Jesus Christ was God manifest in the Flesh

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Actually, it is said that the Word OF God became flesh and dwelt among us. Tell me, what GLORY did this Word have as a flesh being? The glory of God Himself? Or the glory of the only begotten OF God? What does scripture say about it? (John 1:14)

John 1:1 is from where much of the problem stems, because so many Trinitarian translators render part c as "and the Word was God". This is a bad translation that makes no sense because the BEING of God could not possibly have been WITH the BEING of God.

This is from the 25 TRINITARIAN scholars that produced NETBible (NETBible: John 1:1):
Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God&#8221 rather than indefinite (“a god&#8221 here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb.

What this tells us is that Colwell's Rule, (the rule used as support of a "THE theos", or "God with a capital G" rendering of 1:1c) is only ONE of the THREE possible translations of 1:1.

The other two possibilities are:
1. "a god"
2. "god" in a qualitative nuance

Moffatt's Translation uses #2, rendering it as "and the Word was divine". And the JWs New World Translation uses #1, rendering it as "and the Word was a god".

Both of these are as grammatically acceptable as mainstream Christianity's "God with a capped G" translation. But here's the clincher:
The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”

This is 25 TRINITARIAN scholars acknowledging what those of us without a "Jesus is God" bias already accept as simple common sense: God cannot possibly be said to be WITH God. So of the THREE possibilities, "THE God" is the only one these scholars eliminate.

Jehovah is the God OF gods. Jesus and Satan are only two of the many gods in heaven and on earth that Jehovah is the God OF. So try understanding John 1:1 to be saying that Jesus, who is the Word, was WITH his own God in the beginning, and was himself a god (mighty one). Because that IS what John was telling us.

peace,
mike

I have to say that it use to just completely baffle me when I spoke to Jehovah's Witnesses concerning the issue of John 1:1. And the reason being is not because of translation, but because of the gross misrepresentation of the Trinity in toto.

From experience, I would argue that 98% of the time Jehovah's Witnesses mistaken Trinitarianism for what is commonly known as Sabellianism (the belief that God is one single individual who at times poses as the Father, or sometimes poses as the Son, or sometimes as the Spirit), and this is particularly true with your assertion, "But here's the clincher: The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, 'the Word was with God')."

No sir, you want to know what the real clincher is? The real clincher is that Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Father (or that the Logos is the same Person whom He is "with") anymore than you do. In fact, the Trinitarian proclamation affirms that the Logos co-existed from eternity "with" the Father, as a distinct Person. So your argument about Trinitarians identifying the Logos as the Person whom He is with is already in trouble from the get-go.

What must be asked and seriously thought-out is, “What is it that Trinitarians believe John 1:1 to be portraying? Is John here declaring that the Word is God the Father as Sabellianism portrays? Is the Word a secondary, or lesser god as Arians believe? Or is the Word a Person who possesses Deity in the same measure as the Father, but is also distinct from the Father as Trinitarians have always claimed?”

If John were trying to portray Christ as "a god" or "a divine one" in John 1:1 as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, one of the many methods of doing so include placing the verb ("ho Logos") before the anarthrous predicate ("Theos") so that the text would read, "ho Logos en theos." John could have even used the adjective, “theios,” which would describe a divine nature (Acts 17:29, 2 Peter 1:3-4), or a god-like one so that the Greek would read as, "ho Logos en theios." A third possibility includes the usage of the indefinite pronoun, “tis,” to indicate that the Word was “a certain god,” but not the one he was referring to in the proceeding clause of John 1:1b (c.f. Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1). However, given these three approaches, none of these are what the Apostle John actually wrote. What John wrote was not, "ho Logos en theos" ("the Word was a god"), "ho Logos en theios" ("the Word was divine"), rather, "Theos en ho Logos" ("the Word was God&#8221. This view held by the Jehovah’s Witnesses ignores several key factors,

1.) Indefiniteness is the most poorly attested for anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives throughout the entirety of the text of Scripture.

2.) The largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives are qualitative, the second largest proportion being definite.

3.) If Theos were indefinite here in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative in the Gospel of John.

4.) Theos is placed in the emphatic position.
​

Should John had wanted to portray the Sabellian position and identify the Father as the Word, or identify the Word as an attribute inhering in God the Father, he would have given the anarthrous predicate in John 1:1c ("Theos") the definite article so that John 1:1c would identify the Word as, or apart of the same figure of John 1:1b,

"En arche en ho Logos, kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai ho Theos en ho Logos” ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was the God")
​

The Word was not to be confused with the One whom He was "with," rather there was a fine distinction being made between two Persons, and they were not to be mistaken one for the other, thus, the reason for the absence of the definite article in John 1:1c.

John did not identify the Logos with indefiniteness ("a god") or with definiteness ("the God"), but rather, qualitatively, which means that all the attributes or qualities of God, the same God mentioned in John 1:1b, belong to the Logos of John 1:1c. The passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. It is after all, the nature of God which makes God, God (Galatians 4:8). To expound on this a bit further, the expression “Eve was Man” is not an example of identification, but that of predication. “Eve” is not identified or equated with "Man,” but rather, the qualities, characteristics, and nature of "Man" are predicated to “Eve.” Likewise, the expression in John 1:1c, “the Word was God” does not identify the Word as the Person whom He is “with” (John 1:1b), rather, all the qualities, characteristics, and nature of God are predicated to the Word. The Word shared the exact nature/essence of the Father, though they differed in Person from one another, thereby making them ontological equals, or as the Athanasian Creed puts it, “Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead.”

John 1:1 is the only way John could have made a distinction between the Logos and the One whom He was "with" while maintaining that by His very nature, the Logos was God.

 

[halfmoon]

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD works out everything for his own ends--even the wicked for a day of disaster.

Isaiah 9:6
For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

John 20
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas,[d] because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

[JohnOneOne]

I have to say that it use to just completely baffle me when I spoke to Jehovah's Witnesses concerning the issue of John 1:1. And the reason being is not because of translation, but because of the gross misrepresentation of the Trinity in toto.

From experience, I would argue that 98% of the time Jehovah's Witnesses mistaken Trinitarianism for what is commonly known as Sabellianism (the belief that God is one single individual who at times poses as the Father, or sometimes poses as the Son, or sometimes as the Spirit), and this is particularly true with your assertion, "But here's the clincher: The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, 'the Word was with God')."

No sir, you want to know what the real clincher is? The real clincher is that Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is the Father (or that the Logos is the same Person whom He is "with") anymore than you do. In fact, the Trinitarian proclamation affirms that the Logos co-existed from eternity "with" the Father, as a distinct Person. So your argument about Trinitarians identifying the Logos as the Person whom He is with is already in trouble from the get-go.

What must be asked and seriously thought-out is, “What is it that Trinitarians believe John 1:1 to be portraying? Is John here declaring that the Word is God the Father as Sabellianism portrays? Is the Word a secondary, or lesser god as Arians believe? Or is the Word a Person who possesses Deity in the same measure as the Father, but is also distinct from the Father as Trinitarians have always claimed?”

If John were trying to portray Christ as "a god" or "a divine one" in John 1:1 as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach, one of the many methods of doing so include placing the verb ("ho Logos") before the anarthrous predicate ("Theos") so that the text would read, "ho Logos en theos." John could have even used the adjective, “theios,” which would describe a divine nature (Acts 17:29, 2 Peter 1:3-4), or a god-like one so that the Greek would read as, "ho Logos en theios." A third possibility includes the usage of the indefinite pronoun, “tis,” to indicate that the Word was “a certain god,” but not the one he was referring to in the proceeding clause of John 1:1b (c.f. Mark 14:51, Luke 8:27, Luke 1:5, and Luke 11:1). However, given these three approaches, none of these are what the Apostle John actually wrote. What John wrote was not, "ho Logos en theos" ("the Word was a god"), "ho Logos en theios" ("the Word was divine"), rather, "Theos en ho Logos" ("the Word was God”). This view held by the Jehovah’s Witnesses ignores several key factors,

1.) Indefiniteness is the most poorly attested for anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives throughout the entirety of the text of Scripture.

2.) The largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives are qualitative, the second largest proportion being definite.

3.) If Theos were indefinite here in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominative in the Gospel of John.

4.) Theos is placed in the emphatic position.
​

Should John had wanted to portray the Sabellian position and identify the Father as the Word, or identify the Word as an attribute inhering in God the Father, he would have given the anarthrous predicate in John 1:1c ("Theos") the definite article so that John 1:1c would identify the Word as, or apart of the same figure of John 1:1b,

"En arche en ho Logos, kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon, kai ho Theos en ho Logos” ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was the God")
​

The Word was not to be confused with the One whom He was "with," rather there was a fine distinction being made between two Persons, and they were not to be mistaken one for the other, thus, the reason for the absence of the definite article in John 1:1c.

John did not identify the Logos with indefiniteness ("a god") or with definiteness ("the God"), but rather, qualitatively, which means that all the attributes or qualities of God, the same God mentioned in John 1:1b, belong to the Logos of John 1:1c. The passage teaches that the Word, as to His essential nature, is God. It is after all, the nature of God which makes God, God (Galatians 4:8). To expound on this a bit further, the expression “Eve was Man” is not an example of identification, but that of predication. “Eve” is not identified or equated with "Man,” but rather, the qualities, characteristics, and nature of "Man" are predicated to “Eve.” Likewise, the expression in John 1:1c, “the Word was God” does not identify the Word as the Person whom He is “with” (John 1:1b), rather, all the qualities, characteristics, and nature of God are predicated to the Word. The Word shared the exact nature/essence of the Father, though they differed in Person from one another, thereby making them ontological equals, or as the Athanasian Creed puts it, “Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead.”

John 1:1 is the only way John could have made a distinction between the Logos and the One whom He was "with" while maintaining that by His very nature, the Logos was God.

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you and others of your readers to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 11/2011), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:

Good Companion Books
　
When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

 

[cronjecj]

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD works out everything for his own ends--even the wicked for a day of disaster.

Isaiah 9:6
For a child is born to us, a son is given to us. The government will rest on his shoulders. And he will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

John 20
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas,[d] because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Hi there halfmoon,

John 3:16 (KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

See the difference?

Welcome to CC

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Regarding Jehovah's Witnesses' "New World Translation" Bible and its rendering of John 1:1, it may interest you and others of your readers to know that, in support and explanation of their wording of this verse (especially within the third clause with "a god"), there is soon to be published a 20+ year study (as of 11/2011), a thoroughly researched reference work - an historical analysis & exhaustive annotated bibliography - it will be entitled, "What About John 1:1?"

To learn more of its design and expected release date, you are invited to visit:

Good Companion Books
　
When finally published, apart from discussing many of the other topics and scriptures often related to the man-made Trinity doctrine, you will also discover that we have collected information on about 430+ scholarly reference works (mostly Trinitarian) which, throughout the centuries, had opted to say something other than, "and the Word was God," and that, included among them are over 120 which had chosen to use "a god" within the third clause of their renderings.

As you might expect, we are very excited at the opportunity to share our findings with others.

Agape, JohnOneOne.

First allow me to say that I'm well aware of the "Good Companion Books" website, in fact I've wrote several posts that are available via the web in response to some of their allegations concerning John 1:1, particularly concerning the Sahidic Coptic. I always approach Jehovah's Witness literature skeptically, and that's predominantly due to books put out in the past which abuse their sources by rewording what the author said.

For example, in quoting Philip B. Harner’s “The Journal of Biblical Literature,” the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society said on page 27 of “Should You Believe in the Trinity?”,

“The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions ‘with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.’ As the Journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god.” (“Should You Believe in the Trinity?,” 1989, p. 27)

​

However, for those willing to take a gander, what Harner said was,

"A clause with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos [Word] was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos [God] but as a distinct being from ho theos [the God].” (Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” The Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 84-85, 87)
​

The WTB&TS portrays Harner as saying, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb," but Harner actually wrote, “a clause with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate… ." And granted even that, take notice that the verb does not precede an anarthrous predicate, rather, the anarthrous noun θεος (theos) precedes the verb ην (ēn, was) in this clause. Harner goes on to say immediately thereafter,

“The construction John uses means that the logos [Word] has the name nature as theos [God]. In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos [God] is placed at the beginning for emphasis… This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos [the Word], no less than ho theos [the God], had the nature of theos [God].” (Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” The Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 84-85, 87)
​

The book entitled, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" is filled with gross misrepresentation, and I expect the published book concerning John 1:1 to be another self inflicted wound.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Hi there halfmoon,

John 3:16 (KJV)
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

See the difference?

Welcome to CC

The issue here centers around the etymytology of the word μονογενής (“monogenes&#8221, which is traditionally translated as “only-begotten.” Instilled in our minds when we read that Christ is the “only-begotten” is this thought of generation, begetting, being born, or giving birth to. Monogenes is a compound word, meaning that it is comprised of two words, the first being “monos” (“only&#8221, and the second term is often times confused with γεννάωσθαι / γεννάω ("to give birth, to beget"). However, to steal the words of James R. White,

"...note that this family of terms has two nu's ('νν') rather than the single nu ('ν') found in μονογενής. The number of nu's indicates that the second term is not γεννάωσθαι ('to give birth, to beget'), but, γίγνεσθαι / γίνομαι, and the noun form, γένος ('genos')." (James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, pg. 202)
​

In 1 Peter 1:3 we read:

Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν δι' ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκ νεκρῶν

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
​

Notice that the compound word ἀναγεννάω is used to describe the new birth of the true genuine believer.

In Psalms 2:7 (LXX) we read:

διαγγελλων το προσταγμα κυριου κυριος ειπεν προς με υιος μου ει συ εγω σημερον γεγεννηκα σε

I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten You.’
​

Here, the LXX uses γεννάω (c.f. Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, Acts 13:33) to describe the act of the incarnation. Similarly, John’s utilization of γεννάω as found in John 16:21 is used to describe a child entering into the world through the womb of the mother. Also see John 1:13, 3:3-8, 8:41, 9:2, 9:19-20, 9:32, 9:34, 18:37; 1 John 2:29, 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 5:4, 5:18, etc.

In the various instances which γεννάω is used, it describes some form of birth, generation, or begettal, whereas γένος (as found in μονογενής) refers to a “kind” or “type” (1 Cor. 12:10, 1 Cor. 12:28, 1 Cor. 14:10, Mark 9:29, Matt. 13:47, Matt. 17:21), a “kindred” (Acts 7:13, Acts 7:19). Also refer to the usage of συγγενής, which is used throughout the Book of Romans (9:3; 16:7; 16:11; 16:21) to refer to Paul’s “kinsmen.”

μονογενής in the LXX (Judges 11:34; Ps. 25:16; Ps. 35:17, etc.), as well as the Aquila, and Theodotion, carries the meaning “only kind,” "solitary," “one and only,” "only unique," et al., and is frequently a reflection of the Hebrew word which expresses solitary oneness ("yachid") which it translates. The second century Old Latin translates the occurrences of monogenes in the New Testament as unicus ("unique"); and in like manner the Sahidic Coptic translates its occurrences as ouwt ("only," “only son&#8221 or nouwt ("the only," “the only son&#8221. μονογενής literally means no more than “one of a kind,” “only member of a kin,” “only unique (or ‘only one&#8217,” and in some cases, depending on the context and grammar present, can refer to an "only son.” Where γεννάω speaks of the actual generation/creation of an object, μονογενής speaks to the incomparability and uniqueness, and this is the view held by the best lexical resources, such as, BDAG (pg. 658), "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only.” Also see Moultan and Milligan (pg. 416), Liddel and Scott (pg. 1144), and Thayer (pg. 418).

In Hebrews 11:17 we read that Isaac is the μονογενῆ of Abraham, and several older versions (KJV, ASV, etc.) translate μονογενῆ in this verse as “only-begotten;” however, Isaac was not the “only-begotten” of Abraham, rather, Isaac had an older brother, Ishmael, as well as six other siblings (Gen. 25:1-2). By no means was Isaac the “only-begotten” of Abraham, however, he certainly was the only unique son of Abraham in the sense that he was the child of promise: “But God said to Abraham, ‘Do not be distressed because of the lad and your maid; whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her, for through Isaac your descendants shall be named.’”

So what does all this mean? This means that Christ is the only unique, the only one of His kind -- the Son of God -- and that there is no one like Him. Interestingly enough when this application is used in conjunction with John 1:18, we have another witness to the Deity of Christ -- "the One and Only, who is God" (NIV, NET, ESV, et al).

*While Huios (“Son&#8221 occurs in the majority Byzantine texts, it isn’t until we begin to consider witnesses from the 5th century and later that Huios really begins to appear. Theos (“God&#8221 occurs in virtually all of the earliest witnesses to John 1:18 with the exception of but one MSS, Codex Alexandrinus (5th century). Theos is well attested for in P66 (late 2nd/early 3rd century), P75 (late 2nd/early 3rd century, which is also deemed as the strongest witness to the Book of John), Codex Vaticanus (early 4th century), Codex Sinaiticus (early 4th century), Codex Ephraemi (5th century), the Sahidic (~4th century) translation of Greek into Coptic, as well as the Syriac Pe****ta (5th century). There also appears to be several later witnesses from roughly around the 8th to 10th century, i.e., Codex Regius (8th century), various Bohairic Coptic manuscripts (~9th century), et al, which also lends support for Theos rather than Huios.
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[JohnOneOne]

First allow me to say that I'm well aware of the "Good Companion Books" website, in fact I've wrote several posts that are available via the web in response to some of their allegations concerning John 1:1, particularly concerning the Sahidic Coptic. I always approach Jehovah's Witness literature skeptically, and that's predominantly due to books put out in the past which abuse their sources by rewording what the author said.

For example, in quoting Philip B. Harner’s “The Journal of Biblical Literature,” the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society said on page 27 of “Should You Believe in the Trinity?”,

“The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions ‘with an anarthrous [no article] predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.’ As the Journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god.” (“Should You Believe in the Trinity?,” 1989, p. 27)

​

However, for those willing to take a gander, what Harner said was,

"A clause with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos [Word] was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos [God] but as a distinct being from ho theos [the God].” (Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” The Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 84-85, 87)
​

The WTB&TS portrays Harner as saying, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb," but Harner actually wrote, “a clause with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate… ." And granted even that, take notice that the verb does not precede an anarthrous predicate, rather, the anarthrous noun θεος (theos) precedes the verb ην (ēn, was) in this clause. Harner goes on to say immediately thereafter,

“The construction John uses means that the logos [Word] has the name nature as theos [God]. In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos [God] is placed at the beginning for emphasis… This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos [the Word], no less than ho theos [the God], had the nature of theos [God].” (Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” The Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 84-85, 87)
​

The book entitled, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" is filled with gross misrepresentation, and I expect the published book concerning John 1:1 to be another self inflicted wound.

Contrary to what you claim - that the WT Society had misquoted Harner - please check again within Harner's article, pages 80 & 85, and you will see that he does, indeed, use the phrase, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning."

http://books.google.com/books?id=0igXAAAAIAAJ&q=%22with+an+anarthrous+predicate+preceding+the+verb%22&dq=%22with+an+anarthrous+predicate+preceding+the+verb%22&hl=en&ei=rjDATtvRBOfx0gGbl73eBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA

Curiously, even within Harner's presentation of certain facts, he does make plain though that his conclusions are only of his particular opinions, that is, not as something written in stone. He does this with these words:

"This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it,...,"

And thus clearly indicating that what he has just presented are not concrete concepts, but are simply how he, personally 'understands' what John is saying, which, in fact, represent only his opinions as to what he thinks the Greek is saying.

Too bad most, if not many, completely miss this very important distinction,...after all, when attempting to use Harner against us, they simply ignor the full implication of what he is saying. In other words, they can be found to typically do the very thing they accuse us of - either ignor or misrepresent, sometimes both.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books

 

[woodl]

1Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

How can so many that say they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation and the forgiveness of sins, but do not believe that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh? There are those right here on this site that believe so. How can any person believe in the Son of God yet not believe that the Son was God in the flesh? It is contrary to the truth of scripture and to the Holy Spirit to believe that Jesus Christ was not God in the flesh (1Tim 3:16)?

When we worship and magnify Christ we are worshipping God in spirit and truth. When we love God, we love the Father and the Son because they are one and our love is according to the truth. The Son of God is equal to the Father but the Jews did not want to believe so. Many were offended, even some of the disciples, when Christ stated that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood or they would have no life in them (Jn 6:54-71).

Did not God come from heaven as the bread of life? When Christ claimed to be the Son of God they considered that to be blasphemy because He made Himself equal with God . Are we going to be led astray and believe that Jesus Christ through the incarnation, when God to on human form through the flesh, was not God in the flesh but only the Son of God who was inferior and not equal with God? Is this where we are being lead by the spirit of antichrist in these last days?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD.
John 1 :14 And the WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us, ( and we beheld his glory, the glory
as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I'm with you Red. Those two verses tell me straight out that Jesus was God. God bless you Red

 

[Grandpa]

Jesus is God, that is certain. Not because people can show you using the scripture or using logic. But because people have experienced that Jesus Christ is God. And because Jesus says He is God in scripture.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.

John 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

The Pharisees knew what Jesus was saying about Himself, that is why they wanted to crucify Him for blasphemy.

I can't prove Jesus is God to you who don't believe any more than you can prove to an atheist that God exists. I just know. I've been shown, I've been led, I've been given wisdom and understanding by the Lord. Ask Him who freely gives, cry out to the Lord and He will show you these things.

God Bless You

 

[JohnOneOne]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD.
John 1 :14 And the WORD was made flesh and dwelt among us, ( and we beheld his glory, the glory
as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I'm with you Red. Those two verses tell me straight out that Jesus was God. God bless you Red

Actually, a very important part of the phrase, 'God was manifest in the flesh' (1 Tim 3:16), can be easily dismissed as a support for the teaching that Jesus was/is God.
　
　
This can be established by the fact that, this wording is one of a number of examples of where Trinitarian inspired copyists had, down thru the centuries, perpetuated an early corruption of the Biblical text, one of which served to suit their preconceived notions about who Jesus is.
　
　
Fortunately, such has been admitted to by the evidence witnessed in the change in wording for most recent Bible translations. Unfortunately, not all give much attention to the implications of such a correction, especially when lacking any explanation for the change from the wording of the KJV.


The following two links can be quite helpful in demonstrating the truth of these matters:


1. Comparing Translations of 1 Timothy 3:16


2. Comparing Translations of 1 Timothy 3:16


Agape, JohnOneOne.

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Contrary to what you claim - that the WT Society had misquoted Harner - please check again within Harner's article, pages 80 & 85, and you will see that he does, indeed, use the phrase, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning."

http://books.google.com/books?id=0igXAAAAIAAJ&q=%22with+an+anarthrous+predicate+preceding+the+verb%22&dq=%22with+an+anarthrous+predicate+preceding+the+verb%22&hl=en&ei=rjDATtvRBOfx0gGbl73eBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA

Curiously, even within Harner's presentation of certain facts, he does make plain though that his conclusions are only of his particular opinions, that is, not as something written in stone. He does this with these words:

"This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it,...,"

And thus clearly indicating that what he has just presented are not concrete concepts, but are simply how he, personally 'understands' what John is saying, which, in fact, represent only his opinions as to what he thinks the Greek is saying.

Too bad most, if not many, completely miss this very important distinction,...after all, when attempting to use Harner against us, they simply ignor the full implication of what he is saying. In other words, they can be found to typically do the very thing they accuse us of - either ignor or misrepresent, sometimes both.

Agape, JohnOneOne.
Good Companion Books

[FONT=&quot]Again, another abhorred misrepresentation. Did Harner use the words, "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning"? Oh, he most certainly did, but you miss the point entirely. The point was, and has always been is that Harner never expressed, as the Watchtower presents him as doing, that “an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb” indicates that the Logos can be likened to “a god,”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] “The Journal of Biblical Literature says that expressions ‘with[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning.’ As the Journal notes, this indicates that the logos can be likened to a god.” (“Should You Believe in the Trinity?”, pg. 27)[/FONT]
​

[FONT=&quot]Rather, p[/FONT][FONT=&quot]ertaining to this phony polytheistic “a god” non-sense, he did not write, "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb," but instead,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]“Clause D (*see below), with the verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the logos was ‘a god’ or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of theos but as a distinct being from ho theos.” (Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” The Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 84-85, 87, parenthesis mine)[/FONT]
​

And soon thereafter, as pointed out previously,

“B (*see below) means that the logos has the nature of theos. In this clause, the form that John actually uses, the word theos is placed at the beginning for emphasis... . Perhaps the clause could be translated, 'the Word had the same nature as God.' This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.” (Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” The Journal of Biblical Literature, 1973, pp. 84-85, 87, parenthesis mine)
​

So, as clearly seen, the Watchtower does indeed portray P. B. Harner as arguing in favor of their own rendition of John 1:1 ("a god"), rather than accurately, and honestly portraying his words.

Mention that in your book.


Footnote

*Harner lists five possible ways John could have written John 1:1c:

(a.) ho logos en ho theos ("the Word was the God")
(b.) theos en ho logos ("God was the Word&#8221
(c.) ho logos theos en ("the Word God was")
(d.) ho logos en theos ("the Word was a god")
(e.) ho logos en theios (“the Word was divine&#8221
​

When Harner wrote the words, “with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning,” notice that he was referring to clauses B and C, not to clause D:

Journal of Biblical literature - Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis (U.S.), Society of Biblical Literature - Google Books

 

[zackabba]

Actually, a very important part of the phrase, 'God was manifest in the flesh' (1 Tim 3:16), can be easily dismissed as a support for the teaching that Jesus was/is God.
　
　
This can be established by the fact that, this wording is one of a number of examples of where Trinitarian inspired copyists had, down thru the centuries, perpetuated an early corruption of the Biblical text, one of which served to suit their preconceived notions about who Jesus is.
　
　
Fortunately, such has been admitted to by the evidence witnessed in the change in wording for most recent Bible translations. Unfortunately, not all give much attention to the implications of such a correction, especially when lacking any explanation for the change from the wording of the KJV.


The following two links can be quite helpful in demonstrating the truth of these matters:


1. Comparing Translations of 1 Timothy 3:16


2. Comparing Translations of 1 Timothy 3:16


Agape, JohnOneOne.

Just to budge in on the argument a bit, even if the verse is truly rendered, "He was manifest in the flesh..." it still proves the deity of Christ. Why? Because, simply put, why would you say anyone was "manifest in the flesh" if they weren't eternally pre-existent? That would be like saying "My grandfather was manifest in the flesh, then he passed away"...it wouldn't make much sense.

Now what would make sense, in your position, is if the text said that Christ was a created being, a being not dependent on the Father (for being). Alas, it does not say this.




Plus, look at Hebrews 2:14:

"Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself [Christ] likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil..."

partook is a verb. If he wasn't pre-existent, how could he partake of flesh?

(meteschen literally means "has-partaken")




Grace and Love

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

And ALL this posturing and postulating is irrelevant if one actually knows the truth. It isn't ANY form of:

Tritheism
Triadism
Trinitarianism
Bitheism
Diadism
Binitarianism
Unitarianism
Sabellianism
Arianism
Adoptionism
Gnosticism

The Transcendent God spoke forth the substance of Himself as an Immanent Man. That Logos pierced and divided asunder His Spirit out from Himself to indwell mankind for redemption. Jesus is the prosopon (personal presence and appearance in the sight of another) of God. The "real"ization of the Transcendent God... God made "real". The embodiment of God's substance, procreated as the Son from realm to realm. The eternally-pre-existent internal Logos became the external Son within creation that came into existence with the act of the utterance. The Son inherits all that is the Father's, including His Soul and Spirit. In eternity, Jesus is the finite point of presence for God's omnipresence.

Transcendence condescended to Immanence, then ascended to Transcendence; born from above that we might also be. Firstborn of all creation; firstborn among many brethren; firstborn from the dead. In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead... bodily. The express image of His substance. God manifested in the flesh. Spirit-Soul-Body of One Divinity.

 

[jd2k12]

This is basic fundamental Biblical truth. The scriptures make it clear that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. You aren't a Christian if you don't believe that. It's that simple.

 

[zackabba]

Is this debate still going on? (sigh)


Question: The Pharisees were calling Jesus blasphemous. If He wasn't God, then wasn't He being blasphemous? Because, you know, I don't call myself the Lord of the Sabbath every day, do I? I don't say I existed before Abraham, do I?

 

[GraceBeUntoYou]

Just to budge in on the argument a bit, even if the verse is truly rendered, "He was manifest in the flesh..." it still proves the deity of Christ. Why? Because, simply put, why would you say anyone was "manifest in the flesh" if they weren't eternally pre-existent? That would be like saying "My grandfather was manifest in the flesh, then he passed away"...it wouldn't make much sense.

Now what would make sense, in your position, is if the text said that Christ was a created being, a being not dependent on the Father (for being). Alas, it does not say this.




Plus, look at Hebrews 2:14:

"Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself [Christ] likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil..."

partook is a verb. If he wasn't pre-existent, how could he partake of flesh?

(meteschen literally means "has-partaken")




Grace and Love

It's of vital significance to understand that there are multiple forms of Unitarianism. All Sabellians/Modalists are Unitarian, however, not all Unitarians are Sabellian. All Arians (who even believe Jesus pre-existed as "a god") are Unitarian, however, not all Unitarians are Arian. All Socinians are Unitarian, however, not all Unitarians are Socinian. What makes a person a Unitarian is the common belief that YHWH is only one in Person -- it's a universal tenet of Unitarian belief. However, there are radical, drastic, even extreme distinctions among these Unitarian groups, and it's necessary to recognize these distinctions. For this discussion in particular, the Arians (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) view Jesus as a pre-existent created being, a lesser god. They maintain that the pre-incarnate Christ was and is the first created thing that God the Father directly created, and in turn, Christ created everything else, and in support of this they attempt to use Colossians 1:15-16, and Revelation 3:14 to substantiate this claim,

"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 exist, and he is the head of the body, the congregation" -- Colossians 1:15-17, New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness translation)
​

There's several things that Arians like to focus upon here. The first being the term “firstborn,” and the second is its application in the phrase, “firstborn ofall creation.” The term “firstborn” is often times taken to mean, in Arian theology, something along the lines of “first created,” or “first created thing.” And the phrase, “firstborn of all creation,” as a collective whole is taken as a partitive genitive, that is, the “firstborn” is a part of the category of “all creation.” An example of a partitive genitive would be, “Jacob is the chief amongst his fellow slaves,” or “Solomon is the king of his fellow Jews.” So Christ, who is identified as the "firstborn" is to be understood as the first amongst all of God's creation, or the “first created of all creation.” I think it’s also imperative to point out that the NWT citation above includes the word “other,” which appears in several locations in this short excerpt. The inclusion of this word has absolutely no textual/manuscript attestation, but it is argued that the inclusion of the word does not change the meaning or context of the passage, but only clarifies.

That being stated, if I said to you, "please remove all pieces of furniture from the room," how many pieces are left? Zero. If I said, "please remove all other pieces of furniture from the room," how many are left? Exactly, at least one. You have one, or you have none... the inclusion of "other" does not clarify the text, but changes it. So Paul here wrote that through Christ “all” things came into existence, and granted that “all” does not always mean “everything, everywhere,” Paul goes on to seal the deal by telling us what exactly he meant by “all” – “both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things have been created through Him and for Him.” To say that Christ has partaken in the creation of everything in the heavens and on earth, both visible and invisible… that covers everything.

When Paul speaks of Christ as the “firstborn,” is he trying to portray Christ as a part of the creation, or even more, the first created of all of God’s creatures? No, absolutely not. Christ, as the Son of God is the “heir,” everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son. Just as a man’s “firstborn” son is the heir to all his property, so too is Christ the heir of all creation (Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:2, Psalm 2:7-8). “Firstborn,” as used throughout the Old Testament is often used to refer to the preeminence of an individual, and this is clearly seen in the highly Messianic Psalm, where David (who here is a typification of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ), the youngest amongst the sons of Jesse (1 Samuel 16:11-13), is appointed as God’s “firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27).

Another example is recorded in Jeremiah 31:9 with reference to Ephraim as God’s “firstborn,” although, Manassah, his brother, was the first to proceed from the womb (Genesis 41:50-52). YHWH’s choice of Ephraim over Manassah went back to the literal sons of Joseph, and this is when the choice was actually made, and made over the initial protest of Joseph even. After giving Ephraim the precedence Jacob predicts that the younger will be greater than the older and so we read: "thus he kept putting Ephraim before Manassah" (Genesis 48:20). Not only did he gain the prominence over Manassah but in the eyes of the Almighty he was the "firstborn," not Manassah.

To argue that Colossians 1:15 identifies Christ as the first created of all creation is contextual suicide at best. It makes absolutely no sense to say that Christ is the “firstborn [first created] of all creation, because in Him all things were created” – none whatsoever! But when “Firstborn” is understood to refer to the preeminence of Christ and to His inheritance by divine right, ah, now it makes much more sense: The Son is the Firstborn [heir] of all creation, because everything was created in, through, and for Him (v. 16). In v. 16, the term “for” here indicates that all things were created with the intentions of belonging to the heir, to the eternal Word, the Son of God.

 

[zackabba]

It's of vital significance to understand that there are multiple forms of Unitarianism. All Sabellians/Modalists are Unitarian, however, not all Unitarians are Sabellian. All Arians (who even believe Jesus pre-existed as "a god") are Unitarian, however, not all Unitarians are Arian. All Socinians are Unitarian, however, not all Unitarians are Socinian. What makes a person a Unitarian is the common belief that YHWH is only one in Person -- it's a universal tenet of Unitarian belief. However, there are radical, drastic, even extreme distinctions among these Unitarian groups, and it's necessary to recognize these distinctions. For this discussion in particular, the Arians (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) view Jesus as a pre-existent created being, a lesser god. They maintain that the pre-incarnate Christ was and is the first created thing that God the Father directly created, and in turn, Christ created everything else, and in support of this they attempt to use Colossians 1:15-16, and Revelation 3:14 to substantiate this claim,

"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 exist, and he is the head of the body, the congregation" -- Colossians 1:15-17, New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness translation)
​

There's several things that Arians like to focus upon here. The first being the term “firstborn,” and the second is its application in the phrase, “firstborn ofall creation.” The term “firstborn” is often times taken to mean, in Arian theology, something along the lines of “first created,” or “first created thing.” And the phrase, “firstborn of all creation,” as a collective whole is taken as a partitive genitive, that is, the “firstborn” is a part of the category of “all creation.” An example of a partitive genitive would be, “Jacob is the chief amongst his fellow slaves,” or “Solomon is the king of his fellow Jews.” So Christ, who is identified as the "firstborn" is to be understood as the first amongst all of God's creation, or the “first created of all creation.” I think it’s also imperative to point out that the NWT citation above includes the word “other,” which appears in several locations in this short excerpt. The inclusion of this word has absolutely no textual/manuscript attestation, but it is argued that the inclusion of the word does not change the meaning or context of the passage, but only clarifies.

That being stated, if I said to you, "please remove all pieces of furniture from the room," how many pieces are left? Zero. If I said, "please remove all other pieces of furniture from the room," how many are left? Exactly, at least one. You have one, or you have none... the inclusion of "other" does not clarify the text, but changes it. So Paul here wrote that through Christ “all” things came into existence, and granted that “all” does not always mean “everything, everywhere,” Paul goes on to seal the deal by telling us what exactly he meant by “all” – “both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things have been created through Him and for Him.” To say that Christ has partaken in the creation of everything in the heavens and on earth, both visible and invisible… that covers everything.

When Paul speaks of Christ as the “firstborn,” is he trying to portray Christ as a part of the creation, or even more, the first created of all of God’s creatures? No, absolutely not. Christ, as the Son of God is the “heir,” everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son. Just as a man’s “firstborn” son is the heir to all his property, so too is Christ the heir of all creation (Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:2, Psalm 2:7-8). “Firstborn,” as used throughout the Old Testament is often used to refer to the preeminence of an individual, and this is clearly seen in the highly Messianic Psalm, where David (who here is a typification of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ), the youngest amongst the sons of Jesse (1 Samuel 16:11-13), is appointed as God’s “firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27).

Another example is recorded in Jeremiah 31:9 with reference to Ephraim as God’s “firstborn,” although, Manassah, his brother, was the first to proceed from the womb (Genesis 41:50-52). YHWH’s choice of Ephraim over Manassah went back to the literal sons of Joseph, and this is when the choice was actually made, and made over the initial protest of Joseph even. After giving Ephraim the precedence Jacob predicts that the younger will be greater than the older and so we read: "thus he kept putting Ephraim before Manassah" (Genesis 48:20). Not only did he gain the prominence over Manassah but in the eyes of the Almighty he was the "firstborn," not Manassah.

To argue that Colossians 1:15 identifies Christ as the first created of all creation is contextual suicide at best. It makes absolutely no sense to say that Christ is the “firstborn [first created] of all creation, because in Him all things were created” – none whatsoever! But when “Firstborn” is understood to refer to the preeminence of Christ and to His inheritance by divine right, ah, now it makes much more sense: The Son is the Firstborn [heir] of all creation, because everything was created in, through, and for Him (v. 16). In v. 16, the term “for” here indicates that all things were created with the intentions of belonging to the heir, to the eternal Word, the Son of God.

Oh okay, thank you for the distinction - I forgot about that.

I don't believe many Arians exist today, however - there are many more Sabellians, who, as you said, would say that the Son is not pre-existant - that's why I was making this argument.


Grace and Love

 

[zackabba]

As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look. (1 Peter 1:10-12)

For those who believe only the Father has the essence of deity, what would you say about this? I've asked this question to many Unitarian sites, including BiblicalUnitarian.com and another site (if you really need to know I can look it up, but it's under angelfire), and they've never been able to answer this.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It's of vital significance to understand that there are multiple forms of Unitarianism. All Sabellians/Modalists are Unitarian, however, not all Unitarians are Sabellian. All Arians (who even believe Jesus pre-existed as "a god") are Unitarian, however, not all Unitarians are Arian. All Socinians are Unitarian, however, not all Unitarians are Socinian. What makes a person a Unitarian is the common belief that YHWH is only one in Person -- it's a universal tenet of Unitarian belief. However, there are radical, drastic, even extreme distinctions among these Unitarian groups, and it's necessary to recognize these distinctions. For this discussion in particular, the Arians (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) view Jesus as a pre-existent created being, a lesser god. They maintain that the pre-incarnate Christ was and is the first created thing that God the Father directly created, and in turn, Christ created everything else, and in support of this they attempt to use Colossians 1:15-16, and Revelation 3:14 to substantiate this claim,

"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 exist, and he is the head of the body, the congregation" -- Colossians 1:15-17, New World Translation (Jehovah's Witness translation)
​

There's several things that Arians like to focus upon here. The first being the term “firstborn,” and the second is its application in the phrase, “firstborn ofall creation.” The term “firstborn” is often times taken to mean, in Arian theology, something along the lines of “first created,” or “first created thing.” And the phrase, “firstborn of all creation,” as a collective whole is taken as a partitive genitive, that is, the “firstborn” is a part of the category of “all creation.” An example of a partitive genitive would be, “Jacob is the chief amongst his fellow slaves,” or “Solomon is the king of his fellow Jews.” So Christ, who is identified as the "firstborn" is to be understood as the first amongst all of God's creation, or the “first created of all creation.” I think it’s also imperative to point out that the NWT citation above includes the word “other,” which appears in several locations in this short excerpt. The inclusion of this word has absolutely no textual/manuscript attestation, but it is argued that the inclusion of the word does not change the meaning or context of the passage, but only clarifies.

That being stated, if I said to you, "please remove all pieces of furniture from the room," how many pieces are left? Zero. If I said, "please remove all other pieces of furniture from the room," how many are left? Exactly, at least one. You have one, or you have none... the inclusion of "other" does not clarify the text, but changes it. So Paul here wrote that through Christ “all” things came into existence, and granted that “all” does not always mean “everything, everywhere,” Paul goes on to seal the deal by telling us what exactly he meant by “all” – “both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things have been created through Him and for Him.” To say that Christ has partaken in the creation of everything in the heavens and on earth, both visible and invisible… that covers everything.

When Paul speaks of Christ as the “firstborn,” is he trying to portray Christ as a part of the creation, or even more, the first created of all of God’s creatures? No, absolutely not. Christ, as the Son of God is the “heir,” everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son. Just as a man’s “firstborn” son is the heir to all his property, so too is Christ the heir of all creation (Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:2, Psalm 2:7-8). “Firstborn,” as used throughout the Old Testament is often used to refer to the preeminence of an individual, and this is clearly seen in the highly Messianic Psalm, where David (who here is a typification of the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ), the youngest amongst the sons of Jesse (1 Samuel 16:11-13), is appointed as God’s “firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27).

Another example is recorded in Jeremiah 31:9 with reference to Ephraim as God’s “firstborn,” although, Manassah, his brother, was the first to proceed from the womb (Genesis 41:50-52). YHWH’s choice of Ephraim over Manassah went back to the literal sons of Joseph, and this is when the choice was actually made, and made over the initial protest of Joseph even. After giving Ephraim the precedence Jacob predicts that the younger will be greater than the older and so we read: "thus he kept putting Ephraim before Manassah" (Genesis 48:20). Not only did he gain the prominence over Manassah but in the eyes of the Almighty he was the "firstborn," not Manassah.

To argue that Colossians 1:15 identifies Christ as the first created of all creation is contextual suicide at best. It makes absolutely no sense to say that Christ is the “firstborn [first created] of all creation, because in Him all things were created” – none whatsoever! But when “Firstborn” is understood to refer to the preeminence of Christ and to His inheritance by divine right, ah, now it makes much more sense: The Son is the Firstborn [heir] of all creation, because everything was created in, through, and for Him (v. 16). In v. 16, the term “for” here indicates that all things were created with the intentions of belonging to the heir, to the eternal Word, the Son of God.

Arianism is, indeed, error; as is Trinitarianism. Trinity is unsubstantiated inference. Veiled Tritheism with superimposed extra-biblical terminology of manufactured definition: "persons". God isn't three "persons".

Trinity is error. Filioque is heresy.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful searches and inquiries, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look. (1 Peter 1:10-12)

For those who believe only the Father has the essence of deity, what would you say about this? I've asked this question to many Unitarian sites, including BiblicalUnitarian.com and another site (if you really need to know I can look it up, but it's under angelfire), and they've never been able to answer this.

And yet... this is no proof-text for a Trinity of three God-"persons". Jesus is Deity, but not a second of three "persons".