Logos – Part 2: A God or The God?

Comment by BMC on 2014-11-06 13:05:33

Hi Meleti , I will state firstly that I don't subscribe to the Trinity doctrine. Have you ever considered that the early Christians read the Bible in Greek (maybe some latin) and thus the debate about the correctness of inserting the indefinite article before god did not exist. Yet they used the Greek versions available to them to develop the Trinity doctrine. They used John 1:1 to show in Greek that the Lagos was God...
I am not refuting what you written above, I merely seek your perspective on the point I have raised

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-06 13:43:01

  Hi BMC,
  I'm not aware that the first century Christians developed the trinity doctrine. To my knowledge, the first mention of the idea was by Origen (185-254) and Tertullian (160-220) meaning that it only began to be considered by some about a century after John died.

• Reply by on 2014-11-07 08:13:40

  In the beginning was Eve, and Eve was with Adam, and Eve was Adam.
  She was in the beginning with Adam.
  All things came into being through Her, and apart from Her nothing came into being that has come into being.
  Daytona

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-07 08:20:43

    I like it. :)

    • Reply by on 2014-11-08 11:21:46

      Hi Meleti,
      I believe the Gospel of John is inspired.
      I believe Jesus spoke plainly about himself and his relationship to his Father.
      I believe in allowing Christ's words to define him.
      I believe that what I may not understand at present our Father will make plain in His good time.
      I believe the confusion of Christian beliefs is not from God but men.
      Thanks for the two articles on the Logos Meleti. By comparison the rest of this thread is a merry-go-round of confusion.
      Too many sign posts, too many authorities, from Buzzard to Stafford, not enough just relying on Christ and trusting that God's spirit is very much able to make things plain to us. I no longer post on the discussion forum for this very reason; to much us and not enough God.
      Keep up the good work, Meleti, but imo discussion would be better kept to the forum rather than here because it takes away from your article. I believe it better to allow readers the opportunity to privately reflect on what you have written and take from it what God's spirit directs.
      Peace to you,
      Daytona

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 15:37:02

        Thank you for this thought provoking viewpoint.

Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-11-06 13:15:08

“Week ago, John, friend of mine, got up, had shower, ate bowl of cereal, then got on bus to start work at job as teacher.”
This sounds like Russian :-P

Comment by Alex Rover on 2014-11-06 13:50:18

Meleti, I agree with most what you write, however there are a few points I'd like to bring up.
"JESUS WAS CREATED"
1) What kind of Father calls his firstborn his "creation"? Something that you create, say, a robot, is never equal to it's creator. Yet Jesus is the living image of his Father.
2) John 1:3 "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." If he was created, he would have been made. Does John 1:3 imply that he made himself? I believe the conclusion is that he is outside creation.
3) I concede that in a sense he had a beginning outside of time. The term used in the Nicene Creed is eternally begotten. I don't have a problem with this. In fact, I see how this means we might apply Alpha and Omega to him as well as the Father.
4) Interestingly in relation to the glorified church the terms birth and creation are employed at the same time "born again" and "new creation". Eve was created out of Adam, and became partaker of the human nature. She did not however, have a birth.
In conclusion, I see per the phrase "firstborn of creation" that you might think of him as a creation, but I feel that the word firstborn needs to be emphasized over creation here, since the verse implies his supremacy over creation, and other verses in Scripture imply his separateness in nature. Therefore I'm not sure if it's right to call Jesus a creature.
I think John 1:14 in your next article will allow for emphasizing this.

• Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-11-06 13:57:00

  To the argument that "first-born" implies that there will be others:
  Also another way to think of "firstborn of creation" is to imply that he is the first who is born in the divine image of God, and that the born-again saints will follow as born in the divine nature upon their resurrection.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-06 14:18:26

  Hi Alex,
  I'll answer briefly because a deeper discussion will benefit from a new topic on www.discussthetruth.com.
  1) As I explained, firstborn is a metaphor to help us comprehend something of the relationship between God and Logos. Granted that being a creation makes Jesus less than that one who created him, which is in line with what Jesus teaches us at John 14:28. Likewise, being the image of someone doesn't require equality.
  2) Paul shows that an apparent all-inclusive statement can have an implied exception when he says, "“. . .For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him. ” (1Co 15:27)
  I don't think that Jesus' being created by God puts him in the same category as the rest of us. Firstly, all others were created through and for him, so he is distinct and unique. Human language is a poor means to describe the nature of Christ. Created, made, produced, are all terms that carry connotations that diminish the true and glorious nature of Logos. I think often of the example of a scientist father trying to explain to his five-year-old son the nature of his work. He's restricted to terms within the child's vocabulary and understanding. These terms cannot properly explain the parent's work, but are the best the child can handle.
  So it is with Jehovah trying to help us understand things far beyond our experience and brain power.

  • Reply by Alex Rover on 2014-11-06 15:07:15

    "Created, made, produced, are all terms that carry connotations that diminish the true and glorious nature of Logos."
    I agree with this. I prefer the term "fathered" over those words, because it doesn't carry the connotation.

    • Reply by menrov on 2014-11-07 03:56:13

      firstborn can also mean "most important or most prominent", first rights like the first born in a family. Jacob became the firstborn and received the rights of a firstborn, although biologically he was not the firstborn. Being the firstborn was always very special. Same with the passover. They had to sprinkle the blood in order to protect their FIRSTBORNS from the destroyer.
      That is how I read it when Jesus is referred to as firstborn. He is the most prominent of all things created or in existence. In particular the NT writers often had to emphasize the importance of Jesus.
      I do not believe that the use of the word FIRSTBORN can be used to show that Jesus is part of the creation or to show that He was born and all others were created. God will not b pregnant and give birth to a Son. That in fact minimizes the superiority of Jesus. Also, why call Jesus firstborn if there no other that were born from Jehovah?

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-07 07:56:50

        Hi Menrov,
        My thoughts on that alternative understanding of firstborn are summed up in the end notes.
        I also made the point in the article that firstborn is a metaphor or illustration God used to help us understand that his son was created by him. Adam, Eve, and the Angels were all created by God through his Son, Logos. Logos was also created. However that doesn't remove his unique character, role and nature.

• Reply by anderestimme on 2014-11-06 20:46:15

  "John 1:3 “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” If he was created, he would have been made. Does John 1:3 imply that he made himself? I believe the conclusion is that he is outside creation."
  I'm not following you here. Since it says "Through him all things were made", it's obvious that "all things" doesn't include the one through whom "all things" were made, right?

• Reply by answersforjws on 2014-11-07 20:12:16

  Alex,
  Colossians 1:15 with the genitive includes Jesus within creation.
  Hebrews 2:8 uses language similar to John 1:3 yet we would never argue that the father was subject to Christ.

Comment by kev c on 2014-11-06 14:03:41

The word was with the god and the word was god . Dead right meleti .we have recognised this for a long time ..there is a definate distinction between the first theos and the second in the verse its just not consistant to render them as the same . I remember many years ago the deep study i did on these verses led me to the conclusion that the second theos could be describing a quality . Divine .Godly ect .perhaps describing nature .. Its this word God where we seem to get confused . When we say the word in english most always equate it with God almighty .. 1 corinthians 8 v 4 to 6 seems to make it plain for me . Thanks for this series kev

Comment by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-11-06 14:12:19

I cannot fully agree with the logic presented above.
"If John had wanted to show that Jesus was God and not simply a god, he would have written it this way.
“In [the] beginning was the word and the word was with the god and the god was the word. This (one) was in beginning toward the God.”
Now all three nouns are definite. There is no mystery here. It’s just basic Greek grammar."
While many Trinitiarians make the mistake to USE this verse to proof that Jesus is THE GOD, I believe it's equally wrong to say that this verse DISPROVES that Jesus is
THE GOD.
If you wish to argue that John intentionally omitted the article to make some kind of statement, you would not find a lot of support with anyone who studied Greek for a number of years. Especially so since in John 1 there are 3 other occasions where theos is without definitive article and clearly referring to the Father.
To cite one example:
John 1:18
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten god, who is in the bosom with the Father is the one that has explained him.
As you can see here for instance there are no articles for both "God" and "the only begotten god" in the Greek.
The study of the usage of the article in Greek is a complex one, and the absence of definitive article DOES NOT make it indefinite.
Furthermore, there is GOOD reason to presume that theos is neither definite nor indefinite in that construction, but rather that it's qualitative, namely that the logos by virtue of quality/ by nature is d(D)evine.
The two most unbiased translations would have to render καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος either as "the word was with god" or "the word was devine". These are the obvious translations. Any other translation you would have a burden of proof. Proving why you feel the author is saying "a" God, "the God" or any other variation.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-06 15:25:49

  What we have in John 1:18 is an example of an anarthrous (article-less) theos. It is true in Greek that a dative or genitive case of theos does not require the definite article, but this is not so for the nominative case which is what is used in John 1:1. Jason Debuhn writes: "The nominative case is much more dependent than other Greek cases on the definite article to mark definiteness. There is a very limited range of definitizing elements that may make an anarthrous nominative theos definite. These include the presence of an attached possessive pronoun (John 8:54; 2 Corinthians 6:16), the use of the noun in direct address (the "vocative" function, Romans 9:5; 1 Thessalonians 2:5), and the association of the noun with the numeration "one" (1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:5. None of these definitizing elements are present in John 1:1c, and it and the remaining eleven examples of anarthrous nominative theos in the new Testament are indefinite. (Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 1:18; Romans 8:33; 1 Corinthians 8:4; 2 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Galatians. 6:7; Philippians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:4; Revelation 21:7) - Truth in Translation by Jason David Debuhn, p. 117
  From page 121, par. 1 of the same book he adds: "In my opinion, Harner successfully makes the case that predicate nouns without the article placed before the verb tend to have a qualitative function. In other words, such nouns describe or define the character of the subject of the sentence." With that in mind, let's look at John 1:18 from the interlinear:
  "God no one has seen ever yet [the] only-begotten God the [one] being in the bosom of the Father he has made [him] known"
  The first theos is anarthrous, coming before the verb, it is contrasting the invisible quality of God with the opposite of the only-begotten god who has been seen and has made the Father known. The meaning is clear, so the definite article would be superfluous.

  • Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-11-06 18:03:07

    I am very familiar with BeDuhn's work. He was I read Beduhn's work. I definitely agree with the above. He said himself that he would translate it as "the word is divine". (I stated above that there was GOOD reason to translate it as qualitative)
    (""The Jehovah's Witness editors, in explaining this verse, say that they are trying to convey that the word has qualitative sense- that is, that the word belongs to the class of divine beings. This is correct. In fact, it seems clear to me that the word theos is in this verse a predicate adjective. I would translate as Moffatt and Goodspeed (two excellent scholars of Greek) have: "And the Word was divine.")
    Given this translation, this definitely leaves the door open for debate whether Jesus is God or just a devine creature. Besides this, many good arguments have been made by other scholars arguing for the The Word was God. Whatever the final translation would be, I think it's unsound to use this verse as either proving or disproving the Deity of Christ and BeDuhn has even openly stated the very same thing.

    • Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-11-06 18:08:54

      To add to the discussion, I find the research that Don Hartley did really interesting.
      Hartley's results demonstrate that in John's Gospel, a preverbal PN is usually qualitative (56%), as opposed to definite (11%), indefinite (17%), or qualitative-indefinite (17%). He concludes that from the standpoint of pure statistical analysis, THEOS in John 1:1c is most likely qualitative.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-06 19:12:55

      Agreed. Harner's understanding was that "a god" is said more in a qualitative sense, as one of a group of divine beings. It's like saying, "John is a smart person." or "John is smart." In each case you've said essentially the same thing, one with a predicate noun and the other with a predicate adjective.
      I do believe that Jesus is a god or is divine. From John 1:1 you cannot prove much more than that. It requires the whole of the inspired record to arrive at a more definitive conclusion.

    • Reply by anderestimme on 2014-11-06 19:23:43

      INOG, you said "this definitely leaves the door open for debate whether Jesus is God or just a devine [sic] creature". I don't think so, because there's more to this verse than just John 1:1c. What about 'the Word was with God'? If the word was 'divine' and was with God, it seems quite obvious that he 'belongs to the class of divine beings' but is NOT the God who he was "with". That, coupled with Jesus repeatedly calling God "my God", even after returning to heaven (as at Rev. 3:12) would appear to make it clear that, while every knee must bend to him, he is not the same as "God the Father", to whose glory he holds his unique, exalted position.
      BTW, Hartley's findings are hardly uncontested. Greg Stafford took his argument apart in great detail. In any case, meaning through statistics is an exceptionally shaky approach to translation.

    • Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-11-06 21:15:15

      God is Devine in quality or nature. If the Logos is said to be Devine too, that very much leaves the question open. There is no question who this The God is, its the Father. No one contests that. All I said is that this verse on its own cannot count as proof for or against exclusively.
      There are arguments for: him being eternal and Devine, there are arguments which could be used again: isn't it a bit cryptically put to be with God and be God at the same time.
      I think the issue is very much deeper then that we might give it credit for. If it were that clear and easy, the issue would not have been open for nearly two millennia. Only of we approach it unbiased and consider all arguments for and against we might get a deeper window into this question, always with humility and asking for guidance of the holy spirit.
      As far as Greg Stafford, he too agrees that Theos is a indefinite qualitative.
      Further, if you go through classical studies, you will find that everyone contests everyone :) I for one very much find great value in doing statistical analysis to derive grammar rules of ancient languages. Its a whole lot better then postulating a theory based on a few findings.

• Reply by answersforjws on 2014-11-07 20:13:43

  What we should find in John 1 is the lack of the article before God in reference you the father. That we don't reveals a distinction

Comment by BMC on 2014-11-06 14:25:25

In comparison to our time Origen and Tertullian are certainly early Christians. They read the Bible in Greek without the distortions introduced by translations and used John 1:1 to show that the Lagos was God.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-06 14:46:29

  I'm not really familiar with the arguments and reasoning of Origen and Tertullian.

• Reply by answersforjws on 2014-11-07 22:42:24

  Tertullian I believe used Latin. Origen said all who are called gods but the Father are done in a way derived from the Father.

Comment by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-11-06 14:40:48

As a positive, what I take away from John 1:1 are two important things that add to the discussion of who Jesus really is (or the Logos)
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος
Firstly: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος
Jesus (The Logos) is eternal. I deducted this as follows:
1. An eternal (beginning less) being must be existing before the beginning of things
2. The Logos was already in existence "en arche", in the beginning.
3. Therefore, the Logos is eternal
2. The Logos is theos, Devine in his quality.
So this Logos described in John 1:1 is a Devine being who is Eternal.
John 1:3 teaches me further that this Eternal, Devine being created All things.

• Reply by menrov on 2014-11-07 04:17:14

  I support this view. Jesus is a divine person. If Satan is considered a god, then for sure Jesus. I understand the confusion. It is not only because of the use of the articles or absence thereof but also the use of capital letters. God versus god. Biblical Greek was all in capitals. So, John 1:1 could also be translated as follows:
  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god. 2 The Word was with God in the beginning.
  The change is the word god not in capital. It still shows the Word was divine but not equal to God with capital. But then again, it is the translator who makes that choice, to translate one word with a capital and the other not. Looking at the context should explain or help. Looking at verse 2, it is clear that there are 2 distinct entities here. The Word and God and they were together in the beginning.
  If one agrees verse 2 talks about 2 entities, then verse 1 is doing that as well. Then regardless how one translates it, it should read somehow that there are 2 entities.
  By adding "a"as in "a god" or by not using a capital G as in god, the translator is attempting to make a distinction in superiority. God is more than god and God without the "a" is more than "a god", with the article.
  In summary, I do not see that John tried to confuse people. He merely is showing that Jesus is the logos (word or thought) and that the word is god (divine, a godlike creature) and that the word works with the almighty god from the beginning, to show intimacy in relation. (all non-capitalized on purpose)
  Throughout John, we can see that Jesus never tried to give the impression that he and his father are actually one creature nor that he was equal in superiority. It was his father who gave his son all power and authority which makes Jesus currently equal in superiority to his father. That is why at the end of all, when death is gone, he we subject himself again to his father. Until then, Jesus is not subjected.

Comment by on 2014-11-06 16:23:08

In simple terms what i believe is that god divided himself and a lesser part of him became the son . Then that son used other energy from god and created everything else ..

• Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-11-06 18:05:29

  If the Son was a lesser part of his, then he could not be the EXACT imprint. For the rest I would think of the Logos along similar lines, as having proceeded from the Father and being in every aspect the same as his Father (attributes, nature wise), but holding a different function and position.

  • Reply by on 2014-11-07 12:23:20

    The reason why i say that is because jesus himself said that the father was greater than he was .also 1 corinthians speaks of the son subjecting himself to the father at the end of the thousand years .and while the bible says he is the exact representation .while it says exact it it also says a REPRESENTATION . .To my mind a representation is not the original .

  • Reply by answersforjws on 2014-11-07 20:20:48

    You're reading too much into the term exact. The original idea stemmed from a ring impressed into wax. God has impressed his characteristics into Christ.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-06 19:14:28

  In a sense, are we not all split off from God? The energy bound into packets of matter that make up my body, did it not originally come from God, the source of all energy?

• Reply by bjfox1 on 2014-11-06 23:40:03

  I wish I could put this as eloquently as the rest of you. . on top of that I am tired and have a headache. . . .I've tired to do research on this. .but can't remember any details. . .and lot of the grammar stuff went right over my head.. but still . . I too, was left with the feeling. .understanding. . conclusion. . . that the Son was (hadn't thought of it as 'divided' form God) but came out of The Father. I think that there is a Father/Son relationship about them that we. . well at least, I do not understand, but is more than how we normally look at father/son relationships. I think it was just the best comparison that people could understand.
  I found a few places that I noted in my Interlinear:
  John 8: 42 says: ' .. ., for from God I came forth. .(NWT)..but on the side the Interlinear says: ' . . , I for out of the God came out. . '
  John 16: 28 NWT say Jesus came 'out from the Father' On the side the Interlinear said ' . . .Out I came out of the Father . .
  In John14 where there are a bunch of places where the phrase 'in union with' . On the side of the Interlinear is says: 'in' not in union.
  In Genisis I've read that all those first 'GOD' words were Elohim. A plural word (though I did read just recently that it isn't always Plural). But then there is that 'let us make man'. And then John saying everything made was made by and for him.. .talking about Jesus (before he was Jesus). My early learning was almost 30 years of attending the KH.
  So even after another 30 years I find myself cringing at the term 'trinity' . But the more I read and study the more I believe The Son was not made, just as the Holy Spirit was not made. We have no problem seeing it as coming from God. . . as in from and part of Him.
  Jesus referred to the Holy spirit as 'he' or him'. . .and said he had to leave so that he could send him back as a helper for us. So in Genesis you have them all there. "God ( as a plural) and the spirit moving over the water . . Just as if you were talking about me: "ME" is made up of my mind, my words, my strength, my character and my physical parts: legs, hands, feet, etc. There is one me. If I make a cake I say ' I made the cake'. But did my feet do it or heart or ears ?? No . . I might have stood on the floor at the counter and my heart might have desired the cake and my ears listened foe whether or not the blender was on.. .my mind deciphered the recipe. .hand poured the ingredients. Maybe I even said out loud: "Hmmm think I will make a cake." A picture of me is my image. If you asked one of my grandchildren . .who is that, they'd say 'Grandma.' If they heard a recording of one of my songs and one of their friends asked .'who is that'. They'd say " oh that's my grandmother."
  Some things are so unclear in the scriptures. Then you get into translations and motives. But I didn't see anything that leads me to believe he was made. But everything else WAS made/created. . . by him, through him and for him. Just like my cake.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-07 08:19:57

    You make some excellent points, Bjfox1.
    From your thoughts and those of everyone else who has commented thus far, it appears that there are a number of differing ideas concerning whether Jesus was made vs. created vs. born. Man's body was made from preexisting elements, but then created when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. Another metaphor I presume since pumping air into a lifeless body doesn't case it to live. (Genesis 2:7)
    The angels were created. How? We do not know. Did God take of his energy and form them? Or did he make their spiritual bodies from pre-existing stuff as in case of Adam? We cannot know. In fact, all the stuff of the physical universe came from God, so in that sense, we are from God. Did he make the elements from himself, or did he create them out of pure nothingness? It boggles the mind, does it not? It is far beyond anything we can explain or understand.
    I believe that the use of "firstborn of all creation" is a metaphor to help us to understand the relationship between Father and Son (Logos) and to help us to see Jesus' place in creation. The exact how of his beginning is likely beyond our understanding.
    Without something firm and clear in scripture, we have only our speculation. What is important, and what is clear from the inspired record is that Jesus is subordinate to God and that our approach to the Father is through his Son. It is clear that we must obey the Son and honor the Son for by that means, we obey and honor the Father. This is the means to everlasting life, and once we have it, we can use it to grow in understanding of the Father and his Firstborn as the eons go by.

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-11-06 19:32:05

"Word" had appeared some 1,450 times (plus verb "to speak" 1,140 times) in the Hebrew Bible. The standard meaning of "word" is utterance, promise, command etc. It never meant a personal being - never "the Son of God"; nor a spokesman. Word generally signifies the index of the mind - an expression, a word. There is a wide range of meanings for "word" and "person" is not among these meanings.
John 1:1 "In the beginning God had a plan and that plan was within God's heart and was itself 'God'" - that is God in his self-revelation. The plan was the very expression of God's will, a divine plan, reflection of his inner being, close to the heart of God.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-06 19:49:51

  >>It never meant a personal being
  I would respectfully have to disagree.

• Reply by menrov on 2014-11-07 04:30:28

  if LOGOS would not be represented in the bible translations with a capital W, I guess most readers would not think is represents a person or creature but merely "the message, the though or idea" etc.
  If logos does not stand for Jesus, which is possible, it does not exclude that Jesus is god. Because the word became flesh would then mean that the father decided to sent his son into the world, in the flesh, to represent and proclaim his word(s).

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-11-06 19:58:01

Rather than being a sentient person "the word" in John 1:1 was the complete index of God's mind in action. Therefore, when John 1:1 speaks of "THE WORD" it was not at that time "the Son" until John 1:14 when "the word BECAME flesh."

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-06 20:32:55

  Let's agree to disagree on that. :)

  • Reply by imjustasking on 2014-11-07 01:47:29

    Meleti - I'm intrigued why you would disagree. Is there a rationale or is it just the way you 'feel' about the scripture?

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-07 07:30:09

      I'm assuming that Jannai40 doesn't mean person in the limited sense of human, but rather in the fuller sense of being. Of course, Jesus in his prehuman existence was a sentient being. Nothing else would fit with the revelations concerning him in Scripture.

• Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-11-06 21:22:28

  Jannai scripture teaches that God sent his only begotten Son. He therefore must have been his Son prior to the sending of him. Scripture also says that the Word was IN the beginning. And that this Word created all things.

  • Reply by anderestimme on 2014-11-06 22:10:08

    I agree with everything but the last sentence. John 1 clearly states that all things were made "through" him. He had a role in creation, but was not the Creator.

    • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-06 22:24:23

      Where does the scripture teach us that Jesus merely had a "role" in creation? Colossians 1:16-17

    • Reply by anderestimme on 2014-11-07 12:12:03

      "for through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can't see--such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world. Everything was created through him and for him." Col. 1.16 NLT
      It's still through him. Granted, his role in creation could only have been greater had he been the Creator himself.

• Reply by markchristopher on 2014-11-07 03:38:36

  Jannai40
  I think your on to something there.

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-11-07 01:55:23

Which 'beginning' - I would be intrigued as to which 'beginning' the Bible is referring to. So far we have only been presented with a speculative beginning about a period of time the Bible does not even refer to. The FIRST BEGINNING in the Bible begins with Genesis. To talk with about any other beginning is mere speculation. On the other hand the hand, starting from Genesis, the Bible talks of many other Beginnings. Do a word search.
Also, how many creative acts are there in the Bible? Is it just Genesis? So which creation is John or Paul (ie Colossians 1:16) talking about?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-07 07:34:38

  In the context of John 1 we have the Word named as the one through whom and by whom all things came into existence. (vs. 3) In the previous verse, he is spoken of as being in the beginning with God. So the context would lead us to conclude that the beginning spoken of here is the same of Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-11-07 03:20:12

"In the beginning was the word" does not mean "In the beginning was the Son".
"As a man thinks in his heart (and speaks) so "is" he. (Proverbs 23:7). In the beginning there was the word, that is the word of God. John did not say that the word was a spokesperson. However, the word can "become" a spokesperson, and that is what happened when God expressed Himself in a Son by bringing Jesus onto the scene of history. Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and prior to that Jesus did not exist.
When we learn the truth about Jesus Christ, then our understanding of him and the Kingdom, and the role we will have in that Kingdom as his brothers becomes clear - it is not difficult once we know the truth of God's Word, the Bible.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-07 07:40:52

  For all following this discussion, there is a topic on "The Pre-Human Existence of Jesus" on the Discuss the Truth forum. The various arguments pro and con have been debated there quite extensively--24 pages worth and counting. :)
  

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-07 03:45:34

Meleti,
After reading your article. I was left with the impression that Jesus Christ pre existed as a a god separate from the Father God but both exist outside time and space. But creation, including angels came from the Father and the Son?Is that correct?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-07 07:45:37

  God exists outside of the space/time continuum of the physical universe. As for Jesus and the angels, I don't really know. Obviously they can interact with our continuum. The Father of all is the creator of all, but he used his son as his word made manifest in creating all things. That is my understanding at present.

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-11-07 05:33:16

Meleti, when reading the comments, I get the impression that in order to help people understand John 1:1, it would be helpful if we could bring in some thoughts with regard to the pre-existence/non pre-existence of Jesus Christ. I know that we have the discussion board which is very helpful to people, but I think I am right in saying that many prefer the calm of BP. No offence intended, of course - we are very grateful for the discussion board, but I don't think it is for everyone, but of course it does serve a valuable purpose for many.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-07 07:47:43

  I take your point, Jannai40 and agree that each forum has its role. I plan to develop the theme you mention in upcoming articles in this series on The Word.

• Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-11-08 19:15:53

  I would have to agree with Jannai. To be honest I only discovered this site less than a month ago but have learned so much from the articles but also from all the posts and comments too. As timothy tells us - Ponder over these (Spiritual) things. And this site allows us to do just that, being able to digest other people's thoughts is all part of the learning process. And this is the best format for doing that.
  So thanks to everyone for the articles and comments I know we all appreciate the work you put into this Meliti.

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-07 10:44:23

I think Jannai40 has some very thoughtful ideas.I think when the bible uses the term “the Word” its literally an expression from God himself.Its not a separate entity apart from God.Not a literal “he”
In proverbs 8, wisdom and prudence are described as a he or even she.But actually I see that God is Wisdom and proverbs just uses poetic expressions to illustrate how God uses his wisdom.When God sends forth his wisdom he is not sending an entity who is literally his son.
Prov 1"Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice."
Prov 1:12I," wisdom, dwell together with prudence”
Is wisdom/understanding really a female being?Does wisdom literally co-habit with the entity prudence?
Is Gods Word an entity that lived along side God before creation?Or is the Apostle John using the same familiar poetic language used in the old testament?
Meleti,My own personal opinion is that I think to hinge an idea on whether there is an “a” in John 1:1 may not necessary lead you in the right direction.Maybe it will? I'm eager already for your next instalment! I don,t think The identity of Jesus Christ lies in what kind of being he was/is but rather, that Jesus the man is an expression of Gods divine character in a man.Thats why we love him and listen to him.But I think you already know that.

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-11-07 10:51:17

Just an interesting point that I came across - If you had a copy of an English Bible in any of the eight English versions available prior to 1582, you would gain a very different sense from the opening verses of John:
"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. All things came into being through it and without it nothing was made that was made."

• Reply by markchristopher on 2014-11-07 12:33:05

  Good find, Jannai40!

• Reply by Nightingale on 2014-11-10 05:56:34

  This is a very important point. The capital W was added there at some point, there were no capital letters in the original Greek. If the word is an "it" instead of a "he", it changes the meaning of the whole passage.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-10 08:48:22

    We determine whether it is "it" or "he" based on the context. There is no basis contextually for the idea that the Word is an "it".

  • Reply by menrov on 2014-11-10 10:46:07

    If I am not mistaken, in Greek there was not use of capitals or non-capitals, all letters were the same. The use of capitals comes in much later and it is up to the translator to apply or not to apply a capital.

Comment by Anonymous. on 2014-11-07 11:14:21

Great series, Meleti!
I think the problem is this: On one extreme end of the spectrum, you have christians who treat Jesus as if he is Almighty God himself. And on the opposite extreme end you have Jehovah's Witnesses who treat Jesus as if he's little more than an angel - a "spirit creature" (Don't you just love how they de-personify him with that expression?).
It is my view that the truth lies in the middle. Jesus has the same nature as God Almighty. Hebrews says he's the exact representation of God's very being. This would explain why he's called God's only begotten Son and the only-begotten god. Unlike the other angels, he truly shares God's nature.
To explain what I mean in comparing Jesus with God and differentiating him from the other angels, think of an asexual man who gives birth to a son and then involved his son in the creation of an army of robots. The man = God Almighty; his son = Jesus; the robots = the angels. Jesus is as superior and as different to the angels as the man's son is superior and different to the robots. But Jesus is as similar in nature to God as the man's son is as human as the man is. Still, the man is older, stronger and with more authority than his son. Likewise God almighty occupies a superior position to Jesus even though Jesus shares his unique God-nature.
So in short, Jesus is not to be worshipped on par with God as many do. But neither is he to be slighted and refused his due honor like JWs do. Imagine someone treating the man's son like he's a robot or an animal. That's analogous to how JWs treat Jesus - they even call him a creature, a "spirit creature"! While he is technically a creature in the sense of being created, the word creature as used today often carries sub-human and animalistic connotations. In modern usage, a creature is some weird insect you find in your backyard that you lack the expertise to identify, a creature is some weird, ghastly looking, sub-human alien discovered by interplanetary explorers. Ought we to be frequently using the word "creature", with all it's dehumanizing connotations to refer to a God who is more human-like than we are given that we were made in his image? Yet, I see many instances where Watchtower publications use the expression "spirit creature" when referring to Jesus. It's as if the writers are lacking in emotional intelligence. I have noticed the term "spirit person" in a more recent publication. I hope this is going to start a trend of referring to Jesus as a spirit person instead of a spirit creature.

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-11-07 13:53:40

Hi Meleti first of all thank you for allowing me to be a guest on your site and to allow me to comment. I really do appreciate your graciousness, especially since I hold an opposing view and think that you may not be considering all the facts. Unlike our 'human masters' you have dignity and love to allow those who disagree with you to say their piece and for that I am grateful.
Now to my points
Time
Meleti your premise is based on a remarkable statement that Time is a created construct. Really? Can you be so sure, when the nature of time itself is a phenomena that man and science are still debating and trying to understand after two thousand and more years. So to talk about the Logos existing before Time was created is speculative at best, since nobody knows what Time really is.
Phil 1:16 - I struggle to see your argument. The sentence says 'is' not 'was'. The use of 'is' indicates the present not past. Therefore the most that we can take from this statement is about Jesus' CURRENT nature.So in the context of THIS scripture we cannot talk of the past (for the reasons I just stated), ergo THIS scripture be referring to the past Genesis account. Therefore what creation is Paul referring to? When you answer that question, we might have a better understanding of John vs 3 when it says 'all things were created by him and through him'.
Also whilst we are on John vs 3 since you mentioned it Jannai40 made a valid point which you did not respond to. It was only after Tyndale do we see personality being brought to bear in the translation of verse 3. Tyndale and those before him translated the Logos as 'it'. Do you know why? Here is a little Gk grammar for you (and for those that can follow)
One God and One Lord:Reconsidering the cornerstone of Christian Faith - has this to say about the said verse:
The pronoun "him" in John 1 : 3 ("through him all
things were made"), can legitimately be translated as
"it." It does not have to be translated as "him," and it
does not have to refer to a "person" in any way. A
primary reason why people get the idea that "the
Word" is a person is that the pronoun "he" is used with
it. The Greek text does, of course, have the masculine
pronoun, because as we have already pointed out, the
Greek language a gender to all nouns, and the
gender of the pronoun must agree with the gender of
the noun. Because the noun controlling the pronouns
verse three is logos, the pronouns in Greek are all
masculine, but they would only be translated into
English as "he" if the noun were speaking of a person,
not a thing. If the logos is not a literal person, then the
pronoun should be translated as "it. "
Once we clearly understand that the gender of a
pronoun is determined by the gender of the noun, we
can see why one cannot build a doctrine on the gender
of a noun and its agreeing pronoun. No student of the
Bible should take the position that "the Word" is
somehow a masculine person based on its pronoun any
more than he would take the position that a book was a
feminine person or a desk was a masculine person
because that is the gender assigned to those nouns
the French language. Indeed, if one tried to build a
theology based on the gender of the noun in the
language, great confusion would result. In Hebrew,
"spirit" is feminine and must have feminine pronouns,
while in Greek, "spirit" is neuter and takes neuter
pronouns Thus, a person trying to build a theology on
the basis of the gender of the noun and pronoun would
find himself in an interesting situation trying to explain
how it could be that "the spirit" of God somehow
changed genders when the New Testament was written.
Because the translators of the Bible have almost
always been Trinitarians, and because "the Word" has
almost always been associated with Christ, the
pronouns referring to the logos in verse three have
almost always been translated as "him."
Later on in the same book, again talking about the issue when translating pronouns it has this to say using a vivid illustration....
.....This is true in the translation of any language that assigns a gender to nouns. In Spanish, a car is masculine, el carro, while a bicycle is feminine, la bicicleta. Again, no English translator would translate “the car, he,” or “the bicycle, she.” People translating Spanish into English use the word “it” when referring to a car or bicycle. For another example, a Greek feminine noun is “anchor” (agkura), and literally it would demand a feminine pronoun. Yet no English translator would write “I accidentally dropped the anchor, and she fell through the bottom of the boat.” We would write, “it” fell through the bottom of the boat. In Greek, “wind” (anemos) is masculine, but we would not translate it into English that way. We would say, “The wind was blowing so hard it blew the trash cans over,” not “the wind, he blew the trash cans over.” When translating from another language into English, we have to use the English language properly. Students who are studying Greek, Hebrew, Spanish, French, German, etc., quickly discover that one of the difficult things about learning the language is memorizing the gender of each noun—something we do not have in the English language.
I would also like to add, that many unbiased commentators have made exactly the same observation about verse 3
Philo
You still haven't addressed the problem of Philo; the Jewish philosopher circa 20BCE who mixed GREEK philosophy with HEBREW scripture (that I mentioned in the first article in this series).
Your opening statement to this post began with these words
As the writing of the Bible drew to its close, Jehovah
inspired the aged Apostle John to reveal some important
truths concerning Jesus’ prehuman existence.
John revealed his name was “The Word” (Logos, for purposes of our study) in the opening verse of his gospel.
However DECADES prior to this so called inspiration, Philo had come to exactly this SAME conclusion by mixing Greek philosophy with Hebrew scriptures. That means either
1. God inspired Philo
2. Philo had a lucky guess
3. Philo musings were a product of a human mind and if inspired, certainly not by God
Position 1 CANNOT be true - God does not use or need human wisdom to inspire his servants
Position 2 - impossible since no man can second guess God
Position3 - the only tenable choice left. Therefore to present the Logos as you described in this essay is flawed human reasoning.
I would like to say at this point Meleti I mean you no disrespect by wording the last sentence as I did. If any offence is caused you have my humblest apology, but I was trying to be succinct as possible. You and Apollos have made an outstanding contribution not only to mine but countless others understanding of scriptures and untangling the WT twisted interpretations. For that, both of you deserve 'double honor'
1Ti_5:17 Let the older men who preside in a fine way be reckoned worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching.
If you or others think I have been rude, please let me know and I will refrain from making any further comments on this or any other articles you write on this subject.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-07 14:48:54

  Hi ImJustAsking,
  To answer some of your question, for time does not permit me to answer all that this point.
  Re: Time as a creation. Science has proven though experimentation that the speed at which time flows differs based on the speed of the object experience it. So if you travel very close to the speed of light, you would age very slowly. Since time is part of the fabric of space, it is part of the physical universe. So for there to be time as we know it, there must be matter in motion. The faster the matter moves, the slower the time. It follows then that God must exist outside of time. He cannot be subject to it, but it is subject to him.
  Re: Phil 1:16 I'm not sure what you are referring to as 'my argument'. I don't recall discussion that verse.
  As for Jonnai40's point, I didn't reply because he wasn't proving anything, just stating an observation for consideration, one translator's way of rendering John 1:1.
  >>A primary reason why people get the idea that “the Word” is a person is that the pronoun “he” is used with it.
  I would argue that this statement is false. The primary reason people get the idea "the Word" is a person is because John identifies him as one not only in the rest of this Chapter, but also at Revelation 19:13.
  However, based on the principle at Prov. 26:5, I would have this to say to the writer of that book. If "it" is the legitimate and proper translation, then it should be used throughout where the word is rendered in John 1. Therefore we would have the following 'corrected' translation:
  “It was in the world, and the world came into existence through it, but the world did not know it. 11 It came to its own home, but its own people did not accept it. 12 However, to all who did receive it, it gave authority to become God’s children, because they were exercising faith in its name. 13 And they were born, not from blood or from a fleshly will or from man’s will, but from God. 14 So the Word (it) became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of its glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son (still it) from a father; and it was full of divine favor and truth.” (Joh 1:10-14)
  The reasoning the writer uses is based on grammatic gender, not the misused meaning of gender as a euphemism for sex. He refers to Spanish noun gender. John 1:1 in Spanish read, "En el principio, la palabra era...". The Word is "la palabra" and the definite article "la" is in the feminine gender. But the gender of the noun does not affect the user of the masculine or feminine pronoun used to describe the person the noun applies to. For example, "El Presidente" is a masculine now, but if the president is a woman called Maria, a Spanish speaker would say, "Ella (She) es el presidente, Susana". Not "El (he) es el presidente, Susana."
  As for your question regarding Philo, I have only heard what others are saying about him. I haven't read his words firsthand so I can't really answer responsibly. If those who have brought him up would care to show the specific quotes in question and include links to reference material, I might venture to comment further.

  • Reply by imjustasking on 2014-11-07 17:58:05

    Time - hmm. You are a brave man to speculate on something we understand so little of (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time) much less how it relates to beings in another dimension. I get your point you made but it is still speculative since it cannot be confirmed either through the Bible or scientifically.
    Phil 2:16 - Sorry I meant your reference to Colossians 1:15. So I'll repeat the point I made earlier again:
    The sentence says ‘is’ not ‘was’. The use of ‘is’ indicates the present not past. Therefore the most that we can take from this statement is about Jesus’ CURRENT nature.So in the context of THIS scripture we cannot talk of the past (for the reasons I just stated), ergo THIS scripture be referring to the past Genesis account. Therefore what creation is Paul referring to? When you answer that question, we might have a better understanding of John vs 3 when it says ‘all things were created by him and through him’.
    Regarding why people identify the Word as a person. You said..
    I would argue that this statement is false. The primary reason people get the idea “the Word” is a person is because John identifies him as one not only in the rest of this Chapter, but also at Revelation 19:13.
    The first 2 verses do not identify the word as a person, but rather your own eisigesis. I'm sure before you (along with billions of others) have even finished reading verse 1, your mind is already made up on two points. The first that the beginning must refer to Genesis (as if there are not any other beginnings mentioned - especially in the synoptic Gospels) and secondly the word is the pre-incarnate Jesus.
    Now indeed the rest of John does state the word became a person, but it is non sequitur to say the word had to be a person before it became flesh. As MarkChristopher said succintly:
    Is Gods Word an entity that lived along side God before creation?Or is the Apostle John using the same familiar poetic language used in the old testament?
    I guess the answer depends on one's bias, but we should follow the evidence not our biases.
    You then go onto say that if we referred to the word as 'it' in verse 3, then we would have to continue to do so in the rest of the passages. But that is exactly the point, the 'it' becomes a person. Just in the same way God's word(s) became tangible objects in the creation at Genesis so here God's word becomes tangible in the shape of Jesus.
    Next you mention Jesus in Revelation. But this is fallacious. Revelation is in the future and you are talking about the past. If I qualify to become a teacher today and somebody calls me 'teacher', does it follow that I've always been that teacher? Jesus became the Word and remains such, forever.
    Philo - okay I did some heavy lifting for you, and I mentioned this extensively in your first posting on this topic. For your benefit, I've copied what I wrote previously here:
    Philo (a Jew c.20BCE-40 CE heavily influenced by Greek philosophy)
    Do we hold the view of a pre-incarnate Jesus as the Logos because of Philo? Philo wrote about a Logos well before John wrote his Gospel. Did Philo manage to second guess God before his revealed time? So strong are the links between Philo’s teaching and the Gospels (as well as Paul’s writings) that many hold the view that Christians borrowed from Philo.Here are some quotes taken from the ‘Internet Encyclopedia of Philosopy’
    Thus Philo produced a synthesis of both traditions developing concepts for future Hellenistic interpretation of messianic Hebrew thought, especially by Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen. He may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John (C. H. Dodd) and the Epistle to the Hebrews (R. Williamson and H. W. Attridge). In the process, he laid the foundations for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today. Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity. The church preserved the Philonic writings because Eusebius of Caesarea labeled the monastic ascetic group of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides, described in Philo’s The Contemplative Life, as Christians, which is highly unlikely. Eusebius also promoted the legend that Philo met Peter in Rome. Jerome (345-420 C.E.) even lists him as a church Father. END QUOTE
    That was the man, what did he teach? (all of the quotes below are un-edited and taken directly from the aforementioned website)
    A- Was begotten
    The Logos which God begat eternally because it is a manifestation of God’s thinking-acting (Prov. 1.7; Sacr. 65; Mos. 1.283), is an agent that unites two powers of the transcendent God. Philo relates that in an inspiration his own soul told him:
    B – Holds the universe together
    In certain places in his writings Philo accepts the Stoic theory of the immanent Logos as the power or Law binding the opposites in the universe and mediating between them, and directing the world. For example, Philo envisions that the world is suspended in a vacuum and asks, how is it that the world does not fall down since it is not held by any solid thing. Philo then gives the answer that the Logos extending himself from the center to its bounds and from its extremities to the center again, runs nature’s course joining and binding fast all its parts.
    C – First born of God
    The Logos has an origin, but as God’s thought it also has eternal generation. It exists as such before everything else all of which are secondary products of God’s thought and therefore it is called the “first-born.” The Logos is thus more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension, to which Philo ascribes many names and functions. The Logos is the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father:
    D – The Angel of the Lord
    Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture (Gen. 31:13; 16:8; etc) by an angel of the Lord (Somn. 1.228-239; Cher. 1-3). The Logos is the first-born and the eldest and chief of the angels.
    The above is not a complete list of the things Philo thought about the Word/Logos but one cannot help but see the similarities of the pre-incarnate Jesus and those held by JW’s. So did Philo beat God to revealing the true identity of Jesus as the Logos or did the church adopt the idea and that we (JWs) have become unwitting carriers of a hybrid Greek/Hebrew philosophy that pre-dated the Gospels by many decades?
    I think it is because of Philo that I've started to think twice about the whole question regarding the Logos.
    Hence in light of the above I put the same questions I asked earlier to you again.
    1. God inspired Philo
    2. Philo had a lucky guess
    3. Philo's musings were a product of a human mind and if inspired, certainly not by God
    Position 1 CANNOT be true – God does not use or need human wisdom to inspire his servants
    Position 2 – impossible since no man can second guess God
    Position3 – the only tenable choice left. Therefore to present the Logos as you described in this essay is flawed human reasoning.
    I can't get my head around how a toxic mix of Greek speculation/philosophy with the scriptures resembles so closely your arguments and also what would have been mine just a few months ago.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-07 20:03:36

      Re: Time. It isn't speculation. It's proven scientific fact. However, if we accept your view, then God exists in time. That would make God subject to time. Can you see Jehovah caught in the stream of time as we are? And then who invented time if not God, or do you think that time always existed? Is so then it is a quality of God. If so, then why do the scriptures not teach this.
      Re: Col. 1:5 I happen to be the firstborn of my family. Using your logic, I must say "I was the firstborn". Yet that is not how we speak, is it? "I would say I am the firstborn of my family." Because I'm still alive and as long as I live, I am the firstborn. Jesus is still alive, so he "is" the firstborn. I'm sorry, but this makes no sense grammatically nor semantically.
      >>The first that the beginning must refer to Genesis (as if there are not any other beginnings mentioned – especially in the synoptic Gospels) and secondly the word is the pre-incarnate Jesus.
      You are wrong on this. It is only after reading the whole of the chapter that I can understand who the Word is. As for the beginning, if you reread my article you'll see that my mind is not made up about that at all.
      >>I guess the answer depends on one’s bias, but we should follow the evidence not our biases.
      I agree, but you have yet to present evidence that the Word was an "it" that converted to a person only after becoming human. It's an interesting theory, but without scriptural proof, that's all it is.
      If MarkChristopher will provide me with Scriptural proof for this theory, then I'll happily spend time considering it.
      >>Next you mention Jesus in Revelation. But this is fallacious. Revelation is in the future and you are talking about the past.
      To the contrary. John wrote the Revelation. Then he wrote his gospel. In both he uses the same name for Jesus. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever.” (Heb 13:8) He was the Word, is the Word and will always be the Word.
      Thanks for the Philo references, but it doesn't help as I need to read his own words not a synopsis by others. But first answer a question. If the devil, using his personal knowledge of the relationship between Jehovah and Logos were to reveal so some pagan writer intimate details of heaven, would that invalidate later the writings of an inspired Bible writer?
      On a personal note, this forum isn't for this type of debate. If you would like to pursue this further, please use discussthetruth.com so that we can get others involved in the discussion.

    • Reply by markchristopher on 2014-11-08 05:53:20

      Meleti said
      “If MarkChristopher will provide me with Scriptural proof for this theory, then I’ll happily spend time considering it.”
      I should of put it another way. Are you saying that the Word exisited along side God as a seperate being without a beginning.No.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 07:50:19

      No, I'm not saying that.

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-11-07 17:52:24

Colossians 1:16 Taking the scripture in context, it could be said that it is referring to the new creation - the Kingdom of God. (Colossians 1:13-18)

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-07 20:07:36

  Except that verse 16 doesn't relate to the new creation. 17 says he is before all things.
  18 calls him the firstborn from the dead. So he is both firstborn of all creation (not just some creation. The new creation is some not all) He is firstborn of the dead. A separate firstborn status.
  To show they are two distinct firstborn statuses, Paul says, "so that he might become the one who is first in all things."

  • Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-11-08 05:45:43

    Jesus is "before all things" Colossians 1:17 - the word "before" indicating, as it often does, supremacy of rank rather than priority in time. Jesus is chronologically prior to all others in the "new" creation. He is chronologically prior to the world in God's plan to grant him the inheritance of all things. He is the first to gain immortality by resurrection, thus in verse 18 Jesus is the "firstborn from the dead". It was his resurrection from the dead which established him as supreme under God over the whole new creation and all authorities in it. Verse 18 is significant since Jesus' exaltation was "in order that" he might be in first position.

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-08 04:58:20

I was taught by the Watchtower that “firstborn” in Colossians has a literal meaning.I was letting them set the translation rule.However I believe its safe to let the bible do the interpretation. Meaning you look at what it meant previously in the old testament. Then you can see what it means in the new testament.
Regarding King David Jehovah says.
Psalm 89:27 “And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth”.
Jesus Christ is only referred to as the Son from the time he was on earth, before that he was the Word.As the Son proving himself worthy up until death, gains his firstborn status and also gains all authority over heaven and earth “firstborn from the dead”.
Also, it says the the Son is the image of the invisible God, again its not talking about the Sons pre existence in the heavens because as the Word he was invisible, so its taking about Jesus the man we can see and hear.
Its my humble and infallible opinion that Colossians is not teaching us that Jesus was the first created being ,but rather. He is the first in line of a new creation, but it also reminds us that through him “the Word” originally all things where created.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 07:48:32

  "Its my humble and infallible opinion"??? A bit of wry humor perchance?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 07:57:18

  So you are saying that Logos couldn't the "image" of God while in heaven, but only upon the earth?

  • Reply by markchristopher on 2014-11-08 10:38:00

    The surrounding context suggests its from a human perspective. Angels are also invisible, why would the Word entity be the image of an invisible God to them?
    “Its my humble and infallible opinion”??? A bit of wry humor perchance?
    I was being sincere, If I am wrong about how I presently see things I hope I have the capacity to admit I 'm wrong

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 15:32:14

      You sincerely feel your opinion is infallible?

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 08:01:13

  Also, following ImJustAsking's reasoning on the user of "is" vs. "was" in verse 16, if "firstborn" cannot apply to the past because of the present tense verb "is", then he must have been the image of the invisible God then. Since at the time of that writing he was also invisible, we cannot limit "image" to his visible state only.

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-08 08:41:15

  Mark Christopher -
  " Colossians is not teaching us that Jesus was the first created being ,but rather. He is the first in line of a new creation, but it also reminds us that through him “the Word” originally all things where created."
  On this I totally agree. I've look at Colossians at many different angles and it's my personal conclusion is the WT's explanation is at the root of the understandings that Jesus is a created being. The scriptures teach that Firstborn can be also title that can be transferred to another. Take David for instance... he was the last born in his family and yet : "Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him . . . I also shall make him My first-born." (see also Jer. 31:9 and Gen. 41:51-52)
  I don't think we can be dogmatic about Colossians one way or the other. But you cannot exclude at the very least that firstborn could mean something else. That's the starting point I believe and then we began to let scripture interpret scripture. ....

  • Reply by anderestimme on 2014-11-08 22:32:59

    BeDuhn's book claims that the grammatical construction of 'firstborn of creation' clearly indicates that Jesus is, indeed, 'of creation'. Do you have a good reason to doubt him on that?

    • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-09 09:18:29

      I don't doubt him because I have no idea who he is. I'm interested in why I should know who is and why his words should carry any weight...

    • Reply by anderestimme on 2014-11-09 12:36:39

      Sorry. His name's been mentioned so often in this forum I thought everyone on here knew who he was. Anyway, Jason BeDuhn wrote a book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament" that analyzes several NT translations and how they deal, primarily, with classic Trinitarian proof texts, among them, Col. 1.15-20. He points out that the NIV's "firstborn over creation" is entirely unjustified and that the phrase "of creation" indicates Jesus was part of creation. It's a fascinating read, though quite pricey.

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-11-08 05:56:19

Col 1:16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 Also, he is before all [other] things and by means of him all [other] things were made to exist,
Col 1:18 and he is the head of the body, the congregation. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that he might become the one who is first in all things;
Col 1:19 because [God] saw good for all fullness to dwell in him,
The purpose of the letter to Colossians was to remind them of the Lordship of the Christ, because they had turned to worshipping angels (2:18) and forgotten who the head was (Col. 2:19)
The verse does not say that Earth and Heavens were created by Him,
but rather IN heaven and ON earth. Therefore the earth and heaven
had to already exist
The things in the heaven would be invisible according to the verse and
the things created on earth would be visible
The context of the verse seems to suggest that what was created was rulership
since this is what Paul mentions, WITHIN the verse.
Question- is the ALL things just these rulerships?
If Jesus did participate in the creation of the Universe why does Jehovah say the following
Isa 44:24 This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly:
"I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth.
Who was with me?
The ALL things in Isaiah is very distinct meaning the heavens and earth, whereas the all things in Col. is rulerships, church structure etc (even as the verse states)
All things vs 16 the verse begins and ends with the same words - encircling the ALL, to let us know what the ALL is - just like book ends - this is a textual method called Epanadiplosis
vs 17 - "...before all things...." The word before is pro and can refer to time, place or position (ie superiority). The context seems to suggest that Jesus is before or in a superior position to the angels. If one was to think of time as the meaning 'before' then the next verse points out where in time Jesus enters to the story as the firstborn of the dead.

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-08 06:22:29

Jehovah brought things into existence by means of his Word.
Psalm 33:6 By The Word of Lord Jehovah the Heavens were made, and all his hosts by The Breath of his mouth.
So Jehovah alone created all things through his own Word.No one else’s. His own Word became flesh to save mankind from sin and death by means of a new creation

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-11-08 06:36:40

Meleti, may I make a suggestion - rather than going to the discussion board perhaps it would be more appropriate and beneficial if we could be allowed to continue this discussion with you and others here on BP. The very fact that there are over 24 pages on the topic about the Pre human existence of Jesus on the discussion board might indicate that we wouldn't get very far tackling it that way. For all of us, our desire is to reach the truth of God's Word and to help our brothers. Thank you.

Comment by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-08 08:12:38

Hi Meleti,
As you may already know our view regarding the nature of Christ differs. It seems that we agree on more than I originally realized and so I really appreciate and respect this strong article. I've learned so much... I'll be bookmarking this one.
That being said I am more of the same mind of INOG that this scripture alone does not disprove or prove the divinity of Jesus . The focus on this scripture is our unique rendering of it .
I'm surprised to learn over the last few months that there are some Christians that deny the divinity of the Christ and his pre existence. In my view it takes alot of scriptural gymnastics and discounting the book of John as uninspired. We may never know the true nature of Jesus' relationship to the Father.
I took a bit of a shortcut http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-One-God/
This site list some biblical the references .From beginning to end we see in that is a theme. The Jews worshiped One God.We worship one God. Was John introducing or revealing another God (a lesser one) to the Jews/gentiles ?
Titus 2:13 -" Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus"
The First century Christians had no problem with referring to Jesus as God while knowing he was in some way still subject to the Father :
Paul quotes psalm 45:6 at Hebrews 1:8 "But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom ".
So were has the Jesus vs Jehovah idea come from? This idea is partly responsible for the murder of Jesus. The Pharisees , scribes etc. had a Jesus vs. Jehovah problem. Why are we so fixed on what is unknowable at present? If The father intended us to distinguish/choose between Him as God and Jesus as God I would argue that he has made it very difficult for us to do that in scripture.
We must stick what the scriptures teach. In my view both the book of John and revelation tells us more about Jesus' heavenly existence than any other books. So in my view that's our starting point. We must start from the NT and work back. Here's what we know... John 1:1 with the article or not John was inspired to write that Jesus has no beginning from our perspective. To declare that he has a beginning from the perspective of the Almighty is speculation. (How can we possibly begin to do that anyway ?)
The Father has told us what he wanted us to know. Both he and Jesus are First and Last (there can't be Two first and Lasts can there? ) Both he and Jesus are Alpha and Omega. Both he and his son is God to us. They are the one True God. The father does not teach us that there is seperation in His inspired word so why do we insist there must seperation because we don't fully understand.
I fully expect you to rip this comment apart lol Be gentle; )

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 08:32:22

  Hi GodsWordIsTruth.
  I too was surprised the first time I learned that there are those who do not believe Jesus existed prior to his birth on earth.
  Thank you for that link by the way. I'll use it in my research. There have been many comments and varying arguments on Christ's nature and this is only the second in the series. Obviously, this is one of the more important topics for most. I concur with that, of course.
  I personally feel that Jesus had a beginning in a sense we cannot comprehend. I'll try to argue that point in the next article. But I admit that I cannot know that with certainty unless there is a text I'm unaware of that says "The Word had a beginning". I think there are texts that lead to that conclusion, but there is a difference between a conclusion and a plainly stated truth.
  Let's assume he had a beginning. What does that affect in our Christology? Now let's say he has always been. How does that affect our Christology?
  To be forthright, I can't see how it affects anything either way. Perhaps someone else out there has a thought on that.

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-08 09:22:06

    Meleti - "Let’s assume he had a beginning. What does that affect in our Christology? Now let’s say he has always been. How does that affect our Christology?
    To be forthright, I can’t see how it affects anything either way. Perhaps someone else out there has a thought on that."
    I agree that it doesn't affect anything either. It probably doesn't affect the Christology for most except for those who are trying to prove that Jesus is a man ( Muslims for instance ) or that he is a created being e.g Michael or an Angel ( JW's ) or Gnostics (I'm in the beginning stages of reading what it means to be Gnostic )
    I think that Micah 5:2 (depending on the translation ) gets us closer to the answer.
    Off subject I often wonder whether the many different translations of Gods inspired word is partly an avenue for Satan to blind " the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." We are believers and yet for 2000 years we are still debating who Christ really is. If this system lasts another 2000 years I wonder what will people will be saying regarding the Nature of the Christ then? Looking even at the link that I just posted I'm sure that you are able like I am to sort through the references to a "Godhead" and other trinitarian flavored verses. I would imagine that people who choose to use this version of the Bible are just as biased as we are when using the RNWT.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 15:28:22

      If, as I suspect, we cannot know for sure whether or not Logos had a beginning, I wonder why so much effort is put into establishing which it is. I have been thinking about this and think it worthy of a post. I'll withhold commenting further until I have got all my ducks in a row, but you have given me much food for thought. Thank you fellow iron. ;)

• Reply by markchristopher on 2014-11-08 12:46:52

  GodsWordIsTruth
  I just picked up on something you said
  “That being said I am more of the same mind of INOG that this scripture alone does not disprove or prove the divinity of Jesus”
  Understanding or proving Christ’s pre existence I would say is not about his divinity
  What does divinity mean? That Jesus pre existed as God?No.The bible never says Jesus is God because God is not a man.God is spirit.If God is the perfect personification of things like Love Wisdom Patience etc. And Jesus is the image of the invisible God and the exact representation of his very being.Then Jesus possesses the divine character in a man.So, therefore Jesus is divine no matter how we view his pre existence.

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-08 13:06:35

    I'm confused... I don't mean to offend but I must ask so that I can go back and read your comment:
    1.Do you at least believe that Jesus is [a] god ?
    2. Do you believe that he is presently a man in the heavens?

    • Reply by markchristopher on 2014-11-08 14:36:15

      Simply put Jesus is Jehovah in the form of a man.That man is now a mediator in heaven for all mankind.

    • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-08 21:06:55

      MarkChirstopher
      Not to derail the discussion even further but I believe that Jesus had to shed his humanity upon ascension. Otherwise it invalidates his sacrifice. We may disagree with how or when that happened ( bodily resurrection vs. Resurrection as spirit. )
      Perhaps the points being made in the "Jesus is still a Man " argument is going over my head. I see no reason why we would conclude that Jesus is still a Man no more than we would conclude he is an actual lamb that was slain or an actual lion of Judah . Especially when these arguments require to invalidate the scriptures in any way, discredit John or a complete overhaul in the way we read the scriptures.. If we can't believe John regarding our Lord then why can trust any of the accounts of any other Apostles ? (Matthew,Mark,Luke, Peter) Nor do I agree with the reasoning that I (a gentile ) must learn Hebrew (or greek) to ascertain the truth of God
      If he did not shed his humanity than he is still a Jewish man and since we shall be like him I guess that would mean that I will shed my ancestry and become a Jew. I admit it's a bit of oversimplification but that's my current view in a nutshell.

  • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-08 20:44:42

    Iron does indeed sharpen iron!
    In order to receive the fact that we might be in error, we actually have to believe we might be in error and actually be willing to accept the truth of the matter. We all have doctrinal blind spots and/or errors in our thinking. Acting on the belief that we are one of the few who has the Truth of the Scriptures is all too familiar. We should be careful not embrace an attitude that we are delivering a word of correction. When a person embraces such an air I think it is safe to assume that this person believes that they are speaking for God in a prophetic way . Since none of us can make that claim all we can do is merely sharpen. We know that the Word of God (person or not) "is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart". We grow in maturity when we can test our thoughts and ideas against another person, and when we're open to correction when we're wrong.

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-11-08 10:04:42

Hi Meleti and INOG I think the reason why you find it so hard to even consider the feasibility of the arguments myself and others have presented against your respective take on Jesus is because you are thinking like Greeks. Until you realise this, a different viewpoint cannot make sense to your mind. I was were you are now. I was a pioneer and a MS and my brain was hard wired with the same arguments you are presenting. It took a lot to arrive at the viewpoint I currently hold, but I think I have a richer view of Christ now.
Second - are you familiar with the concept of the Prophetic Perfect? This alone has a strong bearing on how we should read the scriptures as 'Hebrews' and not as Greeks which might help at least to view the scriptures from a different perspective.
It looks as if this is going to run and run and run and run.............................

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 15:29:32

  It always bothers me when others presume to know what I'm thinking.

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-11-08 10:05:49

INOG - who is that? Sorry I meant GodsWordIsTruth

• Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-08 13:46:23

  Hi IJA,
  I'm not thinking like a Greek I'm thinking like GWIT :) I don't read, study or research the Greek language. Unless you are stating that the current translations of the Bible has been wrongly translated with a Greek slant ...then in that case God help us all. I have faith that God has given me what He needs me to know.
  So let me be open (you probably know this already IJA) I'm leery of this Jesus is just a man reasoning. For me discussion begins with at the very least acknowledging that Jesus [a] god or divine. Otherwise, I consider myself pretty liberal .

Comment by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-11-08 10:19:44

The topic of Jesus and his nature has been one of primary concern for me for years and years. Judging from the intensity of debate here, a lot of friends here are as much engaged ;)
Speaking out of personal experience I feel like I really didn't make headway on the topic for many of years because I only read and considered the sources that were apologetic in nature. In other words, I was sure I had it right and really barely had my ears open to anyone else's opinion, and everything I read seemed to confirm how right I was ;) I bought books from Greg Stafford, Jason Beduhn, and eagerly watched debates and wrote down all the arguments I could use to support my position.
If we are to make any headway at all on this topic from a personal conviction, we will have to put our personal feelings aside, and really try to pray and objectively study the arguments given from each other. This will require great humility, but I am sure each of us can do it.
Even if we might not all reach the same conclusion, we have to remember that we are all united in the idea that we believe in One Lord who is our Savior and we do not rely on our own righteousness but look to him for salvation. Theology should never be a tool to decide the body of Christ.

Comment by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-11-08 11:00:03

Imjustasking, of course I am thinking like the Greeks because I studied Greek for 6 years in school ;)
All phun indented aside, I agree there will definitely be an influence from the WT Society, which in term took their inspiration somewhere else.
That being said, I won't automatically discard the position simply because the WT teaches it. I am not a conspiracy theorist either, to where I go by the idea that everything was corrupted and every current scholar is corrupted, I simply try to look as objectively as I can to each argument and then take a position for best available reasons.
"I can’t get my head around how a toxic mix of Greek speculation/philosophy with the scriptures resembles so closely your arguments and also what would have been mine just a few months ago."
You realize you are constructing a straw man argument here right?
Just because Philo came to similar realizations when studying the OT, therefore it must automatically be rejected given that he was clearly influenced by Plato?
Objectively you should really try to take the arguments and look at their value, not who they come from.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 15:35:08

  I concur with your reasoning. You put it better than I would have.

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-11-08 11:18:03

imjustasking and markchristopher
I find your comments to be very interesting and encouraging, and I thank you.
Jannai40

Comment by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-11-08 11:45:19

I think this platform is not capable of handling long posts ;/ I have typed out two elaborate posts with scriptures and each time it crashed. I have to get into the habit of saving it somewhere else, I should know better.

• Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-11-08 12:19:13

  INOG, Do you think elaborate posts are necessary? Is it not best to keep it simple so that everyone can understand what is being said. No offence, it's just a thought, after all Jesus was a man of few words, was he not, yet very easy to understand.

  • Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-11-08 12:32:02

    I could just assert my position without giving any explanation, but that would not be advantageous to the discussion. Further, being elaborate does not need to be complicated ;)
    Basically it comes down to this. To me the overwhelming testimony of Paul and John leave no room for a non-pre-existing Jesus in the person of the Logos.
    Paul and John essentially say the same thing about the Logos. Paul said through the Son everything was created, John said through the Logos everything was created.
    There are so many verses that underline the pre-existence of the Son/Logos that yes I could literary spend a couple of page scrolls with just that ;)
    Also I fear that the denial of this testimony leaves the door open for even more theories, like adoptionionism and other constructions.
    I realize and have read clever attempts by Buzzard and other Unitarian around many verses, but in the end the explanations get so complicated and often very farfetched.
    Basically, I do not see the need to adopt a farfetched (in my view) explanation if a more simple, straightforward solution of scriptural harmony exists.

    • Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-11-08 13:06:19

      INOG, I'm not sure what you mean by clever attempts by Buzzard and other Unitarian - perhaps you could explain that? It may just be, of course, that these ones are just as sincere as we are in reaching for the truth. What if Buzzard is right, or what if Meleti is right. We cannot say for sure if anyone has everything right - that is the trap we fell into as JWs. Now we listen and search and prayerfully make up our own minds in what we believe at this time to be in harmony with God's Word.

    • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 15:41:03

      Thank you, InNeedOfGrace. I agree with you on your observation of the weight of evidence that both Paul and John provide regarding the pre-existence of Jesus. It is easy to get lost in the complex sophistry of men, but the truth of scripture is appealing because of its simplicity.

    • Reply by imjustasking on 2014-11-08 17:46:25

      >> Also I fear that the denial of this testimony leaves the door open for even more theories, like adoptionionism and other constructions.
      My, my. Are you now saying that unless we agree with YOUR interpretation that we will be walking out the exit?
      A Trinitarian would say the same thing to you. In his eyes the scriptures clearly teach the Trinity and you are the heretic and the lost soul. Truth seems to be in the mind of the beholder.
      How divisive this topic is and look how quickly the mud starts flying!!

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 18:07:51

        If we feel others are throwing mud—and I'm not suggesting they are—we can do little about it. What we can do however is not throw it back. The tone of some of the recent comments is beginning to sound argumentative. Why don't we all take a deep breath, count to ten, and then if we wish to make a comment, read it over a couple of times before hitting the reply button?

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-08 13:51:22

Not sure where that came from either!

• Reply by imjustasking on 2014-11-08 15:22:08

  Jannai40 - I'll second your last comment. Well put. If we start making dogmatic statements on this subject, it moves from a discussion to assertion, to division, to persecution, to hate. We only have to look at the pain the Church has gone through for the last 2000 years on this very subject. And who gains as we persecute one another and slander one another, just because we think we have the truth. Let's be careful on this subject and not give the Devil any room to lodge.
  I have in the last 6 months becomes friend with a staunch Trinitarian. We met at a Christian apologetics conference over the summer. Although we don't see eye to eye on this subject we respect each other's position and have had some wonderful discussions. I call him my brother and he calls me brother. Lets remember what we have in common - we bend our knee to Him as our Lord and God. That is all he requires at the moment - whether we are Trinitarian, Unitarian or anything else, because as interesting as this subject is, it is NOT a salvation issue.

Comment by Jannai40 on 2014-11-08 16:20:21

Meleti, In your last reply to INOG, am I to understand that when you say, "It is easy to get lost in the complex sophistry of men, but the truth of scripture is appealing because of its simplicity," that you are referring to Buzzard and Unitarian, because some people might think you are. There are most probably those who hold to those beliefs who are listening here, and I certainly do not think they would appreciate your comments.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 17:16:33

  Are the arguments of Buzzard and Unitarian complex and sophistic, or simple and clear?

  • Reply by imjustasking on 2014-11-08 17:39:22

    1Co 1:12 What I mean is this, that each one of YOU says: "I belong to Paul," "But I to A·pol'los," "But I to Ce'phas," "But I to Christ."
    Who is Buzzard? Who are the Unitarians? Who are the JW's? Who are the Christadelphians?
    I belong to no man or group of men.
    I'm trying to allow God's word speak to me and it isn't saying the same thing to me, as you are.

    • Reply by ilovejesus333 on 2014-11-08 20:26:32

      IJA,
      I made a comment earlier about listening, digesting other peoples thoughts on this site and in doing so begins the learning process. Here we can all discuss the deeper things of the scriptires. We are all searching for truth yet as someone commented earlier, we still find difficulty after 2,000 years as to the identity even relationship of God and Christ. So what really is the truth? Well it's in the bible isn't it? The scribes and Pharisees were obsessed with keeping every tiny detail of the law that they lost sight of its original purpose. Theydidn't love God or their fellow man, still they believed they were keeping the law. They made the law a burden to the people and it wasn't done out of love for them. Do we sometimes make a burden of Gods word by not keeping Jesus message simple?
      Did those religious leaders have the truth back then? No because they were lacking love.
      Having the "truth" is cultivating the two greatest commandments Mt 22;36 These words came from the greatest teacher who ever lived "love others as i have loved you" and once wehave this truth we can then begin to grow in it and understand the deeper things. And that is what this site provides, it enables us to read and digest other people ideas, and to be honest the majority of comments here are based on the bible. What better way to learn than listening to the Great Teacher

Comment by imjustasking on 2014-11-08 17:32:46

Meleti just because we don't agree with you, there is no need to label our position in such derogatory terms. There is no sophistry at play here. I understand your argument fully, since I used to hold the same views. But I'm entitled (as are others) to change ones views in light of more compelling evidence, which you have failed to provide (at least for me) without the suggestion that somehow I have been mislead or am misleading others.You and INOG are beginning to sound like our old 'mother' - please don't go there.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-08 18:02:55

  You are, of course, entitled to change your views. You seem to be taking offense were none was intended. I was making a general statement. It was Jannai40 who inferred the specificity, which is why I asked her for clarification.
  As for the alleged lack of compelling evidence, I thought I had provided that in my article. If you do not find it compelling, well, as you say, you are entitled to your view.

Comment by Billy on 2014-11-08 17:54:44

John 1:30New American Standard Bible (NASB)
30 This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who [a]has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’
If Jesus didn't have a pre human existence then how does this scripture fit?
I have enjoyed the article and the discussion has been very thought provoking. I have a much deeper view of the "word" as used in John 1:1 and it's fulfillment in Jesus.

• Reply by imjustasking on 2014-11-09 01:42:04

  Billy the answer to your question is found in what is called the prophetic perfect.
  Look it up.

  • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-09 04:58:48

    This is an example of a dismissive reply. We discourage that on this site. See Commenting Etiquette for more information.

    • Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-11-09 05:45:08

      Meleti, I've just been reading about the prophetic perfect and found it very interesting - I hadn't heard of it before and I think it would help sincere truth seekers in their research, so I am certainly grateful for the information. To be honest, I didn't think the comment to be a dismissive reply.
      Just a thought with regard to the discussion board - have you noticed there is an exceedingly rude name of one of the members there and I must admit that I was extremely surprised that it had been allowed. I was concerned because I know someone personally who visits the site and I was worried that this would cause him to be stumbled.

      • Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-09 07:45:57

        I appreciate your opinion Jannai40, but the rules we try to abide by in our discussions are:
        1. Lay a solid foundation of truth using the Scriptural record to support every facet of your argument.
        2. Quote from Scripture when making an argument.
        3. If referring to an outside reference such as a scholarly resource or Bible commentary, quote the words in the text of the comment and then provide a reference to the publication, page and paragraph to guide the reader to the actual source material.
        4. Avoid reviling, and abusive or judgmental comments. (1 Pet. 2:23; 3:9; Jude 9)
        5. If suggesting an alternate interpretation, after laying a solid foundation, make sure to identify it as theory or speculation.
        6. Always be respectful.
        As for the other thing, please send a personal message to the DTT forum administrators.

  • Reply by kev c on 2014-11-12 07:00:46

    What has that to do with the prophetic perfect .john clearly states that jesus existed before him . Isnt the prophetic perfect when a future prophetic event is spoken of as in the past or present in english .in words such as is or was . It seems theres a difficulty in hebrew to describe future events . So in english they are spoken of as already happening even though they are future . But in this verse is john really describing a future event or just a plain fact ..that jesus existed before him . .kev c

    • Reply by kev c on 2014-11-12 08:19:54

      And the other thing is thats in hebrew arent we qouting the christian greek scriptures or am i just way off track .

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-09 06:00:18

I agree with ilovejesus333.Christianity for the last 2000 years has struggled explaining Christ’s pre existence. I don,t think thats going to change anytime soon..I do sense a little tension in the discussion, so I will mull over the comments and maybe something will click later.

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-10 11:04:06

GodsWordIsTruth
I don,t believe Jesus is still a man in heaven. I believe that because he dwelt amongst men, he shared in our humanity and suffering and takes that experience with him.I don,t subscribe to Anthony Buzzards idea that he is fully human in heavenActually, I am not sure how he arrives at that idea.He makes a lot of sense in other areas, but that one makes no sense to me.What kind of body Jesus has now can't be human.For one thing he walked through walls.

• Reply by InNeedOfGrace on 2014-11-10 11:38:19

  When most Christians say that Jesus is a man in heaven, they don't mean a man like we are men today. They mean a glorified man (man in a glorified body). The reason they stick with the idea that Jesus is a man as far as I know are scriptures like there is one mediator between men and God, a MAN, Jesus Christ. So they maintain that he is a man, while also having a glorified body.
  Another reason I have often heard is that Jesus he got resurrected in his same body, and that furnished proof of the resurrection. They could touch the nails in Jesus' hand to see that he was real.

  • Reply by markchristopher on 2014-11-10 11:53:41

    Yes.I agree Thanks for clarifying INOG.

    • Reply by GodsWordIsTruth on 2014-11-12 17:48:00

      Thanks for clarifying INOG. I'm sorry to have misrepresented your position MarkChristopher. I do believe that the scriptures ssupport that Jesus was physically resurrected . I personally have reasoned on this and I believe that he returned to the glory he had "before the world began. " John seems to say that before the word became flesh (John 1:14) that he existed as the Word with Jehovah. (John 1:1-3).
      I am not being dogmatic but I have no reason why we would conclude that he is still a man in the heavens... glorified flesh or not.

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-10 11:31:27

Meleti
Something you said made me think “So you are saying that Logos couldn’t the “image” of God while in heaven, but only upon the earth?
Although I stand by my original statement that Firstborn is referring to rank not first created.Image is referring to all creation including angels.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-10 11:41:58

  From this I understand your belief is that Jesus has been, is, and will always be the image of the invisible God.

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-10 11:58:55

We have been reconciled to God through knowing Jesus Christ because he is the image of the invisible God.For now thats what I understand.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-10 12:35:38

  Not a direct answer. Leaves me wondering what you really believe.

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-10 14:25:41

All I can say for certain is Jesus Christ reveals the exact imprint of Gods Character in himself.And I should desire to be like him.The rest I have not made up my mind.
I am still ruminating over the comments and the article you have written.I can see the sense in some of the reasonings more today than I did yesterday.I never want to say that I've committed to a belief until I hear all the arguments and fully understand. That takes time and a willingness to admit I,m wrong..
As a JW who just believed whatever Tom, Dick and Harry doctrine was given him, my critical thinking skills are probably immature. I'm going to make a few mistakes, a few wrong turns.What I understood a year ago is not what I understand today.So,Please understand that when I ,m commenting.I get the impression you think i'm a know it all.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2014-11-10 15:10:57

  Thanks for the clarification. Saying "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable response. Some might say, the beginning of wisdom. I am slowly learning to say that myself. I too am on a learning curve, and the many responses and comments have helped me refine my thinking on Scriptures. Each commenter has his or her on take on things, but most, I believe, are honestly seeking the end truth. Sometimes it is attainable. Sometimes, we will have to wait for the future revealing of truth from God. Some things may never be knowable.

Comment by markchristopher on 2014-11-10 14:28:50

Sorry meant to say "was given me"

Comment by kev c on 2014-11-12 04:54:28

To im just asking ...mate your going way over my head here . Im just a simple construction worker . You must be reading books 24 7 or something .. cant you put it in simple terms like jesus did . .

• Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-11-12 15:58:00

  Mark Christopher, I don't think Buzzard means that Jesus is fully human in heaven. I think what it means is that when Jesus was resurrected he was changed from having a body of carbon-based substance into a "glorified human body". That would be very different from our current human bodies, hence how Jesus was able to walk through walls etc.

  • Reply by markchristopher on 2014-11-13 03:20:39

    Thanks Jannai40. Maybe I read Buzzard incorrectly.

Comment by ilovejesus333 on 2014-11-13 20:16:53

Where to start !!! Brought up in "the truth" and 50 years later having had JW doctrines inculcated into my very being it's still hard not to reflect those teachings into my comments. As a Jw I found that we over analyse, over interpret,over scrutinise, to the extent that as a consequence we lose sight of the basic message the scriptures have to offer.
So keeping it simple.
God (singular) said Let us (plural) make man in our (plural) image. Gen 1;26
Behold man has become like one of us (plural) - and this is the kicker "knowing good and evil" Gen 3;22
I know that trinitarians will jump on this scripture to mean God was referring to the us as the trinity that being Himself ,The word and the holy spirit.
So who is the US referring to in Gen. Well for a start the US are distinctive because they know good and evil. Was any other creation created with the knowledge of good and evil.
Man didn't have it - until they sinned
The angels didn't have it - until they sinned
So wouldnt it be fair to say the US in Genesis is referring to Jehovah and The Word.
Prov 8 23-30 gives the most beautiful rendering of Jesus position before creation was formed.
Is Jesus God or was he created
Col 1;15 Jesus is the image of God the FIRSTBORN of all creation.
It doesn't say Jesus is the first CREATED of all creation there's a big difference.Being born from God as opposed to being created is not only unique in itself but even more so when we can accept that (Jesus also had the knowledge of good and evil, he was A God) Gen 3;22 that no other creation had - until of course they sinned.
John 1;1 Jesus was A God - also knowing good and evil unlike all other creation.
To conclude Jesus is the image of God But not God Almighty, just as we humans were created in God's image but we certainly are not Gods either

• Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-11-14 07:21:58

  Perhaps in Genesis 1:26 these words are being spoken to the angels who were observing at least parts of God's creative activities. Job 38:4,7 "Where were you when I laid the earths foundation? Tell me, if you understand. v 7 While the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy." (NIV)

Comment by ilovejesus333 on 2014-11-14 19:59:20

Hi Jannai
Col 1 15;16 Talks about Jesus the firstborn of all creation Verse 16 for by him all things were created in HEAVEN and on earth. So it seems in gen 1;26 Gods words were relating to Jesus, "let us make man in our image" Heb 1;2 - John 1;3 John 1 10
Col 1;16
Even before the angels were created Jesus was there and there is no scriptural reference to the angels having any active part in creation. But I agree it must have been a joyous occassion for the angels witnessing the foundations of the earth being laid.
For me the mystery is, How did Jesus come about
Was he created by God ?
Was he born from God ?
Is he an extension of God ?
Some might even say he is God. The latter wouldn't be my view, too many scriptures to argue against that
Indeed we may never know in this lifetime but by reading the scriptures we get a fairly good understanding of Jesus unique role and relationship to Jehovah as opposed to all other creation

• Reply by Jannai40 on 2014-11-15 05:54:00

  Just a point about the angels - God could have invited his heavenly court, the angels, to participate in some way in the creation of humankind, perhaps in the role of offering praise (Job 38:7), but He Himself does the actual creative work. This then would harmonise with Isaiah 44:24.
  I think the problem is that you are looking at Genesis 1:26 with a view to Jesus being present, whilst I am looking at it with a view to him not being present.

Comment by GodWORDISTRUTH on 2016-12-01 15:14:50

Amazing! Very Easy to understand now. Outstanding work Brother! I am sure our views have been adjusted since this article ....
Trailblazing for sure.... Beautiful piece.

Comment by Flor on 2019-04-03 20:59:53

Interpretation of “firstborn” and “ your only son” not as the first son born of a person, but as the heir of properties of the Father, the son that have the preeminence over his other siblings, like Ismael and Isaac, Ismael being older than Isaac but the angel of the lord said “ now I know that you love me because you have not retain your only child from me”, and Isaac is called later “ the firstborn of Abraham “.

Comment by Flor on 2019-04-03 21:33:21

I also have doubts about the true nature of Jesuchrist.
“ and the word was god”, some say that the word “god” in that first position, before a Copulative verb( to be) , and without the definitive article “the” , makes that word “god” an adjective. So the translation would be “ and the word have the nature of God” , and not only “ divine” like the spiritual beings called angels who are also divine but we can’t say that the angels are of the same nature of YHWH ( or can we?), they conclude that the “word” as possessor of the nature of God YHWH would be YHWH too, just as any being who has the nature of human is human ( man or women , of any age) ; a dog would have the nature of a dog. Now, why the word wasn’t with the article “ the” , because saying that “ the word was THE God” would imply that the “ word “ is the only one entity ( person) that is God, but a trinitarian would say there three persons that are one God ( which is also difficult to believe but I wouldn’t be sure that it is heresy). The book of revelations is quite difficult too ( that is why the Catholic Church take many years to decide to include it into the bíblical cannon), because we see Jesus sitting in the throne of God beside His Father and receiving the SAME honor , praise and glory of his Father( and we know that God will never give his glory to anyone; but then, He is renouncing to his glory but sharing ) ; while we would sit in the throne of Jesus ( apparently or obviously , that throne is not the same throne of his Father ...might be the throne of Jesus as the messsiah or the king of the righteous ones , in his human nature).Also, what did Tomas meant when he SAID TO JESUS Resurrected “ the lord of mine and the god of mine”? , is that translation wrong? , some messianic new translation put it as “ the lord ( eloah: owner) of mine and the judge ( Elohim)of mine”. So, what can we believe?
Also, we have Paul saying that “ in Jesus resides the FULLNESS of the God in the flesh”, so who can have that “ fullness” without being THE GOD? Or is it also a mistranslation or misinterpretation? Someone can give some light please? As I said here, I am seeking, I want to be baptised, eat and drink of the dinner without heresies and try to follow Jesus.

Comment by Paul Scott on 2019-05-10 22:19:53

In the interests of fairness I would point out a couple of things:
1. Phillip Harner's article in the Journal of Biblical Literature (https://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/H1.jpg) actually provides a comprehensive look at the possibilities before John in expressing the last clause of John 1:1.
- it's well worth a look.
2. Many of the 70 translations cited as agreeing with the NWT would actually take the position that Jesus was nothing short of God but recognize that the construction of the verse says something about his quality and hence render it as "The Word was divine" or similar. They don't mean by that what the Watchtower believes.
3. Thomas referred to Jesus as "The Lord and The God of me" - definite article.
4. Robert Bowman has written a great book called: "The Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John". It is out of print but relatively available from second hand sources. One currently available is called "Putting Jesus in his Place".