural of excellence or majesty not a multiple personality or a number of gods. Elohim is used in the Hebrew of Moses, Judges, Angels and Jehovah God (YHWH Elohim) or Jehovah the (true) God. (YHWH ha Elohim)
1biblestudent 1 year ago
so whi won The Jw Guy?
fearswhithin 1 year ago
@fearswhithin
I personally think the part from 5:55 to 6:59 is crucial and says it all. White is clearly beating around the bush.
And, just in case you still don't get it, you can also look at the body language and notice that White is feeling uncomfortable, with all respect, just look at his face at the end of this excellent video!
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan because all what he says doesnt make any sense i didnt see a answer that makes me think that Jesus is God. So how can i see this whole video?
fearswhithin 1 year ago
@fearswhithin
Check out Ivan's other vids or ask him about it, there is definitely more, much more...
Sabianfan 1 year ago
This was an excellent debate. I really like this.
AveIvy 1 year ago 8
Why is this so difficult for people to understand? Jesus is a form of God, an extension of God, a physical manifestation of God. It's in the book (the bible), just as the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God.
AveIvy 1 year ago
John 17:3 is one of my favorite passages. If only Trinitarians would heed it, they wouldn't be Trinitarians.
CamouflagedAgent 1 year ago 8
I
THE FACT THAT THE BIBLE SAYS:if ye shall ask any thing in my name, I WILL DO it.
if jesus answers our prayers as this vers shows than he ist not a god but allmighty God.
Ni1234ck 1 year ago
@Ni1234ck Amen!
AveIvy 1 year ago
I would never want be in White´s skin.
queruvimwj 1 year ago 5
Ivan, ur biases do not allow u to accept the simplicity of what it means to read a verse in context. Listening to Stafford will do that to you. In this debate as well as the one with Bowman, Greg clearly goes against the majority of scholarship in order to establish his point.
Unfortunately, u side with the few minority of secular scholars that will side with him and others like Beduhn. Funny that NO SCHOLARS have come from the WTBTS.
: /
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Let's read the verse in context... How does the context change Jesus' statement?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth "How does the context change Jesus' statement?"
That's the point, Ivan. It doesn't. It explains what He means. White did an excellent job of pointing that out. Stafford took one statement out of the midst of context to make a weak point. Again, scholarship is against u, stafford, WTBTS. Jesus equates himself to the Father's glory, and the need to know him is equally (not less) important to have eternal life. Why not just the father? Context, my friend.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny That's my point too. That the context doesn't change Jesus' statement. James' response is quite silly when he said that the "only true God" for Jesus is the Father, but not for him. For if God were Triune he would have not excluded the Holy Spirit, but yet he did.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth please point out where White said that the only true god for Jesus is the Father, "but not him".You may be putting words into his mouth.
"That the context doesn't change Jesus' statement." I don't think anyone here is saying that, unless you want to imply that.I certainly am not and neither is White.What u refuse to observe is that through exegesis and context, one can properly understand exactly why Jesus calls the Father "only true god" and puts himself at thesame level.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Watch the video.. Stafford asks "is the father the only true God" White says "for Jesus christ certainly" Stafford "for you?" White "in the sense that Jesus meant it." That's horrid theology if you have to deny the God that Jesus worships in order to uphold another God, namely, a triune one for your theology to make sense.
Trinitarianism makes Jesus' statement inaccurate because the Father isn't the only true God, there 2 others whom are also, yet Jesus never says as much.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth c'mon, Ivan. That's a cheap shot coming from you. Obviously White was trying to avoid a snare that Greg was laying out for him. He answered exactly as any smart person should have. And once again, you are putting words into White's mouth.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 I'm more comfortable putting "words into White's mouth" than I am of White putting words into Jesus' mouth.
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
@IvanDefendingTruth >"Stafford asks "is the father the only true God" White says "for Jesus christ certainly" Stafford "for you?" White "in the sense that Jesus meant it." "
Absolutely nothing wrong with this statement.
Ivan>"I'm more comfortable putting "words into White's mouth" than I am of White putting words into Jesus' mouth."
It's a shame that you would lower yourself to slander someone's comments in that way to make your points.
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Since I supposedly slandered White's comments, can I accuse you of slandering mine?
IvanDefendingTruth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IvanDefendingTruth "Since I supposedly slandered White's comments, can I accuse you of slandering mine?"
I'm done here.
Be well, my friend.
:)
supermanny73 1 year ago
@supermanny73 Oh, you mean like they do in quoting Harner, Mantey, and Barclay? I agree wholly.
clintjordan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@clintjordan "Oh, you mean like they do in quoting Harner, Mantey, and Barclay? I agree wholly. "
LOL...exactly!
supermanny73 1 year ago
Ivan, thank you so much for posting this thrilling debate. The vibe is incredible! Although John 17:3 is very clear, White cannot really answer directly because the dogma he presents is a supposed concept, not a real biblical doctrine.
Sabianfan 1 year ago 19
@Sabianfan Actually, I argue quite differently. If you are actually hearing the words from James White's mouth, he is answering the question quite eloquently. Stafford keeps asking, "If the Father is the only true God, what kind of God is Jesus?" Stafford, along with many Jehovah's Witnesses that have commented here don't seem to understand that though Trinitarians believe the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct Persons, we do not believe they are separate Gods, but One in Essence, in unity.
clintjordan 1 year ago
1/3 @clintjordan
>"Stafford, along with many Jehovah's Witnesses that have commented here don't seem to understand that though Trinitarians believe the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct Persons, we do not believe they are separate Gods, but One in Essence, in unity."
Oh we understand, but we just don't agree! To claim "we do not believe they are seperate Gods" is a fallacy because the Father alone is Almighty. Jesus had a beginning and could never be coequal with God in power or eternity.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
2/3 @clintjordan
Also, calling the spirit a possible God, is a category error if you ask me. It's God's active force!
Please consider what Catholic theologian Edmund J. Fortman said: “The Jews never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held this view. . . .The Holy Spirit is usually presented in the Synoptics [Gospels] and in Acts as a divine force or power.”
Sabianfan 1 year ago
3/3 @clintjordan
So, regarding the spirit, how can you possibly consider a FORCE one in essence with two seperate living PERSONS (The Father & the Son)? At best, I think that only the Father and the Son can be considered "one" and in "essence" in the sence that they are both divine and united in thought and purpose.
Therefore, considering them as distinct persons, but not seperate Gods forces me to agree with those who consider the trinity to be beyond the grasp of human reason.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan John 17:3 reads, "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." And Trinitarians agree, the Father is the only true God; however, you suggest that this leads to exclusion of the Son. And as pointed out, what you forget is that Trinitarians believe the Father and Son are One in terms of Essence/Being, not in terms of Persons -- One in unity with the Father.
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Consider Jude 1:4, "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our ONLY MASTER AND LORD, Jesus Christ."
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan If Jude 1:4 does not exclude the Father as you would so ardently defend, then why must John 17:3 exclude the Son? To put it more clearly, if Jude 1:4 identifies Jesus as the ONLY Master and Lord, does this disqualify the Father from also being Master and Lord? Of course you'll say no, which only shows the inconsistency in your argumentation. For the Trinitarian, Jude 4 does not exclude the Father, nor does John 17:3 exclude the Son.
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan You should note that [every time] the phraseology, “true God” is used, such as in 2 Chronicles 15:3, Jeremiah 10:10-11, Thessalonians 1:9, and 1 John 15:20-21, it’s contrasting true Deity with false deity, and that is precisely what Jesus is doing here in John 17:3. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown put it in a way that I think fits this conversation in a much more precise way, “In glorious contrast equally with heathen polytheism, philosophic naturalism, and mystic pantheism.”
clintjordan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
> "You should note that [every time] the phraseology, “true God” is used, such as in 2 Chronicles 15:3, Jeremiah 10:10-11, Thessalonians 1:9, and 1 John 15:20-21, it’s contrasting true Deity with false deity"
Are you serious? Why does Jeremiah 10:10,11 call Jehovah a singular God in contrast to pagan gods (plural)? Doesn't that refute your argument regarding Jesus' words in John 17:3, since he is not talking to the unfaithful Jews there? It's a totally different context.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Ultimately, John 17:3 doesn’t pose a problem for Trinitarians, rather, it’s in perfect harmony with our theology. Rather, may I suggest to you that this does however, pose a problem with the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses polytheistic/hellenistic “a god” theology.
clintjordan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
>"John 17:3 doesn’t pose a problem for Trinitarians, rather, it’s in perfect harmony with our theology."
Your theology? That doesn't really impress me, since ALL religions have their own theology!
It should pose a problem for Trinitarians since it's not in harmony with THE BIBLE.
“To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it.” (Origin and Evolution of Religion - professor E. Washburn Hopkins)
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Should you argue that the Father be the only true God, and you affirm that Jesus is a distinct “god” (not to be confused with "distinct Persons") or “a god,” to use the enemies guns against them, and as Stafford asked, "If the Father is the only true God, what kind of God would that make Jesus?" Is Christ a true god, or a false god?
clintjordan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
> "Is Christ a true god, or a false god?"
Christ is a true god. That's obvious. He always was and will be loyal and faithful to his Father, the Almighty God YHWH, who created him as a divine, godlike person. (Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation)
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan There's several problems with your comments all around. And if this is the core of your argument, then allow me punch holes into the hull of your battleship. First, allow me to say that this response is going to be very, very long. The few words that you have spoken and asked, has gathered in my mind, pages of responses that need to be presented.
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan I’m going to address the comments you have made, not in any particular format, just in a sequence that I think would make this flow as an all-around response.
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan To quote a very brilliant man, and fellow Trinitarian,
“It seems an appropriate time to settle one of the most important issues regarding the Trinity and the text of Scripture. If all Christians would simply understand the following statement, their task of explaining and defending the Trinity would be much easier. Here is a basic, simple truth that is lost in the vast majority of discussion (or arguments) on this topic:
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.
Not exactly an earth-shattering concept? It isn’t, but the vast majority of material produced by those who oppose the deity of Christ ignores this basic truth. What do I mean? It’s really quite simple. Let’s take a common argument against the deity of Christ: ‘The Father is the Creator of all things.
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
>"Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature."
Although I like simple things (that's why I don't like the trinity, it's too vague ), you are not going to enlighten me with this trinitarian "tool".
>"Not exactly an earth-shattering concept? It isn’t, but the vast majority of material produced by those who oppose the deity of Christ ignores this basic truth."
Jehovah's witnesses don't deny the deity of Christ, because it's a BIBLICAL basic truth.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan He creates THROUGH Jesus Christ. Therefore, Jesus Christ is not fully God.’ Or here’s another argument against the deity of the Spirit: ‘The Spirit is sent to testify of Jesus Christ and convict the world of sin. Since the Spirit is sent by the Father, the Spirit cannot truly be God.’ Both arguments share the same error: they ignore the above cited truth, ‘difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature.’
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan That is, just because the Father, Son, and Spirit do different things does not mean that any one of them is inferior to the others in nature.” (The Forgotten Trinity, James White, p66)
END QUOTE.
clintjordan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
>"...just because the Father, Son, and Spirit do different things does not mean that any one of them is inferior to the others in nature."
I agree that one person can do different things, but such statements are not proving anything.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Before I dig into the core of your argument, allow me first to just address what could potentially turn into a case of “proof-texting,” that is, shooting random out-of-context verses out to prove a certain position, and to make text in the Scripture say something that just isn’t there. Two common examples are 1 Corinthians 11:3, and John 14:28. I know someone is bound to start shooting “proof-texts” at me, so allow me to address a couple of the most popular early on:
clintjordan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
>"allow me first to just address what could potentially turn into a case of “proof-texting,” that is, shooting random out-of-context verses out to prove a certain position, and to make text in the Scripture say something that just isn’t there."
You might just as well refer to White in this video and his attempt to say something that isn't in John 17:3, namely his claim that Stafford assumes unitarism and that there can be more than 1 person in the category "the only true God".
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan 1 Corinthians 11:3
‘But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.’ -- 1 Corinthians 11:3
For those that would argue that this specific text shows that Christ is lesser than God, I must ask , “Does this show that Jesus is inferior to the Father by nature?”
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan If one will insist that it does, then for the sake of consistency, he would have to say the same regarding the woman to the man. That is to say, the man must be more ‘divine,’ for the lack of a better term, than his wife. However, this is not what the Scripture proclaims.
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
>"If one will insist that it does, then for the sake of consistency, he would have to say the same regarding the woman to the man. That is to say, the man must be more ‘divine,’ for the lack of a better term, than his wife."
Wouldn't it be better to think of these verses as a hierarchic situation between seperate persons? No, the man isn't more flesh than the woman. Still they are both seperate & created persons and he's the head of the woman.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Uh, well, your first mistake is that Trinitarians DO believe that Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct Persons. We don't believe that Jesus is His own Father.
clintjordan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
>"Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct Persons."
The spirit a distinct person? Please Clint, if you have read our "Trinity" brochure, do you also consider water and blood to be persons, because they are said to be witnesses?
1 John 5:7-8 For there are three witness bearers, 8 the spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan If this is going to be the basis of your argument, why would you insist that the "Word" in John 1:1 is a Person?
clintjordan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
Clint, you wrote: "If this is going to be the basis of your argument, why would you insist that the "Word" in John 1:1 is a Person?"
I'm glad you asked, because the answer is clear, scriptural, doesn't violate context & isn't hindered by farfetched human interpretations.
John 1:14 So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of undeserved kindness and truth.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
Comment removed
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan You argue that the Spirit is not a Person, although it possesses features of a Person -- it can talk, has it's own mind, can be grieved, blasphemed, and lied to. Can you blaspheme or lie to an impersonal force?
As a JW, you believe Jesus pre-existed as a spirit, and you believe that when He was resurrected, He ascended into heaven as a spirit. You argue that the Holy Spirit is not a Person, but if Christ pre-existed as a spirit, is He considered a Person? And of the Father?
clintjordan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
Clint, it's good to have you back but before we go on, can you please answer my last three questions first?
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@clintjordan thats a good question however the bible brings about to different spirits. spirit persons witch Jehovah, Jesus and the Angels are, also the spirit that keeps us alive the breath of life James 2:26 we need the spirit to survive. the holy spirit is Jehovah's active force not a actual person the bible give many things personalities that are not actual persons for example wisdom
clevelandshero23 1 year ago
@Sabianfan This specific text does not identify the husband as being greater in nature than the wife, or the Father greater in nature than Christ. Though a wife is subject to her husband in the Lord, she is not inferior to him by nature. The same is true with the relationship between the Lord Jesus and the Father -- Father and Son are equal in nature, just as a man and his wife are equal in nature.
clintjordan 1 year ago
Comment removed
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan 1 Corinthians 11:3 has nothing to do with anything being created. You say Jesus is created, but He is not. Colossians 1 actually says all things were created by Him, not all "other" things. Paul goes on to define what he meant by "all things." He says that all things visible, and invisible. All things in heaven, and on earth. Every throne, and principality. Literally, everything.
See my further arguments in regards to Colossians 1:15, and Revelation 3:14.
clintjordan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
>"You say Jesus is created, but He is not. Colossians 1 actually says all things were created by Him, not all "other" things."
Ok Clint. If Jesus is not created, he didn't have a beginning right?
So let's talk about Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14. On page 408, the "Reasoning" book asks: Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning? After quoting Colossians 1:15, 16, the book continues by asking...
cont.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? (1) Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation?
cont.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons. (2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel;
cont.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
“the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? (3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (Revised Standard Version 1971) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created...all things were created through him and for him”?
cont.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
The Greek word here rendered “all things” is pan′ta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2, RS renders this “all...other”; JB (The Jerusalem Bible 1966, Alexander Jones, general editor) reads “any other”; NE says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in The New English Bible 1970 and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son,
cont.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
The New World translation assigns the same meaning to pan′ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, “by means of him all other things were created...All other things have been created through him and for him.” Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.
cont.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him...‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: “The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar‧khe′] of God’s creation.”’” (King James Version 1611; as printed in 1942, Catholic Challoner-Douay Version 1750; as printed in 1941, The New Testament 1941; as printed in 1947, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Revision, and NW, as well as others, read similarly).
cont.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists “beginning” as its first meaning of ar‧khe′. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252) The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning.
cont.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be “created.”)
Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Dy reads: “his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.”
cont.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying “days of eternity,” RS renders the Hebrew as “ancient days”; JB, “days of old”; NW, “days of time indefinite.” Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@clintjordan
Finally, I'd like to pose a few more statements.
1) If being a trinitarian is so essential for being a Christian, then why isn't the word mentioned in God's word? Why didn't it already take its present form during 1st century Christianity?
2) If the Father and the Son are not seperate gods, who raised Jesus up from the dead?
3) What are people supposed to think of when they read "father and son"? Do you know any example of a Son who didn't came into existence AFTER his Father?
Sabianfan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan John 14:28 – “The Father is greater than I.”
"You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." -- John 14:28
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan As stated in regards to 1 Corinthians 11:3, the Father is not greater than Christ in terms of nature. Here in John 14:28, the word "greater" refers to office or position, not nature or essence! God is God because of His nature (Galatians 4:8). John 14:28 tells us that the Father has a "greater" office or position than Christ does. This is how the word "greater" is used as clearly seen in Genesis 41:40, which reads,
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan "You [Joseph] shall be over my [Pharaoh] house, and all my [Pharaoh] people shall order themselves as you [Joseph] command. Only as regards the throne will I [Pharaoh] be greater than you [Joseph].”
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Pharaoh was "greater" than Joseph only by office or position, but not by nature. The nature of Pharaoh and Joseph were the same, that is, they are both human beings. Similarly, the president of the United States is "greater" than we are, as far as office or position is concerned, but certainly not by nature!
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Compare the usage of “meizon” (“greater”) in John 14:28 with the term “kreitton” (“better”) in Hebrews 1:4. You’ll notice, “kreitton” is used as a descriptive term of quality. Christ was qualitatively better than the angels (Hebrews 1:4). Likewise, “meizon” is used to describe the Father being “greater” in terms of position. John 14:28 does not say that the Father is qualitatively better, or qualitatively greater than the Jesus.
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan As Dr. Walter Martin wrote in regards to Christ, “Since His intrinsic Nature is that of deity (John 8:58, compare Colossians 2:9), therefore qualitatively He was God manifest in the flesh, while quantitatively speaking He was limited as a man and could in all truthfulness state 'My Father is greater than I.’”
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Onward to your argument:
You assert that Christ is created, but on what basis do you speak of such blasphemy?
You assert that Colossians 1:15 speaks of Christ as being a creature. However, contextually, that’s not what Paul is saying in his letter to the Colossians. Allow me to explain the meaning of the word “firstborn,” and briefly touch on the context.
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Colossians 1:15 states, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the word 'firstborn' (Greek: prototokos) is an adjective. While in a literal sense, it can denote the first that comes from the womb, but frequently is an expression of supremacy, not chronological order.
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan 1 Samuel 16:11-13 tells us that David was the [youngest] son of Jesse; however, Psalm 89:27, God said in regards to David, that He would appoint David to be His 'firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth.'
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Also in Jeremiah 31:9, where Ephraim is called the Lord's 'firstborn,' although, Manasseh was Ephraim's older brother, the 'firstborn' from the womb (Genesis 48:14). In this context, and as shown in Genesis 48:19, as well as Psalm 89:27, the term 'firstborn' is a title of superiority, of supremacy.
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Notably, although Psalm 89:27 is in reference to David (vv. 20-36), this verse in particular is a Messianic prophecy. The context of Psalm 89:27 only strengthens the argument that the term “firstborn” does not imply Jesus to be “a creation,” rather, it implies that “firstborn” is in reference to His preeminence, “the highest of the kings of the earth.”
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan With that said, given the context of Colossians 1, the term 'firstborn' in Colossians 1:15 does not refer to an actual physical birth, but rather, refers to Christ's position of supremacy (see Colossians 1:15-18 ).
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan As Albert Barnes rightly comments in his commentary, “Barnes’ Notes on the Bible,” in regards to Colossians 1:15:
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan “The meaning, then, is, that Christ sustains the most exalted rank in the universe; he is pre-eminent above all others; he is at the head of all things. The expression does not mean that he was ‘begotten before all creatures,’ as it is often explained, but refers to the simple fact that he sustains the highest rank over the creation. He is the Son of God. He is the heir of all things."
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Other notable texts that use the term “firstborn,” in reference to supremacy/preeminence are Exodus 4:20-23, where the nation of Israel is called the “firstborn son;” Job 18:13, where an illness/disease is referred to as “firstborn;” Isaiah 14:30, where the poorest of the poor is referred to as the “firstborn of the poor.” Likewise, Christ is “firstborn of all creation,” the Originator, the “first Parent” of all creation, “For by Him all things were created… ."
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan Revelation 3:14
Ironically enough, like Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14 is also a text used to assert that Christ is a mere creation. I say “ironically,” because it is quite ironic indeed, that of all the texts to twist, Arians have to use one of the most obvious and clearest proclamations of Christ’s authorship over all of creation in order that they may teach a diabolic heresy.
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:” – Revelation 3:14
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan ‘Beginning’ here, translates from the Greek word ‘arche,’ meaning ‘the origin,’ ‘the active cause,’ ‘that by which anything begins to be,’ ‘leader,’ ‘the person or thing that commences,’ ‘magistracy,’ ‘rule.’ Revelation 3:14 does not in anyway teach that Christ was created. No, it teaches that He is the ‘active cause,’ ‘the origin’ of all creation, that He is the Creator, the source of all things, the Originator, the Lord -- the Beginning of all things.
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan This is the same word used when speaking of Christ in Revelation 1:5 (“ruler”), and Revelation 22:13 (“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End”).
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan I personally do not care for paraphrased translations, but find the following rather insightful in regards to Revelation 3:14:
(Continued...)
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan
“And to the angel (messenger) of the assembly (church) in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the trusty and faithful and true Witness, the Origin and Beginning and Author of God's creation:” – Amplified Bible
“This is what you must write to the angel of the church in Laodicea: I am the one called Amen! I am the faithful and true witness and the source of God's creation. Listen to what I say.” – Contemporary English Version
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan “To the messenger of the church in Laodicea, write: 'The Amen, the witness who is faithful and true, the originator of God's creation, says this:’” – International Standard Version
“To the messenger of the church in Laodicea, write: The amen, the witness who is faithful and true, the source of God's creation, says:” – GOD'S WORD® Translation
clintjordan 1 year ago
@Sabianfan “And to the messenger of the assembly of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the witness -- the faithful and true -- the chief of the creation of God;” – Young’s Literal Translation
“To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.” – New International Version
clintjordan 1 year ago