The word [Jesus?] was God

[Guest]

Hi Ely,

Regarding "the Logos":

I don't know brother. I just can't see it the way you do. To me, it is clear that to John, the Word is Jesus (1 Jn 1:1), so I can't get myself to separate the word before vs. 10 and post vs 10 into two separate things. That doesn't appear to be the plain reading. I suppose I could do it, if my understanding of the pre-existance of Christ made it necessary, but it doesn't. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

2. "Jesus created all things"?
Now, you said that the Bible says that Jesus created all things. Actually, it doesn't. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:2 all say that “all things were made dia him.” Trinitarian bias on the part of the translators means that they translate this word as by, thus implying that Yeshua was the one who was doing the creating. But this is not the meaning of the word.

Either way, through or by, He was there, it would seem.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For through Him all things were created [i.e. by the one God, the Father] that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. Colossians 1:15-1

Again, Jesus did not create all things, rather, all things were created by the Father for Jesus His son. Like I said somewhere else, he is the one in whom all of Yahweh’s plans and purposes for His creation will be fulfilled in. John 1 proclaims this great truth in lofty splendor.

First of all, you are translating "en" as "through" above (in vs16a), which is incorrect. This word means either "in" or "by".

This "him" in 16a refers to the "he" in 15 who is the image of the inivisible God; namely Jesus. Therefore, the world was created by Jesus.

The use of "through" (dia) here and elsewhere, denotes God employing Jesus in creating the world, which means it is certainly feasable to say that Jesus created the world as well.

Think about it, if I hire a construction company to erect a building, it could be said that: 1. I built it. 2.They built it. 3. I built it through them. All of these statements would be equally true.

Peter says of Messiah that he was “foreknown before the foundation of the world but made manifest in these last days” (1 Peter 1:20). I think this is what Yeshua had in mind in those sayings you quoted. For example, when he spoke of receiving the glory which he had with the Father before the world was formed, he was speaking of receiving the glory which the Father had prepared for him.

So when Jesus says " had before the world was formed", He really meant "will have later when I ascend to heaven"? I don't buy that, sorry. He didn't say "with the glory you prepared for me before the world was formed", He said "that I had".

Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

What does Jesus mean here? Is He saying "where He was before" as an idea or plan?

God bless,

[Guest]

John expresses that The Logos was indeed a person "the Word became flesh". So, I'm not really following you on why you seem to think that I was somehow implying that Jesus wasn't a Person in the Godhead before his incarnation..."the Word became flesh". What am I missing here, Derek?

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you.

[Guest]

Rick, thanks for that quote, though of course, I disagree with your (and Hurtado’s) conclusions. I’ll be keeping an eye out for your thread.

Derek,

First of all, you are translating "en" as "through" above (in vs16a), which is incorrect. This word means either "in" or "by".

My bad. Yes, "en" means "by" or "in."

The use of "through" (dia) here and elsewhere, denotes God employing Jesus in creating the world, which means it is certainly feasible to say that Jesus created the world as well.

It is indeed feasible but so is my interpretation. The grammar doesn’t necessarily rule out either one. So, we must evaluate them in light of clearer texts elsewhere where there is no such ambiguity. For example, is there any way of invalidating the idea that Jesus was literally involved in creation? I think so:

Job 9:8
“He [El, Eloah – see verses 1 and 13] alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea”

Isaiah 44:24
“I am Yahweh, who makes all things,
Who stretches out the heavens all alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself”

These texts say that this single Person called “El” aka “Eloah” aka “Yahweh” created all things all alone, by Himself. What does this mean if, in actual fact, another person (the logos) was literally there and was actively involved also?

So when Jesus says " had before the world was formed", He really meant "will have later when I ascend to heaven"? I don't buy that, sorry. He didn't say "with the glory you prepared for me before the world was formed", He said "that I had".

Joh 6:62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

What does Jesus mean here? Is He saying "where He was before" as an idea or plan?

Before Jesus literally existed he "had" and was "in heaven" in the plan and purpose of God, the Father. I don't think this is in any way a radical or unreasonable interpretation. In the plan and purpose of God, things can be spoken of as having happened before they literally happened. In Revelation 13:8, John speaks of people “whose names have not been written in the book of life of the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.” As Albert Barnes writes: “The meaning here is, not that he was actually put to death “from the foundation of the world,” but that the intention to give him for a sacrifice was formed then, and that it was so certain that it might be spoken of as actually then occurring.”

In the same way that it would be wrong to insist that Jesus literally existed and was literally slain before the world was created, likewise, I think it’s wrong to insist on interpreting his words to mean that he literally existed and was with the Father in heaven before coming down and becoming a man.

[Guest]

Hi Ely,

It is indeed feasible but so is my interpretation. The grammar doesn’t necessarily rule out either one. So, we must evaluate them in light of clearer texts elsewhere where there is no such ambiguity. For example, is there any way of invalidating the idea that Jesus was literally involved in creation? I think so:

Can you show how the grammer allows for anyone besides Jesus to be the one "all things" were created "by" in Collosians 1:16? I am assuming you are trying to get "him" in 16a to refer to "God" in vs15, but this is clearly not the case brother. Do you really think that Jesus isn't in mind here? God is only mentioned in reference to Jesus. Jesus is clearly the subject of verse 15, and is the only person "him" could be refering to. I think the grammer does rule out your interpretation.

These texts say that this single Person called “El” aka “Eloah” aka “Yahweh” created all things all alone, by Himself. What does this mean if, in actual fact, another person (the logos) was literally there and was actively involved also

They say that Yaweh created them alone. Trinitarians are well aware of these verses as they help our position. I have used them many times in talking with Jehovah's Witnesses, to prove the deity of our Lord. If Jesus is said to have created the world, as Collosians 1:16 clearly says, and other texts say God alone did this, then we conclude that Jesus is God.

The argument works both ways, if the Father created "through" the Son, then you have to explain how the Father did it alone. Unitarianism cannot make sense of the fact that they both created, yet God is said to have done this "alone".

Before Jesus literally existed he "had" and was "in heaven" in the plan and purpose of God, the Father. I don't think this is in any way a radical or unreasonable interpretation. In the plan and purpose of God, things can be spoken of as having happened before they literally happened. In Revelation 13:8, John speaks of people “whose names have not been written in the book of life of the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.” As Albert Barnes writes: “The meaning here is, not that he was actually put to death “from the foundation of the world,” but that the intention to give him for a sacrifice was formed then, and that it was so certain that it might be spoken of as actually then occurring.”

I think it is an unreasonable interpretation. Sorry. This is Jesus speaking in the first person, about a place He used to be. Past tense. It's a different kind of statement altogether, than the revelation passage. In my opinion, it is eisogesis to read into His words the idea that you are putting forth here. The plain meaning fits well with other passages of scripture as well, such as Philippians 2 (don't bother commenting now, that's another thread I suppose).

Also, it should be pointed out, that other translations than the AV, render Rev. 13:8 differently, which changes the meaning from what you are implying. And makes it more understandable.

Rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

This idea, still works in the KJV, which follows the literal word order, with the insertion of a comma after "slain".

Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world.

Jesus does employ a manner of speaking where He speaks of things in the present tense, (i.e. "be with Me where I am") as if they had happened. These statements I think can very much be interpreted as meaning "it was so certain that it might be spoken of as actually then occurring". But again note, that He is speaking in the present tense, which makes more sense according to your interpretation, however, in John 6:62 Jesus is speaking about something that occured in the past, that is no longer the case, which is why He was going to go back there. This does not work according to your interpretation.

In the same way that it would be wrong to insist that Jesus literally existed and was literally slain before the world was created, likewise, I think it’s wrong to insist on interpreting his words to mean that he literally existed and was with the Father in heaven before coming down and becoming a man.

Rev. 13:8 does not say that He was slain before the world was created.

God bless,

[Guest]

Shalom Derek,

Can you show how the grammer allows for anyone besides Jesus to be the one "all things" were created "by" in Collosians 1:16?

As we both agree, the word en can mean by or in. The verb created is in the passive, so the do-oer of the creating could be Jesus (as implied if we choose “by”), but it could also be someone else (i.e. the one God, the Father), as implied if we choose “in.” Unless I’m missing something, nothing in the text demands or invalidates either interpretation.

If Jesus is said to have created the world, as Collosians 1:16 clearly says, and other texts say God alone did this, then we conclude that Jesus is God.

The argument works both ways, if the Father created "through" the Son, then you have to explain how the Father did it alone. Unitarianism cannot make sense of the fact that they both created, yet God is said to have done this "alone".

This line of reasoning only works if two assumptions are accepted:
1. That en in Colossians 1:15 means by and teaches that Jesus was the one creating all things, and
2. That ”All things were made throughhim” means that Jesus was literally present and involved in the creating process.

Our job is to determine whether these assumptions are necessary.

in John 6:62 Jesus is speaking about something that occured in the past, that is no longer the case, which is why He was going to go back there. This does not work according to your interpretation.

Okay, can you show the plain meaning of the following saying of Yshua please:

10 Jesus answered and said to him [Nicodemus], “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3

Thanks
Ely

[Guest]

Hey brother,

Quote:
If Jesus is said to have created the world, as Collosians 1:16 clearly says, and other texts say God alone did this, then we conclude that Jesus is God.

The argument works both ways, if the Father created "through" the Son, then you have to explain how the Father did it alone. Unitarianism cannot make sense of the fact that they both created, yet God is said to have done this "alone".

This line of reasoning only works if two assumptions are accepted:
1. That en in Colossians 1:15 means by and teaches that Jesus was the one creating all things, and
2. That ”All things were made throughhim” means that Jesus was literally present and involved in the creating process.

Our job is to determine whether these assumptions are necessary.

I agree. Frankly, I am not well versed in Greek. Most translators render it "by".

What would it mean for the Father to create "in" Jesus? Perhaps it is not trinitarian bias that causes them to render the verse that way, but the fact that it makes more sense.

Quote:
in John 6:62 Jesus is speaking about something that occured in the past, that is no longer the case, which is why He was going to go back there. This does not work according to your interpretation.

Okay, can you show the plain meaning of the following saying of Yshua please:

By "Okay", do you mean that you accept that this verse does not fit your interpretation? I think I have shown that it does not, in my last post.

I'm not sure what you are trying to show here. That just because one statement of Jesus' is less plain than another, the plain meaning of the clearer one should not be accepted? Anyhoo, I'll give it a shot.


I must say, that although it is hard to understand, at first glance it sure fits better with trinitarian theology than unitarian. If for no other reason than the fact that he says he descended from heaven (which fits nicely with other texts where Jesus says "I came down from heaven", and others same the same thing). Let's look at it.

Joh 3:13 (a)And no man hath ascended up to heaven, (b)but he that came down from heaven, (c)even the Son of man which is in heaven.

The portion of (c) that says "which is in heaven" very well may not be authentic. If it is, I would relate it to the other statements of Jesus where He speaks in the present tense of future events ("be with me where I am"). But I am inclined to reject this portion.

It is not in the older manuscripts, and strikes me as a margin note that crept into the text.

There are also manuscripts that read "who was in heaven" and "the one who was in heaven".


I take (b) quite litterally.

I take "ascended to the heaven" in (a) to mean "understand the mysteries of heavenly things". He understands them, becuase He has been there.

See. Prov. 30:4.

Pro 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

The answer to this question can only be God.

To take this strictly literally, we would need to conclude that Jesus had already ascended into heaven (when would that have been?), and that while he was there talking to Nicodemus, the son of Man (i.e. the man Jesus, son of Mary) was also at that same time in heaven?

Hopefully that answers your concerns.

God bless!

[_Rick_C]

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you.

That's ok Bro Derek. I mean, like, I don't even understand my own self sometimes!
What did I just say? lol

[_Rick_C]

Just curious....

I see you guys are comparing verses and going into possible meanings of Greek words which is good hermeneutics. I'm curious why you don't go into the beliefs of the contemporaries of Jesus and/or the actual historical setting and milieu? And about doing the same thing for the OT? This is something I truly don't understand about most evangelicals. For example, 1 Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls which were the Scriptures of the Jewish groups (sects) during Jesus' day (and also the many books that are in in the current Jewish canon)....or should I save this for another thread?

Ely,

I got too busy this weekend and will have to start that the on Larry Hurtado later this week. Got to go for now.......

[_Rick_C]

One more post for tonite

Job 9:8
“He [El, Eloah – see verses 1 and 13] alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea”

Isaiah 44:24
“I am Yahweh, who makes all things,
Who stretches out the heavens all alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself”

These texts say that this single Person called “El” aka “Eloah” aka “Yahweh” created all things all alone, by Himself. What does this mean if, in actual fact, another person (the logos) was literally there and was actively involved also?

I mentioned earlier in the thread: I am coming close to believing that, at some time around the "reforms" of Josiah, the "Deuteronomists" essentially did away with the older religion of the Jews by "fusing El and Yahweh" into a single deity. That, before this time the Jews believed in two deities: El/Elyon (God the Father) and Yahweh (El's Son, Israel's national God, later incarnating as Jesus).

If this "fusing" is true, the two verses you quoted, Ely, would be prime examples of it. It should be mentioned that Job predates Isaiah and is considered to possibly be the oldest book in the canon.

Also, those who accept the "Deuteronomist theory" (that they changed Israel's ancient polytheism into the essential monotheism we still see in both Judaism and Christianity); these people also see Isaiah 40-55 as "Deutero-Isaiah" (Second Isaiah): a second book within Isaiah, written later and by another author than the earlier sections of the book.

There's no doubt there was some redaction (editing) of OT texts. See Deuteronomy 32:8 for a perfect illustration of this (the original text had "sons of God" as opposed to the Masoretic Text which has "sons of Israel"). The Isaiah Scroll in the Dead Sea Scrolls (contemporaneous to the NT) is much older than the MT and has "sons of God". The older LXX (Septuagint, Gk OT) has "angels of God". And, of course, as we see in Job and in other places in the OT the "sons of God" are the angels and/or divinites (gods).

To sum up about Deutero-Isaiah, according to theory; Isaiah 44:24 (above) is a deliberate abandonment of the old religion which never had a single thing against El/Elyon/Eloah! (as it did with Baal and other gods)! -- and is also -- a "fusing" of El and Yahweh into one deity.

I don't accept this theory fully, as I mentioned before. But the more I study, the more evidence I see for Jesus being Yahweh and God being El....in lieu of the older Jewish religion, that would be.

Leaving the "Deuteronomist theory" and "Second-Isaiah" aside...I still see evidence that Jesus and the Apostles actually belived in this older religion too! I'm finding it all over the Gospels and in the NT generally....

Am I making sense or are y'all disinterested?
(I'm still Trinitarian, Derek! and I know this stuff's awfully complicated)!

Anyways, I really need some sleep, lol
(new thread soon, Ely)

[Guest]

Many who deny the Diety of Jesus compare 1Cr 1:24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God..to Proverbs 8 in which wisdom is personified. But this interpretation falls on its face when you point out that Christ is also called the power of God in 1 Cor 1:24, and if you compare this with Romans 1:20, in which God's power is said to be eternal!
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse[/u][/i]