The firstborn of creation

Thomas

Administrator
Veteran Member
Messages
13,445
Reaction score
3,683
Points
108
Location
London UK
Firstborn of all creation

The meaning of this phrase is one that is consistently misapplied by the Jehovahs Witnesses, as it is, I believe, by the Church of the Latter Day Saints, so I thought it worth a look.

As their usual argument is based on an interpretation of Colossians, it is worth noting a repetative error in the New World Translation of the text:

Colossians 1:15-17
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 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. Also, he is before all other things and by means of him all other things were made to exists."
Bold text my emphasis — the NWT inserts "other" into the text no less than four times to distort the meaning to match the JW assertion of the Arian and in fact Platonic error, of the Son as a created being. The word 'other' is not there in the original.

The JW and Mormons interpret the word "firstborn" to mean "first created" to make it consistent with their theological presupposition that Jesus is a created thing, an error first put forward by Arius, interpreting Scripture according to a Platonic model, and one of the major disputes of the third century.

The Greek word for "first born" is prototokos, as used in Col 1:15. The Greek for "first created" would be protokizo. If the scribe had meant first created, he would have used a different term.

The biblical use of the word "firstborn" should be taken into account. It can mean the first born child in a family (cf. Luke 2:7), but it can also mean holding a position of "pre-eminence" such as in 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". David was in fact the last one born to his family, so in this sense the term implies being bought into a preeminent position.

Consider the following:
Genesis 41:51-52:
"And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father’s house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction"

then

Jeremiah 31:9:
"...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn."

As the old adage says, 'Scripture best interprets scripture'. Firstborn does not require a meaning of 'first created' as the Jehovah's Witnesses say. "Firstborn" can mean the first born person in a family and it can also be a title of preeminence which is transferable. That is obvious since Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and is also the first born son of Mary. In addition, He is the pre-eminent one in all things, in that He is before all things.

This was how the scribes, the Apostles, their successors and the Fathers understood it.

By offering a new interpretation, the JW and the CLDS have departed from Revealed Tradition, fallen back in fact into proclaiming the same message as the heresiarch Arius, effective a Platonic doctrine.

Let us look further:
Colossians 1:18
"And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence."
'firstborn from the dead' does not mean then, as the JW would have it, that Jesus is made from dead people, but through His resurrection, those who belong to the Church will partake in the life eternal.

Hebrews 12:23
"To the general assembly and church of the firstborn"
Does not mean that only the first-born child will enter paradise, but that the church of the firstborn are those who are raised in Christ.

Revelation 1:5
"And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead,"
Again, which does not inply Jesus is a zombie, but that He is "the resurrection and the life".

Thomas
 
Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?



Col. 1:15, 16, RS: "He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth." In what sense is Jesus Christ "the first-born of all creation"?



(1) Trinitarians say that "first-born" here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created.



If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation?



But the Bible applies this expression only to the Son.
According to the customary meaning of "firstborn," it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons.



(2) Before Colossians 1:15, the expression "the firstborn of" occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group.



"The firstborn of Israel" is one of the sons of Israel; "the firstborn of Pharaoh" is one of Pharaoh’s family; "the firstborn of beast" are themselves animals.



What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15?
Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?
(3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says "in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him"?
The Greek word here rendered "all things" is pan´ta, an inflected form of pas.
At Luke 13:2, RS renders this "all . . . other"; JB reads "any other"; NE says "anyone else." (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.)



In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.




Rev. 1:1; 3:14, RS: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him . . . ‘And to the angel of the church in La-odicea write: "The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning [Greek, ar·khe´] of God’s creation."’" (KJ, Dy, CC, and NW, as well as others, read similarly.)



Is that rendering correct? Some take the view that what is meant is that the Son was ‘the beginner of God’s creation,’ that he was its ‘ultimate source.’ But Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon lists "beginning" as its first meaning of ar·khe´. (Oxford, 1968, p. 252)



The logical conclusion is that the one being quoted at Revelation 3:14 is a creation, the first of God’s creations, that he had a beginning.
Compare Proverbs 8:22, where, as many Bible commentators agree, the Son is referred to as wisdom personified. According to RS, NE, and JB, the one there speaking is said to be "created.")




Prophetically, with reference to the Messiah, Micah 5:2 (KJ) says his "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Dy reads: "his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity." Does that make him the same as God? It is noteworthy that, instead of saying "days of eternity," RS renders the Hebrew as "ancient days"; JB, "days of old"; NW, "days of time indefinite." Viewed in the light of Revelation 3:14, discussed above, Micah 5:2 does not prove that Jesus was without a beginning.
 
Hi Mee —

Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?
Thanks for asking. Yes, it does.

Col. 1:15, 16, RS: "He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth." In what sense is Jesus Christ "the first-born of all creation"?
This question is answered above ... so I'm not sure why you repeat it?

+++

(1) Trinitarians say that "first-born" here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. [/LEFT]
Yes.

If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation?
What distinguishes the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity is not a question of nature or substance, but activity.

+++

What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15?
Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?

Thy own lips have said it.

(3) Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says "in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him"?
Logically, yes ... just read the text. The creator does not create himself.

And to reinforce the point:
"And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" Colossians 1:17.

+++


The Greek word here rendered "all things" is pan´ta, an inflected form of pas.
In the Greek text it is just pas.

The adjective pas can mean:
1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
a) some of all types

Indeed, the Blueletterbible includes a nice little paragraph:
"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).

Again, in the KJV pas is translated as:
all, all things, every, all men, whosoever, everyone, whole, all manner of, every man, every thing, any, whatsoever, whosoever, always, daily, any thing ...

but never 'other'

At Luke 13:2, RS renders this "all . . . other"; JB reads "any other"; NE says "anyone else." (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.)
Taken in that context, the 'other' implies a group different from the one just inferred ... so in that sense, 'other' in Colossians would imply everything else, 'other' than Jesus Himself. So even your own argument is faulty.

In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding the Son, NW assigns the same meaning to pan´ta at Colossians 1:16, 17 so that it reads, in part, "by means of him all other things were created . . . All other things have been created through him and for him." Thus he is shown to be a created being, part of the creation produced by God.
Yet once again, one can read the text to imply that 'all other things' means everything other than Our Lord is a created thing ... all other things are created, but Jesus, who is not numbered among all other things, is not created...

... I could even say, He was begotten, but all other things were created. See?

... so even JW logic is faulty!

Thomas​
 
mee, if you're going to keep copy/pasting, I'm going to have to remove such copy/paste posts.

This is a messageboard where individuals put their own opinions across - pasting material from an organised church, rather than taking the time to make considered replies, can't be acceptable.
 
mee, if you're going to keep copy/pasting, I'm going to have to remove such copy/paste posts.

This is a messageboard where individuals put their own opinions across - pasting material from an organised church, rather than taking the time to make considered replies, can't be acceptable.

I am sure mee is quite aware of that lol.... Or has a goldfish memory...
 
HE​
HAD LIVED BEFORE

Unlike any other human, Jesus was born of a virgin. Her name was Mary.

An angel said of her child: "This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High." (Luke 1:28-33; Matthew 1:20-25)


But how could a woman who had never had sexual relations with a man have a child?

It was by means of God’s holy spirit.

Jehovah transferred the life of his mighty spirit Son from heaven to the womb of the virgin Mary.

It was a miracle! Surely the One who made the first woman with the wonderful ability to produce children could cause a woman to have a child without a human father.

The Bible explains: "When the full limit of the time arrived, God sent forth his Son, who came to be out of a woman."—Galatians 4:4.



So before being born on earth as a man Jesus had been in heaven as a mighty spirit person.

He had a spirit body invisible to man, just as God has. (John 4:24)

Jesus himself often spoke of the high position he had held in heaven. Once he prayed: "Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was." (John 17:5)

He also said to his listeners: "You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above." "What, therefore, if you should behold the Son of man ascending to where he was before?" "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been."—John 8:23; 6:62; 8:58; 3:13; 6:51.


Before coming to earth Jesus was called the Word of God. This title shows that he served in heaven as the one who spoke for God. He is also called God’s "Firstborn," as well as his "only-begotten" Son. (John 1:14; 3:16; Hebrews 1:6)


This means that he was created before all the other spirit sons of God, and that he is the only one who was directly created by God.

The Bible explains that this "firstborn" Son shared with Jehovah in creating all other things. (Colossians 1:15, 16)

Thus when God said, "Let us make man in our image," he was talking to this Son.







Yes, the very one who later came to earth and was born from a woman had shared in the creation of all things! He had already lived in heaven with his Father for an unknown number of years!—Genesis 1:26; Proverbs 8:22, 30; John 1:3.​
 
mee; said:
Thus when God said, "Let us make man in our image," he was talking to this Son.


Yes, the very one who later came to earth and was born from a woman had shared in the creation of all things!

He had already lived in heaven with his Father for an unknown number of years!—


Dear Mee,

Might I ask, do you have any idea who the scribe was that was present, and able to record so accurately this one-sentence dialogue between God and Son, since no man had been created as yet, and thus no language, to "say" anything in?

And, do you believe this one suggestion (when God "was talking to this Son") to be the only memorable exchange worth recording during "an unknown number of years?"

Respectfully,

Learner
 
[/left]

Dear Mee,

Might I ask, do you have any idea who the scribe was that was present, and able to record so accurately this one-sentence dialogue between God and Son, since no man had been created as yet, and thus no language, to "say" anything in?

And, do you believe this one suggestion (when God "was talking to this Son") to be the only memorable exchange worth recording during "an unknown number of years?"

Respectfully,

Learner
Genesis 1 ;26
 
Hi Mee —


Thanks for asking. Yes, it does.


This question is answered above ... so I'm not sure why you repeat it?

+++


Yes.


What distinguishes the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity is not a question of nature or substance, but activity.

+++


Thy own lips have said it.


Logically, yes ... just read the text. The creator does not create himself.

And to reinforce the point:
"And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" Colossians 1:17.

+++



In the Greek text it is just pas.

The adjective pas can mean:
1) individually
a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
a) some of all types

Indeed, the Blueletterbible includes a nice little paragraph:
"... 'The whole world is gone after him.' Did all the world go after Christ? 'Then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.' Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem baptized in Jordan? 'Ye are of God, little children', and 'the whole world lieth in the wicked one.' Does 'the whole world' there mean everybody? If so, how was it, then, that there were some who were 'of God?' The words 'world' and 'all' are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture; and it is very rarely that 'all' means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts—some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted his redemption to either Jew or Gentile." (Charles H. Spurgeon, Particular Redemption, A Sermon, 28 Feb 1858).

Again, in the KJV pas is translated as:
all, all things, every, all men, whosoever, everyone, whole, all manner of, every man, every thing, any, whatsoever, whosoever, always, daily, any thing ...

but never 'other'


Taken in that context, the 'other' implies a group different from the one just inferred ... so in that sense, 'other' in Colossians would imply everything else, 'other' than Jesus Himself. So even your own argument is faulty.


Yet once again, one can read the text to imply that 'all other things' means everything other than Our Lord is a created thing ... all other things are created, but Jesus, who is not numbered among all other things, is not created...

... I could even say, He was begotten, but all other things were created. See?

... so even JW logic is faulty!

Thomas
Sir Thomas. Thank you.

v/r

Q
 
Genesis 1 ;26

Of course, I asked a silly question. How could there be a scribe to record the exact and only dialogue between God and Son. Not only were there no scribes around (man was still only a twinkle in the Divine Eye), and no language had developed as yet, but neither were there any letters to write!

You quote Genesis 1:26 as your answer, as if to say, it is written...

Well, exactly.

Have you ever considered questions such as these? Surely, they pull the rug out from under many a literal reading and "historic" understanding of the legends and traditions that eventually brought forth the Scriptures that contain the revelation of the Divine.

He had already lived in heaven with his Father for an unknown number of years!—

Please consider a statement like this. Whose years are you talking about, that they can be numbered? I mean, do we not hold the Lord God and Heaven to be outside time and space? We refer to it as eternity, or the eternal.

I do not know better than thee, Mee, that's for sure.

But I would rather be unsure and not know while waiting on the Lord to lead me, than to tenaciously cling to, and propagate relentlessly, the understanding I had as a child in Sunday school.

And I believe being unsure is rather the childlikeness required for gaining entrance to, and influx from, heaven --- rather than the childishness of a "know-it-all."

And if this attempt to just shake thee and wake thee fails, or is in fact quite silly and childish, I apologize. One cannot usually see yourself as others do clearly.

Sincerely,

Learner
 
Of course, I asked a silly question. How could there be a scribe to record the exact and only dialogue between God and Son. Not only were there no scribes around (man was still only a twinkle in the Divine Eye), and no language had developed as yet, but neither were there any letters to write!

You quote Genesis 1:26 as your answer, as if to say, it is written...

Well, exactly.

Have you ever considered questions such as these? Surely, they pull the rug out from under many a literal reading and "historic" understanding of the legends and traditions that eventually brought forth the Scriptures that contain the revelation of the Divine.



Please consider a statement like this. Whose years are you talking about, that they can be numbered? I mean, do we not hold the Lord God and Heaven to be outside time and space? We refer to it as eternity, or the eternal.

I do not know better than thee, Mee, that's for sure.

But I would rather be unsure and not know while waiting on the Lord to lead me, than to tenaciously cling to, and propagate relentlessly, the understanding I had as a child in Sunday school.

And I believe being unsure is rather the childlikeness required for gaining entrance to, and influx from, heaven --- rather than the childishness of a "know-it-all."

And if this attempt to just shake thee and wake thee fails, or is in fact quite silly and childish, I apologize. One cannot usually see yourself as others do clearly.

Sincerely,

Learner
...man's time is not my time... (God)

nice leastone. rule 101.
 
In the eyes of traditional Christianity, it is understood that Jesus Christ is both human and divine, 'without confusion, change, division or separation' (Chalcedon, 451AD). This nuance of theology was necessary to prevent a number of common and understandable and largely Hellenist errors creeping into what is essentially a Revelation of the Hebrew Covenant.

The doctrine, declared at Chalcedon but believed from the beginning, holds that God joined His Divine Nature to our human nature to heal and restore that which He created in Eden. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) ... but the Word never ceased to be the Word ... God was not absent from Heaven, nor the Son from His side, nor the Second Person from the Trinity ... but He joined Himself to us.

Thus the Uncreated joins with the created, from nature to nature, thus God perfects not the person of a human assumed by Him, and thus us by a purely juridical proxy (as a sacrifice was understood to serve as proxy), but by perfecting human nature, something realised in the flesh-and-blood in the human nature of Jesus Christ, and through which we can be assimilated to Him by His incorporation (by incarnation, otherwise it remains abstract) of our human nature into His own Divine Being.

Only in this way can the promise of resurrection in Christ, as ourselves, as human and not something other than human, be achieved (for the human inhabits both the spiritual and the physical — a purely spiritual resurrection is not fully human).

The body is not a vehicle, not other than the soul, as the Hellenists believed, and which skewed their understanding, the body is the means by which the soul manifests itself in the material, in the physical ... in the world.

A nature is a universal, and can only manifest itself in the particular as an instance of itself. (Everything is of its nature, but is not the totality of its nature — only God is by nature singular and unique, only God is One.)

Our purely human nature St Irenaeus calls our 'first foundation' (foundation is the translation of the Greek term plasma, from the verb plassein, "to mold". Later fathers would prefer ousia "nature" (sometimes physis, but this, like plasma, was problematic in that it implied the material rather than the whole human nature which encompasses the spiritual as well as physical).

Hellenists naturally read of the Incarnation according to their own understandings. Fundamentally dualist (whereas Hebraic understanding of the world is fundamentally one and holistic), one version is that the Divine Nature joined Itself to a human nature (as the soul is joined to a body), much like a voice speaking through an oracle (or prophet), and then departed, leaving that human nature unaltered in itself. They believed the human Jesus suffered on the Cross, but that God bore none of this burden, having withdrawn His Spirit from man (misinterpreting Mark 15:34 "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?").

But here's the rub: If God is not present on the Cross, then man is still abandoned to his sin, and one man died in a meaningless act of theatrical barbarity.

Another assumption was that "Christ" assumed the human "Jesus" — that the human will was extinguished, or rather the dim light of the human soul was obliterated in the supraradience of the Divinity. Jesus ceased to exist, Christ now occupied the body.

But here's the rub: If man is not present on the Cross, then man cannot assent to his own salvation, it is a 'done deal' in which he plays no part, and in which his humanity has no future. He is denied the last vestige of our only true virtue — the self-offering to God in faith and hope ... and love.

+++

So the Fathers sought to clarify that Jesus is God by virtue of His divine paternity, and Jesus is man by virtue of His human maternity. If Jesus was 'fully God, and fully man', does that mean two natures in one person, two persons in two natures in one being, one intermediate nature which is both God and man but not quite either? Two souls or one? Two wills or one? Two minds or one?

How can one thing be God and other?

Again and again the fathers argued, founded on what they had been taught as an axiom of their faith. If Christ was both God and man, as the Gospels tell us and as the Epistles preach, then He was fully God and fully man, and not one with the semblance of the other, nor something other with the semblance of both.

Nothing can be allowed that would reduce or limit His divinity; nothing can be allowed that would reduce or limit His humanity. We cannot put limitations on God because of the obscurity of our knowing. We must rather seek illumination in the fullness of Revelation.

They found the answer in the simple formula: In Jesus Christ two natures exist in one acting being — one Person — a Person who is God, and yet is other than God ... which means God who is God and none other than God is equally another Person. Yet in their divinity the two are one and indivisible — there is but one God. So God the (First) Person is revealed in God the (Second) Person by God becoming man.

The depth of this divine one-ness, in two, this Mystery of Mysteries, Christ spoke of in the most simple, understandable and intimate terms available in the languages of humanity — of parent and child, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Son of Man.

What belongs to God that is unseen and unknowable, numinous and ineffable, made known to us in the Law and the Prophets (Scripture and Tradition) characterises the Person of the Father; what belongs to God that is visible and knowable, real and present among men, characterises the Person of the Son, made known to us in the flesh in Christ Jesus, and everything He did and said; what belongs to God that is common to them both, and thus other than them both, and yet wholly God like them both, is the Holy Spirit, the same as them, one with them, equal in status and substance and essence, equal in all things ... equal thus in Personhood ... is the Holy Spirit, made known to us in and through the Church the Son founded on men, in which the Holy Spirit preserves His words and deeds (Scripture), and ensures its transmission — in spirit and in truth — to the world (Tradition).

The Three are eternally, always and everywhere, One.

+++

The Jesus of Scripture is a Mystery made manifest, but we cannot, we dare not, let the dim light of human reason obscure the depths of the Mystery — for a Mystery, as the word itself implies, forever passes beyond our comprehension.

Traditional Christianity, in all its diverse expressions, retains this essential Mysterium — all other forms occlude it by degree.

As John says:
"Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2).
Until that day, we can only see him as He appears to us, only in the Holy Spirit can we see Him for who He is:
"Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven" Matthew 16:15-17.

He is the firstborn of all creation because He is the Logos, in whom rise and reside the logoi of all. In Him we (and all created things) live and move and find their being (cf Acts 17:28).

If He were created, He would forever be this side of an unfathomable, unbridgeable, chasm between man and God.

We could never know God, let alone call Him Father.

Thomas
 
He is "LOGOS" because he is the "word" that uttered creation.

It's so simple even a cave man can understand it...
 
I'm sorry then, I must be dumber than a caveman. The sentence "He is the word" doesn't even convey enough meaning to me for me to either believe or disbelieve. It's like "The number seven became a chair."
 
I'm sorry then, I must be dumber than a caveman. The sentence "He is the word" doesn't even convey enough meaning to me for me to either believe or disbelieve. It's like "The number seven became a chair."
There is a difference between dumb and dense. Something I'm certain you are neither, once you get past your anger.

The number "7"? it doesn't become a chair. It becomes a milk stool...:eek:
 
The Word was a god." Regarding the Son’s prehuman existence, John says

"In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god." (Joh 1:1, NW)

The King James Version and the Douay Version read:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This would make it appear that the Word was identical with Almighty God, while the former reading, in the New World Translation, indicates that the Word is not the God, Almighty God, but is a mighty one, a god.

(Even the judges of ancient Israel, who wielded great power in the nation, were called "gods." [Ps 82:6; Joh 10:34, 35]) Actually, in the Greek text, the definite article ho, "the," appears before the first "God," but there is no article before the second.

Jesus, being the Son of God and the one used by God in creating all other things
(Col 1:15-20), is indeed a "god," a mighty one, and has the quality of mightiness, but is not the Almighty God.


 
The Four Gospels—A New Translation, by Professor Charles Cutler Torrey, says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was god. When he was in the beginning with God all things were created through him; without him came no created thing into being." (Joh 1:1-3)

Note that what the Word is said to be is spelled without a capital initial letter, namely, "god."
 
I remember reading somewhere that the Chinese genius renders it thus:

"In the beginning was the Way, and the Way was with God, and the Way was God."

I also recall Jesus saying, "I am the way and the tuth and the life."

I would like to use capitals here, to make my meaning clear:

The Way, the Truth, and the Life never said, "I am a way, a truth, and a life, (because I am only a god)."

Nor could He, for He was the Way Itself, Truth Itself, and Life Itself, and so God (Him)Self, I AM.

Respectfully,

Learner
 
Back
Top