Posted on 07/02/2012 6:30:14 AM PDT by Cronos
“And because Jehovah is the beginning and end, the Alpha and Omega as He declares, and besides Him there is no other God OR Savior, then how can you explain in Revelation 22:12-17”
Rev. 1:8 identifies Jehovah, the Father, as the Alpha and Omega and the the one that is coming. Rev. 22:13 thus is speaking about about Him and the Rev. 22:16 shows the speaker changes to Jesus. In your quote the quotation marks show this change of speaker as recognized by the translators.
Rev. 21:5,6 identifies God (not Jesus) as the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the one on the throne.
Your dismissal of sexual active popes as not duly elected unnamed popes , and spurious unprovable charges against Luther (as if he our faith), and your reliance on argument by assertion has again exampled why i have ceased attempting to pursue meaningful exchange with you, as one rejected even by your own.
It would seem that if you believe Christ and the Apostles to be visible, than it should follow they were also an ORGANIZED and VISIBLE Church that would continue in succession though the ages. Scripture does not say the visible church would end with the Apostles,dear sister.
The only VISIBLE and ORGANIZED Christian Church that can be traced back to the time of the Apostles is Catholicism with its Sacramentalism given to us by Christ Himself
There are volumes upon volumes of writings from the early Church Fathers that back all this up and defend Catholicism through the ages.
As the late Bishop Sheen so beautifully stated....
"If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. … the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness…”
“Protestantism is a pluralistic faith without clarity.”
T’was the lack of clarity in another faith that spawned what are now a panoply of religions that are called “Protestant” mostly by those who really mean “not like us”.
Catholics should pity the poor misguided girl and hope that she finds some grounding based in faith before she self-destructs. I do. Then again I’m “not like you”.
TRUTH is considered stones in the catholic world! The ones who left that counterfeit church know that already, perhaps some are finally getting it. The same world where they make mockery out of the word 'remembrance' and where worship isn't worship. The confused worldly church/organization based on scamming the unsuspecting.
Their own won't stand up to the knowledge that the Vatican can't handle TRUTH being spoken about their money making divorce scam to those they hold in bondage- so they change the subject, i.e. Women ministers are not of God
Stay focused and allow THE TRUTH to penetrate.
Catholicism - the land of wusses who stand for nothing and where they reek of liberalism and humanism.
Changing the subject, IGNORING TRUTH, and spitwads are the result of man-made catholic teaching. That is their calling card.
1. About Agency
First of all, dia is by no means restricted to meaning agency in each place it is used:
From the Louw-Nida semantic domains lexicon we have:
a by (agent): 90.4
b by (instrument): 90.8
c through (means): 89.76
d on behalf of (benefaction): 90.38
e because of (reason participant): 90.44
f on account of (reason): 89.26
g through (extension): 84.29
h along (extension): 84.32
i during (time): 67.136
j throughout (time): 67.140
This is important because instrumentality can mean significantly more than mere agency. In an agent-principal relationship, I may give my agent the legal authority to act on my behalf, for few or many things. But my own hands may be an instrument of my will, and in such a case there is no sense in which my hands are less liable than I am for what they do.
But this is an imperfect analogy, because we do believe Jesus as God the Son is distinct as a person from God the Father. Unlike mere hands, there is a second person there. But unlike agency, there is also a true unity of being:
Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. [9] Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. [10] And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Consider what the writer of Hebrews is saying here. Is he taking Psalms 102:25 out of context? Of whom is the Psalmist speaking when he says:
“Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.”
Is it not Jehovah? It is, when seen in context:
Psa 102:22 When the people are gathered together, and the kingdoms, to serve the LORD. [23] He weakened my strength in the way; he shortened my days. [24] I said, O my God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are throughout all generations. [25] Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.
So here we have Hebrews directing us to think of Jesus as the subject of the Psalmist’s praise, praise clearly directed to Jehovah.
And to further bind the two into one, we also have Job speaking of Jehovah as not acting through any lesser being, but only himself, in the act of creation:
Job 9:7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. [8] Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. [9] Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south.
Therefore, while Jesus was indeed the instrument of the Father’s creative will, all the praise, all the responsibility, for all of creation, rests in a single being.
2. About John 1:1-3.
However, even if we were to grant a theory of agency, strictly for purposes of trying to understand John 1:3, we are left with a conundrum if we relegate Jesus to the set of things created. By your own theory, Jesus was the agent of creation for all created things, right? Or do you make an exception for Jesus? Because if you do, that exception is explicitly disallowed by the language of John 1:3:
John 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
In the first clause, the positive assertion is made. In ordinary contract law this would be enough, based on the rule that whatever is included automatically excludes whatever is left out. But just to make sure we didn’t miss it, John doubles down with the negative assertion of exclusion, basically saying that no created thing, period, came to be that way without him, that is, Jesus. This is a hermetically sealed set, and if this were a contract dispute I could win easy on this language in any reasonable court, hands down.
So we see that John is purposefully distinguishing between the eternal Word (in the beginning the Word was already existing, and was therefore eternal) and lesser, created beings. Why would he do that? Possibly because one of the rampant heresies of his day was the Gnostic worship of angels, which angels they used as an excuse to delve into all manner of wickedness yet claiming to be pure. It’s a long story.
Thus we see how John wrote his God-breathed Gospel to repel one of the great heresies that sought to snuff out the early church. And how he did this I really admire. As a law student, they teach you to structure your arguments from best to worst, with the top one or two coming at the very beginning, to hit your opponent right between the eyes as quickly as possible, and that’s just what John does:
Joh 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God.”
Do you see how he cuts the legs out from under his Gnostic opponents in those first few words? There is no deep secret possessed by the Gnostics. God is not some impossibly secretive, distant spirit who hates the material world, who can only be reached by through an infinity of angelic hierarchies. No, he has come to us and expressed himself to us in person through the eternal and uncreated Word, who could not possibly hate the material world, because it was his own wisdom and power that created it.
And at once John is done with angels and Gnostic secrets and a God for whom personal love is impossible. John’s God reaches down and bursts the barrier between us and eternity, between holy and fallen, by meeting us where we are, in his own person:
John 14:8 “Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. [9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”
Believe me when I say, this one concept, that we could experience the forgiveness and love of God directly and personally, had enormous power in the ancient world to change our relationship with God, and Jesus the God-man is exactly how that was accomplished. Islam is still trapped within a Gnostic conception of God, and you can see how well that’s not working out.
BTW, if you are interested in the more technical matters concerning theos and the use or nonuse of the definite article in John 1:1, here are a few links you might find helpful. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask:
http://christiandefense.org/jw_deity.htm
http://christiandefense.org/jw_nwt.htm
http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/JWs%20and%20Deity.htm
Peace,
SR
There is no textual basis for believing verse 13 and verse 16 represent two different speakers. We know there was an angel, a messenger sent to John to carry these words, but John is careful to distinguish the messenger from the message. But if you want agency, here’s a great example of it, because the text makes clear the agent is empowered to speak on behalf of one principal, Jesus, and when he does so, he speaks in the first person, as he does when claiming to be Alpha and Omega. Jesus is God.
Rev 22:12 “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. [13] I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. [14] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. [15] For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. [16] I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”
Peace,
SR
See posts #347, #348, meant to ping you but forgot (sheepish grin).
Rev. 1:6 and 8 shows that the Alpha and Omega is not Jesus the Son but Jehovah the Father.
And when the speaker changes in verse 16 the speaker is identified as “I, Jesus” and a not just continuation of the previous speaker.
The Alpha/Omega is identified as God, the Father, his father, whom Jesus called “my God”.
I'm assuming assuming you're speaking of the girl in the article?
I am more than willing to sacrifice and pray for people like this.My prayer is she does not get swept into a heretical pluralistic version of Christianity , but return to the faith of the Church she was Baptized in and submit to its teachings and become a champion of the Catholic faith
The reality is that freedom in the eyes of an american pluralistic system actually creates an environment of greed ,Hollywood,the porn industry,etc.. which leads to the destruction of souls that destroys true freedom and enslaves and destroys souls.
The teachings of the Catholic Church has always opposed this version of fake freedom,and this girl who wrote the article has been brainwashed into thinking america is a savior of mankind.
Nope, read it again. We already know Trinitarian doctrine allows God the Father and God the Son to communicate with each other, so verse 1 does not determine who is speaking in the first person in verse 8. But we do know Jesus is the person delivering this message through his angel/messenger, because that is spelled out in Rev 22:16.
So we look at verse 8, and we see it is the Lord saying he is Alpha and Omega, and again we find the same expression in verse 11. Interestingly, in verse 12, John looks to see who just said that to him, and he see this magnificent being, whom we understand to be the angel sent in agency of Jesus, and this being then continues in verse 17 to describe the first person speaker as the First and the Last, the one who lives, but was dead, and now lives forevermore. God the Father was never dead. This is clearly Jesus speaking through the angel, and as there was no shift to a different speaker here either, it is clearly Jesus proclaiming himself to be Alpha and Omega.
This claim to be First and Last is a Hebraism, where the same exact idea is expressed in two different forms. Used all the time in Psalms, Proverbs, etc. Here, Alpha and Omega are the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, so the “First and Last” statement is an equivalent declaration, and as it comes from the One who was dead but now lives, it is indisputably Jesus saying it. But what has this to do with Jehovah? Everything, as Jehovah also claims to be First and Last, and exclusively so, as here:
Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Monotheism at full volume here. There can be no diminishing of Jesus to less than fully God without making either Isaiah 44:6 or Revelation 1:17 out to be a lie. There are no lesser gods. As God cannot lie, both passages must be true, so the solution cannot be found in anything less than the full deity of Jesus Christ. Indeed, as is popular in some groups to say, let God be true, but every man a liar:
*******************************************
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Rev 1:4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Rev 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Rev 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Rev 1:12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.
Rev 1:14 His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;
Rev 1:15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.
Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Rev 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
Rev 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.
*******************************************
As for your claim of a speaker shift in chapter 22, pure fantasy. Sorry. You have shown no textual basis for it because there is none. Rather, it looks to me like your “speaker shift tactic” is just that, a tactic to avoid the obvious but unwanted conclusion that Jesus is the speaker in both places. It really works too well, you know. You could use it anywhere you wanted to break up one person’s line of thought. And if you don’t require proof of such a break, even better. You could re-imagine the whole Bible that way.
BTW, when he says, “I Jesus,” that is not only not a “speaker shift” cue, that is a positive certification that this was him talking all along. It is the equivalent of a signature, as in any common legal document, where the body of text comes before, and at the end, the person certifying the truth of those statements say, “I (fill in the blank) do testify to the truthfulness of these words, etc.” I work with legal documents all the time. This is a verbal signature, and nothing less.
Peace,
SR
These objections have all been faced, and i see them as based upon a failure to consider all that Scripture teaches on the subject, or an unwillingness to allow the conclusion of such.
Then howbeit the Father has specific knowledge the Son does not (Matt. 24:36)
This ignores that in His incarnation Jesus, while not thinking it to be “robbery to be equal with God, made himself [did empty himself], of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” (Phil. 2:7)
Therefore Jesus, while being God manifest in the flesh, (1Tim. 3:16) was yet restricted to being in one place at one time, but which He is not after His resurrection.
As the Father as the head determines what will be part of the exercise of His own authority, as well as that of the Son, so He determined what truth the Son, as the Word of God, would flow through Him to man, and which does not militate against Jesus being God as ontologically one in being with the Father.
Submission in the Godhead does not mean one is a created being. Even if not completely analogous to to the Triune nature of God, a husband and wife are one flesh, and the fact that the wife is in submission to her husband in position and function does not make her a different species than man.
that the Father can confer authority upon the Son that the Son does not have (Matt. 28:18, John 5:22,27),
The authority here refers to position and function, and again, this objection proceeds from the untenable premise that submission mean inferiority in nature, which would mean that employers are supermen versus employees. But as in the above example, there is complementarity and interdependence, so that the Father Son and the Spirit work together, and would not be the God of the Bible apart from each other.
that the Son could be seen but no man has seen God at any time.(John 1:18) and regards their nature?
A simple view of this would find Ex. 24:10,11 “they saw the God of Israel” to be problematic, but as there, “seeing” refers to seeing God in less than His completely unveiled glory, "..dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see," (1 Timothy 6:16) and thus the God they saw was veiled, as Christ was, taking upon him the form of a servant.” (Phil. 2:7) of the seed of Abraham. (Heb. 2:16)
Yet in a real sense the elders of Israel saw God and not a created being, and likewise even more so he that seeeth the Son seeth the Father who sent Him. (Jn. 12:45)
And here is one of the most subtle but powerful revelations of whom Christ was. For in response to the important question, “who is this Son of man?,” (Jn. 12:34b) the Lord exhorts them to “walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you,” and the Holy Spirit invokes (in its fulfilled sense) the prophecy given to Isaiah 6:10, after he had seen the thrice holy LORD in His glory, (Is. 6:1-5) "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. " (John 12:40)
He then declares, “These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory, and spake of Him,” (v. 41) referring to Christ as the One whom Isaiah saw. And therefore the Lord "Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness. " (John 12:44-46)
This is just one of many texts in which the being called God is identified as Christ, but which is revealed to those who will walk in that Light.
"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. " (1 John 5:20)
John 5:26 says the Father has life in Himself but the Son did not until granted or given to him by the Father?
This refers to function, to the Son being commissioned to give life to whom He will, “And I give unto them eternal life,” and thus “I and my Father are one,” (Jn. 10:28-30) which is another uniquely Divine attribute, and rather than the Son being just a special angel- functionary, He was Divine by nature, and in function and nature is called "My Lord and my God." (Jn. 20:28)
And leading up to Jn. 5:26 is " John 5:18 "Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” The offense here was the use of idios patēr, literally, “His own [or peculiar] Father,” (as in Rom. 8:32) which distinguished Jesus from being a man (who did not refer to God as such) and instead infers unique ontological decent, the Word who was “in the bosom of the Father,” (Jn. 1:18) who proceeding forth from Him to manifest the invisible God.
“And rather than the Son being a created subcontractor in creating all things, (Jn. 1:2; Col. 1:16) “all things” would include Himself, and in no place is creative activity ascribed to any created thing.”
Then those “all things” would have to include God the Father! and the holy spirit, too! Is that what you are saying?
No, the argument is that if Jesus was created, then He would have created Himself if He created all things, while God says He did so by Himself, (Is. 44:24) referring to the Father, Son and the Spirit, as in “Let US make man in OUR image,” (Gn. 1:26, which plurality is used only 6 times in the Old Testament in referring to God, before the “royal we” is seen used). And thus in Is. 6, in which John has the LORD referring to the Son, the same asks, “who shall go for US?” (Is. 6:8)
The question is, how can Jesus be called God, and “the Almighty,” (Jn. 1:1; 20:28; Rv. 1:8) among other Divine titles, and receive unmistakable universal worship (not simply obeisance), in union with the Father, (Rv. 5:11-14) as well have powers and titles ascribed to Him which were ascribed to God, if He is only a created being?
Arguing the Greek in Jn. 1:2 means “a god” creates more problems than it solves, as does ascribing uniquely Divine attributes, titles and glory to a created being. No created being did or could make these claims, and which would invite worship of such, and these ascriptions would makes a mockery of texts which forbid that if the Holy Spirit was not revealing the Son to be God by nature. Thus the Jews rightly perceived the import of the Lord's claims to that effect, but being blinded, they “crucified the Lord of glory.” (1Cor. 2:8)
"For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? " (Psalms 89:6)
"And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
“And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.” (Hebrews 1:7-8,10)
And as said, this is covered more extensively here.
“My prayer is she does not get swept into a heretical pluralistic version of Christianity”
LOL....well I guess that’s better than nothing.
And what is your prayer for this poor misguided girl since her pride in america has caused her grave error?
I didn't intend to restrict “dia” to the meaning of agency in every case but most certainly in the case under discussion.
“This is important because instrumentality can mean significantly more than mere agency. In an agent-principal relationship, I may give my agent the legal authority to act on my behalf, for few or many things. But my own hands may be an instrument of my will, and in such a case there is no sense in which my hands are less liable than I am for what they do.”
Then consider how the use of agents is described in the Scriptures.
In Genesis 18 three men appear to Abraham. Abraham addressed one of them as Jehovah or Yahweh and he responds in the first person.
This angel could so because spoke in and acted under the authority of and by direction of God. God's agent could speak as though he himself were God. And Abraham could properly address him as such.
In Genesis 32 Jacob wrestles with a man and says he has “seen God face to face” and not died, something denied to Moses. Had Jacob seen God or had he seen God's agent?
Other examples could be cited but in view of these is improper or unlikely that Jesus could be spoken of in the same way when acting as his father's agent or representitive? Obviously, No.
Hebrews 1:8 is frequently translated “Your throne, O God.......
How shall Heb. 1:8 be translated? Vocative or Nominative?
Robertson's commentary suggests two ways are equally possible from the Greek:
Hebrews 1:8
“O God (o teov).
This quotation (the fifth) is from Psalms 45:7. A Hebrew nuptial ode (epitalamium) for a king treated here as Messianic. It is not certain whether o teov is here the vocative (address with the nominative form as in John 20:28 with the Messiah termed teov as is possible, John 1:18) or o teov is nominative (subject or predicate) with estin (is) understood: “God is thy throne” or “Thy throne is God.” Either makes good sense.”
But since this quote was from a poetical ode to the King, possibly Solomon, the Psalmist was not calling the King Almighty God. Saying that God was his throne, the source and support of the king's power makes perfect sense and is in keeping with the rest of the O.T.
“Thy throne is God” is a better rendering according to the context.
Psalm 102 is quoted by Paul and applied to Christ. In the first verse of Hebrews Paul establishes that Christ was an agent for God..’God spoke to them..by means of Christ.’
Thus the Psalm would describe either since Paul applied it to Christ.
“John 1:3 “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
In the first clause, the positive assertion is made. In ordinary contract law this would be enough, based on the rule that whatever is included automatically excludes whatever is left out. But just to make sure we didn’t miss it, John doubles down with the negative assertion of exclusion, basically saying that no created thing, period, came to be that way without him, that is, Jesus. This is a hermetically sealed set, and if this were a contract dispute I could win easy on this language in any reasonable court, hands down.”
The New Greek/English Interlinear New Testament (United Bible Society) reads:
“All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being”.
This is not contract law but I could easily overcome the “hermetically sealed” idea by showing in idiomatic Greek “all things” need not be understood to be without exception even if not named.
Paul says ‘all things were to be subjected to the Christ’, but ‘all things’ has an exception that Paul says is evident, the one doing the subjecting. (1 Cor. 15:27)
Just as in English, in Greek exceptions to “all/every” may be understood if not named.
For example at Luke11:42 Jesus says the Pharisees give a tenth of the mint and the rue and every (Greek “pan”) herb or plant.
It's evident the Pharisees didn't give a tenth of every plant but every other one like the ones named.
Jesus is called part of creation at Col.1:15, in fact “the first born of all creation.”
“John 14:8 “Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. [9] Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?”
Is Jesus saying here that he, Jesus, is the Father or that he shows what the Father is like?
Except this "sacramentalism" cannot be traced back to Jesus Christ nor to the Apostles but gradually became ingrained within the organized and controlling institution that, through force in concert with the temporal power of the state, enforced the views of the hierarchy. The Roman Catholic Church did not assert itself as primary until the fourth century and later and even then was not seen as over all the other local churches. Until that time, there were MANY local churches in Rome (it's a BIG city) as well as in other parts of the known world and they shared the common Christian faith that was based upon the teachings of Christ and handed down from the Apostles. I know you have to be aware that the Eastern Orthodox separated from Rome in the eleventh century when the Primacy of the Pope of Rome was established. This was NOT as the early church believed and it was rejected because of its novelty much like other doctrines with which they also departed.
the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness…”
I understand why Catholics hold so tightly to this but it is NOT at all "obvious". The only way we can know a local assembly is part of the "faith" of Christianity is how closely they hold to the doctrines taught by Christ and perpetuated by the Apostles and these teachings, traditions, are what is set forth in Holy Scripture. Teachings of fallible men do not usurp the Divinely-inspired Scriptures. So ANY church that calls itself Christian only has legitimacy as long as they follow God's truth as taught in Scripture. When these central doctrines are deviated from, then it no longer represents the true church, the Body of Christ. And this body IS a spiritual household - that is the ONLY way that the sheep can be separated from the goats, the wheat from the tares. Christ knows those who are His and His sheep hear HIS voice and follow Him.
I accept that we may not EVER agree about this but I thank you for your respectful manner and your concern. I am positive that what I believe IS the true faith and I am assured that I have eternal life through Christ my Savior.
1. About John 1:3.
You like AT Robertson, so do I. In this place he takes the negative half of the exclusion and obliterates any hope of squeezing in an exception, because the phrase actually reads as follows:
Panta di autou egeneto kai xoris autou egeneto oude ev ho gegonen
Literally
All things by means of him were created and without him was created not even one created thing.
Did you catch that? An emphatic denial that even one created thing was made apart from Christ. There is clarity in John here. He means to deny the Gnostics their perverse misuse of angels, and your own choice of Greek grammarian agrees, it’s a lockout. No angels treading there.
2. On Hebrews 1:8
“Your throne O God” would be the vocative rendering, and nominative would change it to “God is your throne.” No contest. It’s vocative. Of course Robertson’s more tenuous evaluation is necessarily limited to the linguistic artifacts of the one verse, but the problem is not unsolvable, because we also have the Hebrew psalm upon which this quote is based, and that is clearly in the vocative:
Psa 45:6 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.
Which only makes sense, as there never has been any such expression as God being a throne for some high king. It really is ludicrous on its face.
Therefore, as the writer of Hebrews applies this Messianic psalm to the Son, and as we know there is no God but Jehovah, the only reasonable conclusion is that he means, like John, to set Christ above the angels, in a unique category of sonship, which of course has implications for the use of legal terms like “firstborn,” which imply in this case a logical order, not a chronological order.
For a true chronology of the Word, we must again look to John 1:1, in which we find:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”
Note the first clause. In the beginning, the Word simply was, in a verb of being that represents a continuous state. Eternal. At the beginning he had no beginning, because he already was. Again, keep in mind the John is laying out a case for who Jesus is that will defeat the Gnostic distortions trying to reduce him to a mere angel.
The rest of the passage is translated correctly as given above, and even AT Roberson approves. Do you still wish to keep using him as your Greek expert?
3. About theophanies of Christ before his incarnation.
There is no doubt that Christ appeared to various people before his incarnation. As the Word, we know he was already existing when everything began, so appearances before his incarnation are reasonable and even to be expected. Theses theophanies actually have no bearing whatsoever on your theory of limited agency. Trinitarian theory allows God to be presented in human form through the Son. Each time he is, we understand that to be the Son, and the natural role of the Son, to be the perfect expression of the Father. Hence no problem with the exchange between Jesus and Philip.
So, as far as you have taken it, each action you take to be agency could just as well be a deeper form of instrumentality based on a unity of being. Your burden, and you cannot meet it, is to show that even one of these theophanies was carried out by a created being. The text provides no such evidence, but does describe Messiah in terms that would allow for an eternal being:
Micah 5:2 “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”
4. On dia.
The fact is, with respect to John 1:3, you are attempting to use dia to restrict the possible meaning of instrumentality to a particular form of limited agency, in particular, an agency between an uncreated principal and a created agent. Yet the word in itself does not inherently have that limitation, and that is why I’m not letting you off the hook regarding its broader range of meaning. You simply cannot build a case for created angelic nature as opposed to eternal divine nature on a single preposition that has such enormous versatility. Well, of course you can build whatever case you like, but do not expect it to be convincing to anyone who actually knows the language.
5. On Psalm 102
Yes, God has spoken to us by his Son, whom I note is the Son of the Father, who would not be the Father but for the Son. Again, your theory presents a very restricted kind of creature-Creator agency, and makes no allowance for this unique Father and Son relationship, where we already have evidence that both parties to the arrangement are eternal and uncreated. Your inferences from agency are divorced from this reality, and therefore cannot be expected to explain the totality of the Biblical record.
In particular, Psalm 102’s application is not left to chance or speculation, whether the referent is the Father or the Son, because the conjunction kai at Hebrews 1:10 links both Messianic prophesies together as being applicable to the Son mentioned in 1:8:
Heb 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
But this does not address the problem raised in Job, where Jehovah does this same work of creating the universe, not through an agent, but alone:
Job 9:8-9 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. [9] Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south.
Which makes sense if “alone” here means unaided by lesser beings, but through the instrumentality of the Son. And that you may recall is the whole point of Job, to show that no man nor anyone but God can enter into the mind of God and know what he is doing and why he is doing it. That is the very cornerstone of his argument that Job should humble himself and accept that Gods ways are past finding out, and we must trust him no matter what.
And again the same rule of context applies to Hebrews chapter 1, The writer is going to great pains to show, not that Christ is some high angel, but that he is above the angels, in a class by himself, shared only with the Father, for only God is to receive worship, and Jesus said so during his temptation, and yet:
Heb 1:6 “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.”
But:
Matthew 4:10 “Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”
So are the angels of Hebrews wrong to worship the Son? Not if he’s God.
Peace,
SR
“And what is your prayer for this poor misguided girl since her pride in america has caused her grave error?”
Friend, I’m just a poor misguided pluralistic heretic, as such my prayers for this girl go nowhere but to a disappointed and judgmental God who barely tolerates my very existence before He sends me to hell for not being the right religion.
Personally, I was just going to throw her down a volcano for her own good, and to help with the Midwestern drought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.