Therein lies the problem. Although there have been millions of people who view themselves as Christian, believe in Jesus, and adore him as the Son of God, and rest their faith on him for salvation, the CC has created a definition that orthodox means Jesus is God.if the JW’s on this thread could show us from any point, post Apostolic period to the 1800’s where Jesus was considered by **orthodox **Christians anything other than God incarnate that would them some clout. .
These millions of people must be JWs, I assume.Therein lies the problem. Although there have been millions of people who view themselves as Christian, believe in Jesus, and adore him as the Son of God, and rest their faith on him for salvation, the CC has created a definition that orthodox means Jesus is God.
So, to find someone who simultaneously meets the CC’s definition of “orthodox”, while believing something different than the CC’s definition is (by definition) impossible.
The Father creates through the Son. Both are God.So what is the use for the scripture to then say “God created the Universe **through **his Son” and “**for **His Son” and **by means **of His Son.
Someone already pointed out that God created alone. Read the last chapters of Job.God spoke THROUGH prophets…
God created the universe THROUGH his Son
The prophets weren’t considered to be Jehovah.
Jesus shouldn’t be considered to be Jehovah
Along with 50+ other independant translations.Someone already pointed out that God created alone. Read the last chapters of Job.
None of the prophets is it claimed, that he is the fullness of deity bodily. If our only claim for Jesus being God was the fact that he was involved in creation, then you may have a point. But, it is the abundance of claims about Jesus. Starting with the correct translation of John 1:1c “the logos was God” that your bible has wrong.
I don’t argue the Michael = Jesus debate because I feel it is similar to trying to prove Jesus = Jehovah by means of looking at their similar behavior.Another thing,
if Jesus is the created Archangel Michael,
why didn’t John JUST SAY SO in John 1:1.
This was written near the year 95 A.D. and John had
had decades to pray, ponder, and reflect on the prehuman nature and person of Jesus.
Why didn’t he just say, “and the word was Michael, the blessed Archangel?” This would certainly be a golden opportunity to put that in writing IF that is what he really believed.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
No, actually there is a steady stream of people who haven’t believed in the Trinity Doctrine from it’s inception down until today.These millions of people must be JWs, I assume.
God Bless,
Michael
This is really key, to why Jesus as creator is viewed as God. In proverbs 8, one of God’s attributes was involved in creation, not a second being. In Job, God plainly says,Here are the relevant verses that contradict this notion that God had a created partner in creation.
Isaiah 44:24
24 This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me?
Isaiah 45:12
12 I myself have made the earth and have created even man upon it. I—my own hands have stretched out the heavens, and all the army of them I have commanded.
God denies having any partners in the creation of the world and emphasizes that he created the world with his own “hands.” This contradicts the JW notion that Jesus was a created partner in creation.
I’ve posted these verses over and over again.
God Bless,
Michael
Where in the OT does it say that? Don’t you have a contradiction? OT texts says that God did it all alone, wisdom is an attribute of God, not a seperate being from him.1In the past **God **spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.
Doing something through someone else isn’t hard to understand.
Jehovah did things **through **prophets, **through **saviors and even **through **his Son.
In the case of creating the universe, YHWH did it **through **his Son
But, he can ignore it, which seems to be what is going on.Sir, you are comparing apples with oranges. God uses prophets to speak. God uses “saviors” to deliver people from their enemies. But there are things that God does directly and creating is one of them. God used no created being to create. What God is talking about in the verses in Isaiah is that He created the world BY HIMSELF? Do you understand what “by myself” entails? Do you understand what “I did everything” entails? Do you know what “my own hand” entails? What did God mean when he asks “Who was with me?” Unless you graduated from BCSEL ( The Bill Clinton School of the English Language) , you cannot escape the plain meaning of the text.
God Bless,
Michael
I guess it gives credence to “Let US make man in our image”The Father creates through the Son. Both are God.
God Bless,
Michael
To answer your question, I am not teaching Pelagianism, BibleSteve was. newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htmAnd you know the correct interpretation? And who ever said God forsaked Jesus; that would be Jesus forsaking Himself. And if you are saying Jesus is anything other than God then show me any historical evidence where this was taught.
AmenGod never says He wrote the Bible by Himself.
God never says He delivered His Word to His people by Himself.
God never said He delivered the Isarelites from their enemies during the era of the judges by Himself.
But God clearly and explicitly states He created the world by Himself.
God Bless,
Michael
Did it occur to you, if they are speaking in the first person, that they were God making an appearance that man could see?I see several occassion in Genesis and Exodus where angels are speaking in the first person for Jehovah, saying “I Jehovah…”
The texts say they are angels… and the fact that people saw them and yet the Bible says no one has seen God lead me to conclude they were sent for as his authorized messengers to speak in behalf of him in first person.
gty.org/resources.php?section=issues&aid=176411Will we see God’s face?
Yes! In heaven we will actually see the Lord face to face. This is impossible in the earthly realm. After all, God said, “No man can see Me and live!” (Ex. 33:20, NASB). John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12 both say, “No one has seen God at any time.” First Timothy 6:16 declares that God “alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.” Indeed, God is “of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on wickedness” (Hab. 1:13). As long as we are tainted by sin, we cannot see God. The view of such perfect righteousness would destroy us.
So, the OT passages carry more weight because God was speaking himself?And then you make God into a liar if you say that someone else is not God. By Himself means By Himself which means God alone. Creating with his OWN HANDS means that God directly created the world. If Jesus is not God, then God is not clariying anything. He is contradicting Himself.
God Bless,
Michael
Also the word being used in 1 John 4:12 is Theaomai. More properly this should be translated as behold. This word has more of a connotation of a vision of wondering regard or contemplation. Though Man has seen God, he has not seen him as He his. God in the OT vieled himself by taking the image of an angel or as a man to viel himself from Man. That does not mean that Man has not seen God at all.Did it occur to you, if they are speaking in the first person, that they were God making an appearance that man could see?
gty.org/resources.php?section=issues&aid=176411
Genesis 32:30
So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
The solution is simple. All you need to do is accept what the Bible says. If the people of the OT were seeing God, the Almighty God, and Jesus said that no one has ever seen the Father (John 6:46), then they were seeing God Almighty, but not the Father. It was someone else in the Godhead. I suggest that they were seeing the Word before He became incarnate. In other words, they were seeing Jesus; compare John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14 above.
If God is a Trinity, then John 1:18 is not a problem either because in John chapter one, John writes about the Word (Jesus) and God (the Father). In verse 14 it says the Word became flesh. In verse 18 it says no one has seen God. Since Jesus is the Word, God then, refers to the Father, and the apparent contradiction is easily resolved, especially when this is examined in the light of Jesus’ words in John 6:46 where He said that no one has ever seen the Father. Therefore, Almighty God was seen, but not the Father. It was Jesus before His incarnation. There is more than one person in the Godhead and the doctrine of the Trinity must be true.
carm.org/misc/plurality.htm
“Firstborn” doesn’t always mean chronologically or the first one born. Sometimes it means first in importance, and not first in time. Manasseh was the first one born, but Jacob (Israel) blessed Ephraim instead of Manasseh and gave him the position of firstborn (Gen. 48:13-22). in Jer. 31:9, God declares Ephraim to be His firstborn, even though Manasseh was born first. The same is true with Jacob and Esau. Esau was the first one born, but Jacob (whose name was changed to Israel) received his brother’s birthright and his father’s blessing and became the firstborn. The nation of Israel was named after him, and the Lord calls Israel his firstborn (Ex. 4:22). Here again, firstborn refers to rank and privileges. The nation of Israel was not the first nation to exist. But God called it the firstborn among all the nations. The Levites substituted the Israelites birstborn. Numbers 8:13-16. To the firstborn belonged the birthright, which included the headship of the family or tribe, and a double portion of his father’s property. Jesus is the firstborn because he is the highest. He is first in importance, in pre-eminence, not first in time because pre-existed before time. The context of Col. 1:16-17 is a denial that Christ is the same in dignity, character, and origin as created beings. He is supreme over all things, including angels (thrones or powers or rulers or authorities). He is before all things (referring to time, as in Jn. 1:1-2; 8:58). Christ is prior, pre-eminent and sovereign over all creation. He stands apart and outside creation and is not a part of creation.I would argue that “firstborn of creation” shows Jesus is part of the creation and being called “firsborn from the dead” simply means he was dead. Here’s why…
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.
This point is also made by Jesus being called “firstborn of the dead”. He was part of the group being “dead”.
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?
Now, specifically on the phrase “firstborn from the dead”. Obviously, Jesus was not the first resurrection in the Bible, so Trinitarians will see this as proof the word “firstborn” has another meaning, suggesting it means things like prime, most excellent, most distinguished. However, Jesus was “first” chronologically in a very special way. He was the first raised from the dead to endless life. Everyone else previously resurrected later died again.