John 1:1

[Tomster]

I suggest you read Revelation again, from the beginning. God gave the revelation to an angel who related it to John. It is the angel speaking to John.

Also, pay attention to when the narration starts with “I _someone” like “I John” or “I Jesus.” This marks a change in speaker.

Dan,

Sorry to say you are wrong again.

After a brief prologue (1:1-3) and a letter style greeting (1:4-8), St. John describes a vision which acts as an introduction to the entire book; in it the risen Christ is depicted with features identifying his divinity and his position as Lord and Savior of the Churches.

Coupled with my posts, # 522 and # 523, the JW position regarding John 1:1 has been effectively refuted.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Dan,

Sorry to say you are wrong again.

After a brief prologue (1:1-3) and a letter style greeting (1:4-8), St. John describes a vision which acts as an introduction to the entire book; in it the risen Christ is depicted with features identifying his divinity and his position as Lord and Savior of the Churches.

Coupled with my posts, # 522 and # 523, the JW position regarding John 1:1 has been effectively refuted.

You deny that the angel is speaking to John? On what basis?

NAB Revelation 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must happen soon. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

 

[Danno2281]

Sorry if my sense of humor offended you. It was a failed attempt to bring levity to the discussion. I do pray for wisdom at least several times per week. I continue to believe that the sense of hokma as Craftsman in the ordering of the universe is the primary sense in view in Proverbs 8:22-30. You have also not answered direct questions I have asked on the Catholic view of this passage. Here is another shot.

Do you agree that Proverbs 8:22-30 describes the first created things by God through his Son so that this would be the first example of Wisdom in the sense of skilled craftsmanship?

There is a “Catholic” view on very few passages of scripture, if by that you mean an “official” view, i.e. one that has been defined. Views contrary to the unanimous opinions of the Fathers are judged erroneous. Only a fool would deny that this is the first example of Wisdom as craftsmanship, for no example could precede it. My objection is to the implication that before this (whatever that could possibly mean in terms of God’s timelessness) Wisdom did not exist, as if the Creator did not exist until He created. You might well say that “before” He created He was not a creator per se, but to say that He did not yet exist is a very different statement. I hope this helps to make my position more understandable

 

[Dan_Parker]

There is a “Catholic” view on very few passages of scripture, if by that you mean an “official” view, i.e. one that has been defined. Views contrary to the unanimous opinions of the Fathers are judged erroneous. Only a fool would deny that this is the first example of Wisdom as craftsmanship, for no example could precede it. My objection is to the implication that before this (whatever that could possibly mean in terms of God’s timelessness) Wisdom did not exist, as if the Creator did not exist until He created. You might well say that “before” He created He was not a creator per se, but to say that He did not yet exist is a very different statement. I hope this helps to make my position more understandable

I am glad to see you say “You might well say that “before” He created He was not a creator per se” because that is exactly my position. Of course the only one who is said to have created anything here is Yahweh. I will put the text below and highlight the references to what Yahweh did in blue and Wisdom in red.

NJB Proverbs 8:22 'Yahweh created me, first-fruits of **his **fashioning, before the oldest of **his **works. 23 From everlasting, I was firmly set, from the beginning, before the earth came into being. 24 The deep was not, when I was born, nor were the springs with their abounding waters. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; 26 before **he **had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world. 27 When **he **fixed the heavens firm, I was there, when **he **drew a circle on the surface of the deep, 28 when **he **thickened the clouds above, when the sources of the deep began to swell, 29 when **he **assigned the sea its boundaries – and the waters will not encroach on the shore – when **he **traced the foundations of the earth, 30 I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence,

My position is that wisdom here has the sense of what is skillfully made and so the Son who is created here is aptly named Wisdom. Then the Son is the master craftsman and is represented as a young son learning at the knee of his Father and taking his instruction in skillfully becoming the master craftsman.

If you agree that the Creator became the creator when he created, then Wisdom was first demonstrated in the sense of skillfully making things at that time as well. Of course Yahweh already existed when he brought forth Wisdom to be his master craftsman, but the master craftsman says himself that he was “set **from **the beginning” and was the first-fruits of the fashioning of Yahweh.

The only think that separates our interpretation of this (yours and mine) is your adherence to a Greek philosophic view of time and eternity.

 

[Danno2281]

I am glad to see you say “You might well say that “before” He created He was not a creator per se” because that is exactly my position. Of course the only one who is said to have created anything here is Yahweh. I will put the text below and highlight the references to what Yahweh did in blue and Wisdom in red.

NJB Proverbs 8:22 'Yahweh created me, first-fruits of **his **fashioning, before the oldest of **his **works. 23 From everlasting, I was firmly set, from the beginning, before the earth came into being. 24 The deep was not, when I was born, nor were the springs with their abounding waters. 25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I came to birth; 26 before **he **had made the earth, the countryside, and the first elements of the world. 27 When **he **fixed the heavens firm, I was there, when **he **drew a circle on the surface of the deep, 28 when **he **thickened the clouds above, when the sources of the deep began to swell, 29 when **he **assigned the sea its boundaries – and the waters will not encroach on the shore – when **he **traced the foundations of the earth, 30 I was beside the master craftsman, delighting him day after day, ever at play in his presence,

My position is that wisdom here has the sense of what is skillfully made and so the Son who is created here is aptly named Wisdom. Then the Son is the master craftsman and is represented as a young son learning at the knee of his Father and taking his instruction in skillfully becoming the master craftsman.

If you agree that the Creator became the creator when he created, then Wisdom was first demonstrated in the sense of skillfully making things at that time as well. Of course Yahweh already existed when he brought forth Wisdom to be his master craftsman, but the master craftsman says himself that he was “set **from **the beginning” and was the first-fruits of the fashioning of Yahweh.

The only think that separates our interpretation of this (yours and mine) is your adherence to a Greek philosophic view of time and eternity.

Not quite so fast, Dan. We speak here of Wisdom as craftsman through Whom all was made, not the entirety of Wisdom by any means, e.g. Wisdom will become incarnate and become Savior, but that role of Wisdom has not been made manifest before creation, although it is intrinsic to Wisdom Who Is.
And now I must again ask you, since you say that it separates us, what is your interpretation of time and eternity. It is obvious that you do not accept the conventional, so if we are to understand your position you must tell us what position you adhere to. If you wish to get into Zein und Zeit, that’s OK, but you position is essential to this “separation.”

 

[Dan_Parker]

Not quite so fast, Dan. We speak here of Wisdom as craftsman through Whom all was made, not the entirety of Wisdom by any means, e.g. Wisdom will become incarnate and become Savior, but that role of Wisdom has not been made manifest before creation, although it is intrinsic to Wisdom Who Is.
And now I must again ask you, since you say that it separates us, what is your interpretation of time and eternity. It is obvious that you do not accept the conventional, so if we are to understand your position you must tell us what position you adhere to. If you wish to get into Zein und Zeit, that’s OK, but you position is essential to this “separation.”

When you say conventional, you appear to mean “Catholic” If you search wiki on time you will see that there are a few different ways to describe time, one of which is
an “intellectual structure” to “sequence and compare events.” Therefore time is an abstraction in this view, the past is history, the present is reality and the future is a probability.

I don’t advocate any particular view of time. I merely point out that there are numerous views, and you have selected one particular view upon which your theology depends.

This is your proof and so you bear the burden of it. I am perfectly content to take Proverbs 8:22-30, temporal language and all and just accept the normative view of the language.

 

[Danno2281]

You deny that the angel is speaking to John? On what basis?

NAB Revelation 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him, to show his servants what must happen soon. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

]
Read on to v. 7 Behold, he comes…and they also who pierced him (obviously Jesus) "I am the alpha…, "says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is coming.” HE comes. Who is coming? Who says that he is, was and is coming?
Let’s go to 21:6ff. Now you might remember that someone had the ability to give living water in the same author’s gospel Jn.4:10-15. That pretty much seals it.

 

[Dan_Parker]

]
Read on to v. 7 Behold, he comes…and they also who pierced him (obviously Jesus) "I am the alpha…, "says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is coming.” HE comes. Who is coming? Who says that he is, was and is coming?
Let’s go to 21:6ff. Now you might remember that someone had the ability to give living water in the same author’s gospel Jn.4:10-15. That pretty much seals it.

Lets look at more than just verse 7:
NAB Revelation 1:4 (1 )John, to the seven churches in Asia: (2 )grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead and ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us (1 )from our sins by his blood, 6 who has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father, to him be glory and power forever (and ever). Amen. 7 Behold, he is coming amid the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him. All the peoples of the earth will lament him. Yes. Amen. 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” (1 )says the Lord God, “the one who is and who was and who is to come, the almighty.”

Note the title, “him who is and who was and who is to come” is **distinguished **from Jesus Christ. That is the Father. Now look at verse 8. The A&W is also the one with that title.

 

[Danno2281]

Lets look at more than just verse 7:
NAB Revelation 1:4 (1 )John, to the seven churches in Asia: (2 )grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead and ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us (1 )from our sins by his blood, 6 who has made us into a kingdom, priests for his God and Father, to him be glory and power forever (and ever). Amen. 7 Behold, he is coming amid the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him. All the peoples of the earth will lament him. Yes. Amen. 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” (1 )says the Lord God, “the one who is and who was and who is to come, the almighty.”

Note the title, “him who is and who was and who is to come” is **distinguished **from Jesus Christ. That is the Father. Now look at verse 8. The A&W is also the one with that title.

You neglected to consider ch21:6ff. Look first at ch20:11 and see the white throne, referenced to Mt.25:31. It is the Son of Man sitting upon it. Look at v.5 Now he who was sitting upon the throne (same person as v.11) speaks calling Himself the A&W.

 

[Danno2281]

When you say conventional, you appear to mean “Catholic” If you search wiki on time you will see that there are a few different ways to describe time, one of which is
an “intellectual structure” to “sequence and compare events.” Therefore time is an abstraction in this view, the past is history, the present is reality and the future is a probability.

I don’t advocate any particular view of time. I merely point out that there are numerous views, and you have selected one particular view upon which your theology depends.

This is your proof and so you bear the burden of it. I am perfectly content to take Proverbs 8:22-30, temporal language and all and just accept the normative view of the language.

You seem to misunderstand. I advocate no theory (I won’t even go so far as to say that time has a real existence, so I don’t know how my theology can depend upon it), but you seem to feel that I have a particular view. Please explain in detail exactly what it is about that view that you cannot subscribe to. I can’t “prove” anything unless I know QED.

 

[Dan_Parker]

You seem to misunderstand. I advocate no theory (I won’t even go so far as to say that time has a real existence, so I don’t know how my theology can depend upon it), but you seem to feel that I have a particular view. Please explain in detail exactly what it is about that view that you cannot subscribe to. I can’t “prove” anything unless I know QED.

Here is how I understand your view. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, I am not a philosopher, so forgive my terminology. As I understand it, you hold the view that time changes and/or comes into existence from the point of creation. Everything after creation is within “time” and everything before “time” is eternal and timeless. That is why you object to temporal terms being used to describe the Word “in” the Father before he was begotten.

However, if time is merely an abstraction, a way to relate events to each other, then this is an artificial distinction. Athanasius and his supporters made this argument and Arius his supporters were not buying it. So two native Greek speaking opponents could not agree and one could not say to the other than they must accept their view of time because neither view can be proven.

 

[Dan_Parker]

You neglected to consider ch21:6ff. Look first at ch20:11 and see the white throne, referenced to Mt.25:31. It is the Son of Man sitting upon it. Look at v.5 Now he who was sitting upon the throne (same person as v.11) speaks calling Himself the A&W.

Do you agree that Revelation 1:4-8 proves that it is not Jesus who is called the Alpha and Omega there? Y/N?

As for Rev 21:6, I thought you were using this to prove the Father was the A&W because of the context:
DRA Revelation 21:6 And he said to me: It is done. I am Alpha and Omega: the Beginning and the End. To him that thirsteth, I will give of the fountain of the water of life, freely. 7 He that shall overcome shall possess these things. And** I will be his God: and he shall be my son**.

In your theology, are not Christians brothers of Christ and sons of God?

PS - How do two persons who are called A&W prove the Trinity? What about the third, and exactly what does this term mean to you? It seems like a very round about way to prove Jesus is God, if that indeed is your intention.

 

[Danno2281]

Do you agree that Revelation 1:4-8 proves that it is not Jesus who is called the Alpha and Omega there? Y/N?

As for Rev 21:6, I thought you were using this to prove the Father was the A&W because of the context:
DRA Revelation 21:6 And he said to me: It is done. I am Alpha and Omega: the Beginning and the End. To him that thirsteth, I will give of the fountain of the water of life, freely. 7 He that shall overcome shall possess these things. And** I will be his God: and he shall be my son**.

In your theology, are not Christians brothers of Christ and sons of God?

PS - How do two persons who are called A&W prove the Trinity? What about the third, and exactly what does this term mean to you? It seems like a very round about way to prove Jesus is God, if that indeed is your intention.

Who is the Redeemer? He is the First and the Last (Is.44:6). What you have here is Philip’s problem, Dan (Jn.14:8ff0. There is but one entity although there are two persons portrayed. So both Father and Son are A&W (and the Spirit, although not mentioned here). Jesus also addresses the apostles as His children - “I will not leave you orphans.” (Jn:14:18), because everything that is the Father’s is His as well. Yes, we enabled to share in sonship through baptism into Christ - we share in Christness (whence it is referred to as a Christening), and for this reason Augustine can exclaim, “Rejoice! we are not only Christians, we are Christ” (i know it is from his letter against the Manicheans, but I haven’t the exact citation -sorry)_ There is then not any contradiction between being brothers of Christ and sons of God, and the statement is that we are God’s children, children of the Godhead, not of a separated person. “For what we believe of Your glory through Your revelation, thatr we also believe of Your Son,and of the Holy Spiriit without difference or distinction. So that in confesing the true and eternal Godhead, we adore the distinction of persons, oneness in being, and equality in majesty” From the preface for Sundays according to the extraordinary form (the old Latin Mass). More tomorrow; I’m already late.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Who is the Redeemer? He is the First and the Last (Is.44:6). What you have here is Philip’s problem, Dan (Jn.14:8ff0. There is but one entity although there are two persons portrayed. So both Father and Son are A&W (and the Spirit, although not mentioned here). Jesus also addresses the apostles as His children - “I will not leave you orphans.” (Jn:14:18), because everything that is the Father’s is His as well. Yes, we enabled to share in sonship through baptism into Christ - we share in Christness (whence it is referred to as a Christening), and for this reason Augustine can exclaim, “Rejoice! we are not only Christians, we are Christ” (i know it is from his letter against the Manicheans, but I haven’t the exact citation -sorry)_ There is then not any contradiction between being brothers of Christ and sons of God, and the statement is that we are God’s children, children of the Godhead, not of a separated person. “For what we believe of Your glory through Your revelation, thatr we also believe of Your Son,and of the Holy Spiriit without difference or distinction. So that in confesing the true and eternal Godhead, we adore the distinction of persons, oneness in being, and equality in majesty” From the preface for Sundays according to the extraordinary form (the old Latin Mass). More tomorrow; I’m already late.

Do you agree that in Revelation 1:4-8 and Rev 21:6-7 refer to the Father as the Alpha and Omega because in the first passage Jesus is distinguished from that one and in the second the A&W will be the Father to Christians?

As for who the redeemer is, the Father is the source of Salvation (cp John 3:16):
NJB 1 John 4:14 We ourselves have seen and testify that the Father sent his Son as Saviour of the world.

 

[Danno2281]

Here is how I understand your view. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, I am not a philosopher, so forgive my terminology. As I understand it, you hold the view that time changes and/or comes into existence from the point of creation. Everything after creation is within “time” and everything before “time” is eternal and timeless. That is why you object to temporal terms being used to describe the Word “in” the Father before he was begotten.

However, if time is merely an abstraction, a way to relate events to each other, then this is an artificial distinction. Athanasius and his supporters made this argument and Arius his supporters were not buying it. So two native Greek speaking opponents could not agree and one could not say to the other than they must accept their view of time because neither view can be proven.

Pleas note the intrinsic contradiction in your phrase “before time.” Where there is no time, there is no before. God is, and in that sense, all that is always is because it has always been present to God. Only limited being could be “time” bound. The Divine, being unlimited, is not time bound and always knows all, and has fashioned that which is not Itself, to learn of It, and to participate in It. Some of that other is spirit, some is both spirit and matter, some just matter (a form of energy?) - the created world. The Power through which creation occurred, the Word, is logically antecedent to that which is created, but not subject to time or it could not be logically antecedent. The argument, then, was not about time, but about reasonableness. This is why I inasist that the position you advanced attempts to rob God of His divinity by subjecting Him to change Who Is beyond change.

 

[Danno2281]

Do you agree that in Revelation 1:4-8 and Rev 21:6-7 refer to the Father as the Alpha and Omega because in the first passage Jesus is distinguished from that one and in the second the A&W will be the Father to Christians?

As for who the redeemer is, the Father is the source of Salvation (cp John 3:16):
NJB 1 John 4:14 We ourselves have seen and testify that the Father sent his Son as Saviour of the world.

You are trying to divide what cannot be divided, Dan. Can you deny that the very name Jesus, “Yahweh saves,” says that Jesus is Yahweh? “For He shall save His people from their sins” (Mt.1:21b). You might want to look a Gal.4:4 to see Who, specifically, redeems. Of course I accept the Father as A&W, but clearly the Son as well, and there is no question about its being the Son in Rev 21 on the throne as He Himself said in Mt 25, the One from Whom the fountains of living water spring in Jn 4:10 (remember also -“And the rock from which they drank was Christ”). Who is it Who says, “Behold, I make all things new”? It is Jesus (Eph.1:10).

 

[Dan_Parker]

You are trying to divide what cannot be divided, Dan. Can you deny that the very name Jesus, “Yahweh saves,” says that Jesus is Yahweh?

Dan:
That is for you to approve, not for you to assume. Was Joshua (Yeshua/Jesus) also Yahweh? What about the many other humans who’s names incorporate the divine name? Were they God/Yahweh as well?

“For He shall save His people from their sins” (Mt.1:21b).

Dan:
The Father is the Source of Salvation and the Son is the instrument of Salvation. --NJB 1 John 4:14 We ourselves have seen and testify that** the Father sent his Son as Saviour of the world. Depending upon context, the Son or Father or both are said to be Saviors. Note in Titus 1:

NAB Titus 1:1 Paul, a slave of God and apostle of Jesus Christ for the sake of the faith of God’s chosen ones and the recognition of religious truth, 2 in the hope of eternal life that God, who does not lie, promised before time began**, 3 who indeed at the proper time revealed his word in the proclamation with which I was entrusted by the command of God our savior, 4 to Titus, my true child in our common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our savior.

You might want to look a Gal.4:4 to see Who, specifically, redeems.

Dan:
Of course, God sent his Son. The Father is the source of Salvation and the Son is his instrument.

Of course I accept the Father as A&W, but clearly the Son as well, and there is no question about its being the Son in Rev 21 on the throne as He Himself said in Mt 25, the One from Whom the fountains of living water spring in Jn 4:10 (remember also -“And the rock from which they drank was Christ”). Who is it Who says, “Behold, I make all things new”? It is Jesus (Eph.1:10).

Dan: **
You have not addressed my post on Rev 21. Read the context.
NAB Revelation 21:6 He said to me, "They are accomplished. I (am) the Alpha and the Omega**, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water. 7 The victor will inherit these gifts, and** I shall be his God, and he will be my son**.

You never addressed my point that Christians are brothers of Christ and sons of God. They are sons of the A&W here and therefore the A&W here is the Father.

 

[twb1621]

I am listening. .

Question Dan;
how does a person such as your self who presents them self to be so acutely aware of ancient translations and interpretations of scripture, accept the teachings of a belief system that Directly states since the execution of Saint Paul, "the apostle’s letters guide true worshipers of God to this day” (Publication Quote from –“The Bible, what is it’s message?” Watchtower publications) yet at the same time publishing and preaching the NWT Bible published around 1961 that the JW themselves intentionally falsified through the manipulation of scripture deceivingly adapted it to their own beliefs rather than believing in the true 2000 year old inspired word of God. In other words, they tell people in non-biblical publications the Bible has been the true guide of God’s people since Christ Jesus started His Church through to today yet a little better than 55 years ago they produced, teach and provide to the unfamiliar, a misleading Bible version to teach their beliefs. So how do you claim the ability to criticize and interpret correctly?

In all honesty, It really would be helpful toward your credibility if you would explain this considering all the critiquing you have been doing in regard to the 2000 years of interpretation of scripture.

 

[Dan_Parker]

"Dan:

Here is how I understand your view. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, I am not a philosopher, so forgive my terminology. As I understand it, you hold the view that time changes and/or comes into existence from the point of creation. Everything after creation is within “time” and everything before “time” is eternal and timeless. That is why you object to temporal terms being used to describe the Word “in” the Father before he was begotten.

However, if time is merely an abstraction, a way to relate events to each other, then this is an artificial distinction. Athanasius and his supporters made this argument and Arius his supporters were not buying it. So two native Greek speaking opponents could not agree and one could not say to the other than they must accept their view of time because neither view can be proven.

Pleas note **the intrinsic contradiction in your phrase “before time.” Where there is no time, there is no before. **God is, and in that sense, all that is always is because it has always been present to God. Only limited being could be “time” bound. The Divine, being unlimited, is not time bound and always knows all, and has fashioned that which is not Itself, to learn of It, and to participate in It. Some of that other is spirit, some is both spirit and matter, some just matter (a form of energy?) - the created world. The Power through which creation occurred, the Word, is logically antecedent to that which is created, but not subject to time or it could not be logically antecedent. The argument, then, was not about time, but about reasonableness. This is why I inasist that the position you advanced attempts to rob God of His divinity by subjecting Him to change Who Is beyond change.

Thank you for your explanation. As I said, I did not expect to get the terminology exactly the way you would explain it. However you have confirmed that your view of the begetting of the Word is eternal because time did not exist. That is what I meant when said that your view of the Son being eternal even though he is said to be created/begotten was dependent upon a particular view of time.

That being said, note the way the NAB expresses this time:
NAB Titus 1:2 in the hope of eternal life that God, who does not lie, promised before time began,

So, why is it that I cannot say “before time” but the Catholic NAB can say “before time began”? (cp NJB 2 Timothy 1:9 … before the beginning of time)

 

[Danno2281]

Dan_Parker:
Dan:NAB Revelation 21:6 He said to me, "They are accomplished. I (am) the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water. 7 The victor will inherit these gifts, and I shall be his God, and he will be my son.
You never addressed my point that Christians are brothers of Christ and sons of God. They are sons of the A&W here and therefore the A&W here is the Father.

You seem to have missed that in post #538. I realize that we are on two separate issues, and that you are also addressing other posters, and it’s easier to glean a post rather than to look carefully, so I’ll point out again that Jesus uses that image of a father in Jn.14:18, and in fact addresses them as “Little children” in 13:33. Remember that “All that the Father has is Mine.”