by

JW’s on creation

The following is the jist of an exchange I had on another blog with a Jehovah’s Witness about the roles of the Father and the Son in the work of creation.

Suppose a fellow named William Taylor is telling me how a house got built.

William Taylor: Yep, I know the fellow that built that house. Did it all by himself. Every step of the way. And not a soul to help him.

Me: Wow! That’s amazing! You mean he did everything?

WT: Yep, everything. Drew up the plans, mixed the concrete, milled the lumber. Framed it, built the roof tresses, nailed every shingle on the roof. Wired it, plumbed it. Yep, he did everything!

Well, then the man’s son comes along, and says,

Son: So, how do you like the house I built?

Me: What do you mean YOU built it? William, I thought you said his father built it.

WT: His father DID build it!

Me: But the son here did all the work!

WT: Yep!

Me: Then how can you say the father did all the work?

WT: Because he did it through his son.

Me: Huh? You said the father did it all by himself, and that no one helped him.

WT: That’s right!

Me: But the son did the work. The father was NOT by Himslef.

WT: Yes he was. He told his son what to do.

Me: So the father didn’t do the work of building?

WT: Sure he did. He did every single thing by himself–through his son.

I think you get the picture. This is how the Jehovah’s Witnesses see the relationship of the Father and the Son in creation. They claim that when John said “not one thing was made that was not made by [Christ]” (John 1:3), that the apostle meant, “Other than Himself, nothing was made that was not made by Him,” even though the apostle John NEVER makes that distinction. However, when we view creation through the lens of the orthodox view of the Trinity, then it makes sense.

YHVH tells us in Isaiah 44:24–“Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and He who formed you from the womb: ‘I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself…” In fact, the New World (mis)Translation adds these words of YHVH–“Who was with Me?” Indicating that NO ONE did ANYTHING in creating ANYTHING besides YHVH. He did not “work through” an angel. In fact, this is ludicrous to even think it. This would mean that an angel created everything for himself! (Colossians 1:16).

YHVH created all things. But when we remember that YHVH is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and we understand that each one had a role in creation (Genesis 1:1-2; Neh. 9:6; Psalm 33:6, 102:25-27; Isa. 44:24, 45:18; John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17) then this Tri-unity lends sense and credibiilty to our understanding of creation. We may not understand “how” but we will understand “who.”

 

19 thoughts on “JW’s on creation”

  3. At the bottom of their rank heresy the JW’s fail the test of monotheism. They do their best to get around this problem, but they still end up with two gods. A “greater” god (the Father) and a “lesser” god (the Son).

    Like

  5. CD,

    They do their best to get around this problem, but they still end up with two gods. A “greater” god (the Father) and a “lesser” god (the Son).

    Even though in Isaiah 44:6 YHVH says “Besides me there is no God.” Yet God created another God (or is it “god”?) even though there is only one God (1st Corinthians 8:4).

    Er, something.

    Like

  8. The problem is that the context of Isaiah 44 is in regards to idols. Read the whole the chaper and you will see that is the case. 1 Corinthians 8:6 shows conclusively that the Father is the one “out of” (greek word ek) whom all things are and that Jesus is the one “through”(greek word dia) whom all things are. This shows the distinction between the “source” and the “agent”. We see this relationship many times in Scripture such as in Hebrews 1:1,2 where it says about God through his Son, “through whom HE made the worlds (aion)”. If the Trinitarian argument were true then Jesus would be the Father in the exact same way that the Father is the Father (which you don’t believe).

    Like

  9. The context of Isaiah 44 does not change anything. YHVH was making it clear that He ALONE created everything. This means that no one was with Him when He did the work of creation. In fact, the NWT even says, “Who was with Me?”–a rhetorical question which can only have one answer: no one. No one was with YHVH, not even Michael (If the JW argument of Jesus = Michael is to be believed, which it should not be).

    In fact, according to Nehemiah, Michael was worshipping Christ long before our Lord came to earth. Nehemiah 9:6–“You alone are YHVH; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all. The host of heaven worships You.”

    Did Michael create all things for himself?
    Romans 11:36–For of Him and through [Greek: dia] Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
    Hebrews 2:10–For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through [Greek: dia] whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
    The one BY whom are all things, and TO whom are all things, and THROUGH whom are all things, and especially FOR whom are all things–they are one and the same God. Unless Michael created all things for himself, which would make him higher than God.

    letsbelogical, I wonder something–did YHVH ever die?

    Like

  10. Very good post fourpointer.

    This is how the Jehovah’s Witnesses see the relationship of the Father and the Son in creation. They claim that when John said “not one thing was made that was not made by [Christ]” (John 1:3), that the apostle meant, “Other than Himself, nothing was made that was not made by Him,” even though the apostle John NEVER makes that distinction.

    I think this is an excellent example of how if we come to the Bible with our biases we read things into Scripture that are not there. This should humble us to the point where we ask the Holy Spirit constantly to open our eyes and strip our minds of preconceived notions(not of God) and let Scripture speak for itself. Chris Lyons wrote an excelent piece on this.

    May you be led by the Holy Spirit into all truth when you read and study the Scriptures.

    Like

  11. fourpointer,
    To help keep things from being confusing I will attempt to put your comments in ‘italics’ if this board allows html tags. If it doesn’t then your statements will be between tags that look like this and .

    The context of Isaiah 44 does not change anything. YHVH was making it clear that He ALONE created everything. This means that no one was with Him when He did the work of creation. In fact, the NWT even says, “Who was with Me?”–a rhetorical question which can only have one answer: no one. No one was with YHVH, not even Michael (If the JW argument of Jesus = Michael is to be believed, which it should not be).

    It really disturbs me at how many times I hear that context doesn’t “change anything”. The context is in regards to idols and shows that these idols were not there when God did these things in creation. To look at this in any other respect is not only taking it out of context but denying other Scriptures that clearly show that “others” were there when God created the earth – Job 38:7 shows that the angels were there.

    In fact, according to Nehemiah, Michael was worshipping Christ long before our Lord came to earth. Nehemiah 9:6–”You alone are YHVH; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and You preserve them all. The host of heaven worships You.”

    That Scripture doesn’t support your statement especially since later we learn that Jesus was infact an “agent” used in creation which I showed via 1 Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:1,2.

    Did Michael create all things for himself?

    This is a strawman because no one is saying that Michael created anything. Michael would not be the ‘source’ of creation.

    Romans 11:36–For of Him and through [Greek: dia] Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
    Hebrews 2:10–For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through [Greek: dia] whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
    The one BY whom are all things, and TO whom are all things, and THROUGH whom are all things, and especially FOR whom are all things–they are one and the same God. Unless Michael created all things for himself, which would make him higher than God.

    This shows your lack of understanding “agency”. If you carefully read my first post you see why verses such as 1 Cor 8:6 and Hebrews 1:1,2 allow God to be the creator “through” his Son. This doesn’t take away from him since he is the one “out of whom all things are”. Keep in mind also that ‘dia’ has a causal sense and an intermediary sense. 1 Cor 8:6 makes it clear that in regards to Jesus it is an intermediary sense as well as making it clear that when used of the Father it is in the causal sense because of using ‘ek’ (out of).

    letsbelogical, I wonder something–did YHVH ever die?

    Nope, but his son did.

    Like

  12. lbl,

    It really disturbs me at how many times I hear that context doesn’t “change anything”.

    Sorry if it bothers you, but in this instance it’s the truth. Whoever God was speaking to, the point remains that NO ONE was with YHVH when He created everything. When YHVH said no one was with Him, no one was with Him. If Jesus was a created being, God could not have been “by Himself” because there would have been a created being with Him–one that was doing the creating–thus God could not have done the creating alone.

    Sorry, but I don’t buy your argument about “agency.” Especially when Isaiah also wrote these words from God (Isaiah 45:12)–“I have made the earth, And created man on it. I—My hands—stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.” God is saying that His own hands fashioned the world, and all the host of heaven. Since the Father is spirit (John 4:23-24), whose hands did the work? The Son’s hands. Also, it means that you are saying that a created being, inferior to God, created all things for his own sake and his own glory. Again, if this were true, then that being would be making himself higher than God.

    In one statement in your previous post you said Jesus is the one “through” (greek word dia) whom all things are. But then in your last comment, you said Keep in mind also that ‘dia’ has a causal sense and an intermediary sense.. So “through” only means “through” when it suits your theology?

    Now, the question as to whether YHVH ever died.
    Isaiah 44:6–“Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides Me there is no God.'”
    Revelation 1:17-18–But He laid His right hand on me, saying to me, “Do not be afraid; I am the First and the Last. I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen.”

    Again, does this mean that YHVH died? Or is Jesus–a created being, as you say–is He claiming for Himself a title that is reserved for YHVH? This would be blasphemy. Or is there another “first” and another “last”?

    What man has ever seen the Father?

    Like

  13. fourpointer,

    I am not one who likes to constantly repeat himself, especially when someone else is completely ignoring what is being stated. If you are misunderstanding that is one thing, but ignoring the argument because it doesn’t tickle your ears is another thing. We will see why I come to this conclusion in this my final statement.

    In Isaiah 44 and 45 the context is God vs idols. The statements being made are in relation to those idols. For example, we read in Isaiah 43:11 – “I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour”. Is God saying that no one else can be called “saviour”? According to you that is the case and yet we see numerous others called this very thing by God himself, such as Ehud, Othniel, Moses, etc… Again, context is key in determing what is meant by the statement “besides me there is no savior” which is repeated in Hosea 13:4 which says, “Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.” Notice that again this is in contrast to the gods of the nations and not being referred in the absolute sense of the word.

    Onto ‘dia’ and your assertion, “So “through” only means “through” when it suits your theology?” If you would have read my previous post carefully instead of immediately dismissing it because it doesn’t line up with your own view you would have noticed that I explained the difference between the ‘causal’ sense of ‘dia’ and the ‘intermediary’ sense of ‘dia’. I didn’t say, “Well, here its causal because thats how I like it”. Let’s look at the two texts I mentioned (which you are ignoring) once again and see what they say.

    Hebrews 1:1,2 – God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

    As can be seen from this verse the God who spoke long ago to the forefathers by the prophets must have been the FATHER. Why? Because this same God has spoken to us in these last days by his Son. This seems to pose a problem not only for the Trinitarian but also for Mormons and Modalists (Oneness) believers. But notice the key phrase in the text, “who HE hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also HE made the worlds”. Who did God appoint heir of all things? Jesus. Through whom did God make the worlds? Jesus. This is agency and it is further defined in 1 Corinthians 8:6 which also shows why ‘dia’ in relation to the Father is ‘causal’ and in relation to Jesus is ‘intermediary’.

    1 Corinthians 8:6 – But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

    In the first part it says the Father is the one of (ek) all things are. Here is the etymology of the word EK:

    a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative

    Now notice in the second part that Jesus is the one by (dia) whom are all things. Here is the etymology of the word DIA:

    a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act

    Do you see the difference now? One denotes “origin” and one denotes the “channel of an act”. This is why when ‘dia’ is used of the Father it is ‘causal’ because of him being the ‘origin’ or ‘source’ (EK). So to sum it up, the Father is the ‘source’ of creation and Jesus is the ‘channel or agent’ through whom the Father created. This is a Biblical concept and not something that Jehovah’s Witnesses (among others) decided to use just because they didn’t like the Trinity or some other unScriptural view of God.

    Lastly, you assume that “First and Last” is “reserved” for God. Since “first and last” can refer to several different things (again depending on context) then this case would be no different. I would pose that there are certain titles for God that “only” he could possess else the meaning of the titles would be nonsense. For example, “God of gods”, “Almighty God”. These titles show that if someone else were to use them then they would negate the very meaning of the titles. His other titles, such as “king of kings”, “mighty god”, “saviour”, etc… can be used of others in a different context and not hinder the meaning. So to sum it up, God can not, nor did he, die. I hope this was clear and I hope I didn’t come across as being sarcastic. If I did, I apologize. If you would like to “debate” this subject further I wouldn’t mind in a public “audible” place like Paltalk. If you would like to do then please email me at letsbelogical at yahoo dot com and we can set up a time. Either way, thanks for the conversation.

    Like

  14. Lbl,

    Sorry for the delay getting back to you. The last few days have been kinds crammed.

    If it’s true that only the Father is God (and not the Son or the Holy Spirit), then this creates a biblical contradiction.

    1st Corinthians 8:6–yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist…
    John 1:14—No man hath seen God at any time…
    Isaiah 6:1-5–In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up…Above it stood the seraphim…And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts…Then said I, Woe is me! For I am undone…for mine eyes have seen the King, YHVH of hosts.

    Now, if only the Father is God, and no man has ever seen the father, yet Isaiah says he saw YHVH, then either

    (a) Paul was wrong in writing that only the Father is God or
    (b) John was wrong because someone HAD seen God or
    (c) Isaiah was wrong because he had not seen God.

    Knowing that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, how do we solve this seeming contradiction? Easily. Isaiah saw God the Son sitting upon the throne. This clears up many things. For one, consider the angels around the throne, worshipping Him who sat upon it (Isaiah 6:3). This lines up with Nehemiah 9:6–“The host of Heaven worships You,” as well as Hebrews 1:6, which states clearly that the angels worship Christ–And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Do the angels worship the Father, or the Son? Both, because the Father and the Son are one God.

    Seeing the Godhead in this manner also clears up yet another possible contradiction, which comes up in Hebrews 1:8-10—“But unto the Son he saith, ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever…Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.’ And, ‘Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands.’” Considering the fact that the writer is quoting from the Septuagint (specifically Psalm 102:25-27, which uses the Greek “Kurios” for “LORD,” denoting YHVH), then the writer of Hebrews is saying that God referred to Christ as YHVH. And, bringing this back to Isaiah, YHVH said in Isaiah 44:6, 8–“Beside me there is no God… Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” If God does not “know any other Gods” yet He calls the Son “O God,” this is either a contradiction, or an indication that Christ is God.

    Now, why did John say that “no one has seen God?” He was referring to God the Father, whom no one has seen, for “God is spirit” (John 4:24), and Christ is “the image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). From this we can now also see that the writer of Hebrews was saying that God the Father “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,” who is “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3).

    As far as 1st Corinthians 8:6. If we are to conclude from this verse that Christ cannot be God because “we have one God, the Father,” then we must also conclude that the Father is not Lord, since “we have…one Lord, Jesus Christ.” Is this the case? Of course not. The prophet Malachi wrote, “Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10). God—the entirety of the Godhead—is our Father, with God the Father being the One “from whom are all things and for whom we exist,” God the Son being the One “through whom are all things and through whom we exist,” and God the Holy Spirit being the one who dwells within us (1st Corinthians 6:19-20).

    I too apologize if I came across a bit sarcastically. I have been known to do that from time to time (although not nearly as much as I used to). Just so I know where you’re coming from, are you Jehovah’s Witness, or simply opposed to the idea of the Trinity? It helps to know so as to avoid bringing up any moot points (like the whole Jesus = Michael issue).

    Looking forward to hearing from you again

    Four* Pointer

    Like

  15. fourpointer,

    To answer your last question, no I am not a Jehovah’s Witness but I do agree with their view on who God is. You might even say that I am a JW sympathizer. With that being said, you still did not respond to the argument I am presenting about ‘agency’, which is the whole theme of this article and comments. It’s as if you read what I wrote and see what it is saying, and instead of agreeing or disagreeing and showing why, you move on to an argument about 1 Cor 8:6 that I am not making as a detour from the actual subject. I, however, will deal with what you did write, but just know that I have provided a ‘small’ proof of the ‘agency’, that people like myself keep proclaiming, that has basically remained unanswered. Again, for clarity I have put what you said in ‘italics’.

    Now, if only the Father is God, and no man has ever seen the father, yet Isaiah says he saw YHVH, then either

    (a) Paul was wrong in writing that only the Father is God or
    (b) John was wrong because someone HAD seen God or
    (c) Isaiah was wrong because he had not seen God.

    Again this is ignoring texts like Hebrews 1:1,2 which clearly tell us that the God who spoke to the forefathers by means of the prophets has in these last days spoken to us by his Son. How do you reconcile that the Father is the one being spoken of there? For me it is simple, this is a case of divine ‘angency’. This is not the first time we see this in Scripture. Infact it happens numerous times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Here are a few examples:

    Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed

    Acts 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

    Yet, when you keep reading it says that it was God that spoke to Moses out of the midst of the bush. Which was it? Was it God or was it an angel? You will say both because you will say that the ‘angel of the LORD’ is the LORD, which makes no sense because a messenger of ‘someone’ is not that someone else that they are not a messenger. How about that angels are used by God and come in his name (by his authority). As such they speak as if they are God. If you don’t argue that the ‘angel of the LORD’ is God then you make my point that much easier.

    Exodus 23:20,21 – Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

    Among other examples are Genesis 16:1-15 and Genesis 22:1-19 where the angel speaks as God. So I, among others, contend that when someone says they see God they see one of a few possibilities. They either see an angel, they see God’s glory, or they are seeing him in a ‘vision’ but not actually seeing him.

    You then say, ” Do the angels worship the Father, or the Son? Both, because the Father and the Son are one God. Read the verse you just quoted, “and God said, LET….”. The Father is worshipped because he is the source of all and his Son is worshipped because he ‘allows’it for him. Why? Because he has been exalted higher than them, as brought out in Hebrews 1:4 which says, “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”

    Next you use the word ‘Godhead’ as if it denotes some type of group of persons. My challenge for you is to show the Father and holy spirit as being a part of this ‘Godhead’. I could spare you the time and let you know that you won’t find it, but happy hunting.

    Considering the fact that the writer is quoting from the Septuagint (specifically Psalm 102:25-27, which uses the Greek “Kurios” for “LORD,” denoting YHVH), then the writer of Hebrews is saying that God referred to Christ as YHVH.

    Firstly, the Tetragrammaton isn’t used in Psalm 102:25-27 and secondly you fail to mention that the reference to “Thy throne O God….” was originally applied to an Israelite King!(Psalm 45:6) Are we to assume that since a passage is used of someone and later applied to someone else that they ‘must’ be the same one? Your reasoning would have us to believe so and yet if we do, Jesus and others end up being a ton of other people.

    And, bringing this back to Isaiah, YHVH said in Isaiah 44:6, 8–“Beside me there is no God… Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” If God does not “know any other Gods” yet He calls the Son “O God,” this is either a contradiction, or an indication that Christ is God.

    Once again, the context of Isaiah 44 is in reference to God versus idols. By your very own words you just proved that the King of Israel in Psalm 45:6 is God because you said, “If God does not “know any other Gods” yet He calls the Son “O God,” this is either a contradiction, or an indication that Christ is God.” Well my friend, God himself calls others ‘gods’and since that verse with “O God” originally applied to a king of Israel then by your own reasoning that King must have been God! There are numerous examples of others being called gods and it being ok! For example, John 10:34,35 – Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Who was the “he” that called “them” gods? It was God! Read Psalm 82:6 which is what Jesus is quoting from. Then we have a title used of God, “God of gods”. How can this be if there are no others that are gods? The list goes on and on. This is why “context” is important and why when you read Isaiah 44 you will see why God is making that statement.

    The prophet Malachi wrote, “Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10). God—the entirety of the Godhead—is our Father

    I will not address your strawman arguement about 1 Cor 8:6 since that isn’t my arguement, but notice what verse you quoted and then how you “explained” it. You saw that in Malachi 2:10 it causes a problem for the Trinitarian concept of God because it equates the Father as being the One God who created us. So to resolve this problem you say “God—the entirety of the Godhead—is our Father”. This is a big leap in logic but I will grant it to show you how you end up in a big mess by doing so. If the Godhead (which I challenged the use of above) is “Our Father” and the “One God that created us”, then tell me please why ‘the Father’ (the first person of the Trinity) is actually ‘the Father’? For you see, whatever reason you give, you would then have to say that the other 2 persons are ‘the Father’ for the exact same reason! At that point you might as well become a Modalist because the title of ‘God the Father’ would now apply to all 3 ‘persons’ in the Trinity. This “explanation” of yours also contradicts 1 Cor 8:6 which shows the Father to be the ‘source’ in contrast to Jesus being the ‘channel of an act’.

    I apologize that this post is so long, but in reality it is much shorter than it needs to be. Like I said in my previous post, I am willing to have a ‘live’ audible discussion with you in regards to this subject on ‘Paltalk’ if you so choose. If so, then email me at letsbelogical at yahoo dot com and we can set up a time.

    Like

  16. lbl,

    I have responded to your argument about agency. I do not agree with it. It would be rather silly for me to argue a position I don’t accept.

    I have not avoided anything–you simply think I have because I answered your question in a way you didn’t like. Besides, I’m not the one that brought up 1st Cor 8:6 to begin with. (One note about 1 Cor 8:6. Paul is writing in the context of comparing God to idols. The same context Isaiah was writing in Isaiah 44-45. It seems that you are OK arguing your point from that context, yet it’s not OK for me to do the same. A bit disingenuous). Also, I did address Hebrews 1:1-2. Go back and read again.

    Yet, when you keep reading it says that it was God that spoke to Moses out of the midst of the bush. Which was it? Was it God or was it an angel? You will say both because you will say that the ‘angel of the LORD’ is the LORD

    I’m a big boy, lbl. I can answer on my own. Your assumption of what I will say is a bit presumptuous. In Exodus 3, the text says that an angel appeared in the bush, but it does not say that it was the angel speaking. In other words, what Moses heard did not necessarily come from the mouth of the angel. Moses saw the angel, but heard the LORD.

    Besides that, the term “Angel of YHVH” could indeed refer to Christ–simply an OT appellation. There are many times when the OT speaks of “an angel of YHVH,” as opposed to “the Angel of YHVH.” I dare say that when it speaks of “The Angel of YHVH” that this is a reference to Christ. That said, who did Isaiah see seated on the throne? The king, YHVH of hosts, that Isaiah said he saw with his eyes? The one that John said no one has seen at any time?

    secondly you fail to mention that the reference to “Thy throne O God….” was originally applied to an Israelite King!(Psalm 45:6)

    This ignores one of the characteristics of many OT prophecies–that there is often a near fullfilment and a future fulfillment. For example, take Psalm 22. These were the words of David as he expressed his own sufferings. Yet it is also a Messainic prophecy, words quoted by Christ upon the cross that applied to Him. In fact, many of the Psalms that applied to David actually had their fulfillment in Christ.

    As far as the incident mentioned in John 10, where Jesus quotes Psalm 82–if Jesus was using this passage to say that he was “a god” like those referred to in the Psalm, then why did they seek to lay hold of Him? In fact, in the verses immediately preceding John 10:34, the Pharisees tell Christ, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” If He was simply claiming to be “a god” like the other “gods”, then why did they say He was blaspheming? And why did they try and stone Him when He said, “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

    Trying to talk in person right now would be very difficult logistically. I have many things to do before school starts this next week, plus I have Sunday School lessons to prepare, and I can’t say for sure when a good time would be. Besides, I believe it is much more productive to use a forum such as this, where both sides can be seen by many people, and answers can be given more thought before they are fleshed out. Sorry if you don’t like it, but that’s just the way it is.

    Four* Pointer

    Like

  17. fourpointer,

    I am starting to see a trend here and I am not sure that you are aware of it. You bring up texts and ideas and then when I respond to them you go on as if nothing was said. This is the advantage of audible discussion because then the question can be repeated and made sure that nothing is overlooked, whether it’s intentional or not. I understand time restraints as I myself have many things going on in my life also. However, I also understand that when something is important to you, you will make time for it. I think that discussing this openly is great and what would be greater than a live discussion that can be recorded and then listened to by anyone who wants to hear it? Either way I have enjoyed the discussion thus far and will reply to your latest post in my next post.
    __________________________________________________________________________
    fourpointer,

    I have responded to your argument about agency. I do not agree with it. It would be rather silly for me to argue a position I don’t accept.

    I’m sorry but you have not. Look back at my January 1 post, I went into much detail about the use of ‘ek’ and ‘dia’ in 1 Cor 8:6 which you have yet to acknowledge. You say you disagree with me about it but you haven’t shown ‘why’. You do bring up several strawmen arguments that aren’t being made by me, but that isn’t addressing the real issue here, which is ‘agency’.

    I have not avoided anything–you simply think I have because I answered your question in a way you didn’t like. Besides, I’m not the one that brought up 1st Cor 8:6 to begin with. (One note about 1 Cor 8:6. Paul is writing in the context of comparing God to idols. The same context Isaiah was writing in Isaiah 44-45. It seems that you are OK arguing your point from that context, yet it’s not OK for me to do the same. A bit disingenuous). Also, I did address Hebrews 1:1-2. Go back and read again.

    You are right, I did bring up 1 Cor 8:6 and explained exactly why. What exactly was my argument in regards to 1 Cor 8:6? Was it about ‘who the One God was’ or was it about ‘how the Father is the ‘source’ and Jesus is the ‘channel of an act”? So you see, you brought up and attempted to knock down an argument that I was ‘not’ making. I am glad to see you admit that the context of Isaiah 44-45 is in regards to God versus idols. This should make the arguments I make clearer to you.

    The question in my previous post regarding Hebrews 1:1,2 was – “How do you reconcile that the Father is the one being spoken of there?”

    I’m a big boy, lbl. I can answer on my own. Your assumption of what I will say is a bit presumptuous. In Exodus 3, the text says that an angel appeared in the bush, but it does not say that it was the angel speaking. In other words, what Moses heard did not necessarily come from the mouth of the angel. Moses saw the angel, but heard the LORD.

    So an angel stood there while God spoke to Moses eh? This goes against other Scriptures such as:

    Acts 7:52,53 – Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept [it].

    As I showed in my previous post, there are numerous examples of angels doing things and yet it is said that God did them and vice versa. This is perfectly fine since they ‘represent’ him and his ‘name is in them’. This also proves the very thing you are against, which is “agency”.

    This ignores one of the characteristics of many OT prophecies–that there is often a near fullfilment and a future fulfillment. For example, take Psalm 22. These were the words of David as he expressed his own sufferings. Yet it is also a Messainic prophecy, words quoted by Christ upon the cross that applied to Him. In fact, many of the Psalms that applied to David actually had their fulfillment in Christ.

    Another strawman. My argument was not about dual fullfillment but was about you stating, “If God does not “know any other Gods” yet He calls the Son “O God,” this is either a contradiction, or an indication that Christ is God.” According to your statement, saying ‘O God’ to Jesus is an indication that Christ is God. If that is so, then it’s also an indication that the Israelite King, whom this was originally applied to, is God also. I am not the one making the claim that because something is applied to more than one individual that they ‘must’ be the same one. This is what you are alluding to and I am showing you how this doesn’t work because you end up with numerous contradictions such as the one I just mentioned.

    As far as the incident mentioned in John 10, where Jesus quotes Psalm 82–if Jesus was using this passage to say that he was “a god” like those referred to in the Psalm, then why did they seek to lay hold of Him? In fact, in the verses immediately preceding John 10:34, the Pharisees tell Christ, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” If He was simply claiming to be “a god” like the other “gods”, then why did they say He was blaspheming? And why did they try and stone Him when He said, “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

    Strawman #3. My argument is not about whether this passage is calling Jesus a god or whatever he was claiming. The argument is that ‘God’ himself calls others ‘gods’. Go back and read my argument again. You used a verse in Isaiah 44 about God not ‘knowing any other Gods’ and my point was to show you that he made that statement in a ‘context’ and did not use it in an absolute way, else, why did HE himself call others ‘gods'(such as the angels and the ‘ones whom the word of God came’)? I then mentioned one of God’s titles, “God of gods”. Explain what that title means.

    As I have mentioned, I think you are either overlooking the arguments, willfully ignoring them, or maybe misunderstanding them. There are several examples I can give where you said nothing about what I stated. Maybe you aren’t taking enough time to consider what is being said before posting? I can not say, but I would ask that you actually consider the arguments being made and atleast acknowledge that you have read and understand them. Not having an answer or not knowing doesn’t equate to “I WIN”, which is too common on forums. I appreciate your time and efforts.

    Like

  18. lbl,

    Since you like to keep characterizing my points as “strawmen” and are dishonestly mischaracterizing my responses as “avoiding” your points, then as far as I’m concerned this conversation is over. You have had your last say. Here is mine. But I need to address one last thing about Psalm 102.

    Here is Psalm 102:25-27, in the context of verses 23-28–He weakened my strength in the way; He shortened my days. I said, “O my God, do not take me away in the midst of my days; Your years are throughout all generations. Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end. The children of Your servants will continue, and their descendants will be established before You.”

    In Hebrews 1:10, the writer is making it clear that this passage was written of Christ, on this I believe we would both agree. Now, the Psalmist declares this one who created to be “MY God.” Yet the writer of Hebrews says that this application is to the Son. Do you see what I’m getting at? The Psalmist declared the Son to by “My God.” If he was not talking about YHVH then he was committing blasphemy. Just as surely as Thomas would have committed blasphemy by calling Christ “My Lord and my God!” (literally, “The Lord of me and the God of me!”) if Christ was not God (John 20:28). Just like the Pharisees thought Christ to be committing blasphemy by making Himself equal to the Father in John 10.

    The reason God said “I know no other Gods” in Isaiah–the Hebrew word he used was “Elohim” which, as we know, can be translated “God” meaning Almighty God. But it can also mean “rulers, judges, divine ones, angels.” In what context was YHVH saying there were “no other Gods?” He was, of course, not saying that there were no “rulers, judges,” etc–humans who were declared to be “gods”. What YHVH was saying is there was no other true Divinity or true Deity other than He Himself–referring to the fullness of the Trinity. That dovetails with my next point–why He said that He created everything by Himself. The answer: because He did not create a being that did the creating. If He had created another being, He would no longer be “by Himself.” Someone would be with Him. This is why I don’t accept your argument of “agency.” Everything came “from” the Father, “through” the Son—but this does not change the fact that if Christ was created, then God would not have been “by Himself.”

    No matter what context this was written in, the meaning is the same. Otherwise John would have said that “In the beginning, the Word was created” or “In the beginning, the Word came into existence.” But that’s not what he says. He says “In the beginning, the Word WAS.” One may ask, “The Word was what?” The Word WAS. Period. Just like when we see the word YHVH, it means “I AM.” I AM what? I AM. Period. This fact leads us to the conclusion that Christ is as eternal as the Father.

    I’m sorry if you’re upset because I didn’t respond to every single word you wrote. But, by the same token, you still never answered the question of who Isaiah saw “seated on the throne.” If he claimed to see YHVH, but John said no one has seen YHVH, then who did Isaiah see? You also did not answer as to this question–if Paul was saying (1 Cor 8:6) that only the father is “God” (“there is one God, the Father…”), then does that mean that only the Son is Lord (“…and one Lord Jesus Christ”)?

    I don’t mind discussing this subject, but I would rather do it with someone who can do more than claim that I am making “strawmen” all day. And scheduling aside, one problem with an audible discussion is that one person can tend to talk over the other one, effectively stifling honest discussion. This is a more effective medium, with both sides being able to make their case uninterrupted.

    Like

  19. Just for the record I did answer the issue about what Isaiah saw. Go back and read my January 9 post where I said, ” So I, among others, contend that when someone says they see God they see one of a few possibilities. They either see an angel, they see God’s glory, or they are seeing him in a ‘vision’ but not actually seeing him.” This is shown to be true numerous times where the Scriptures claim it was God that said or did something and yet it was an angel.

    The reason I did not answer the strawman argument you are making in 1 Cor 8:6 is because that isn’t my argument! My argument is about “agency” which is what this topic is supposed to be about. If anyone were to go back and read from the beginning our exchange they would quickly see how you changed from arguing against “agency” to texts that ‘you think’ promote Jesus being God. Although these two subjects can go together, the point is that I brought up specific references numerous times to which you did not reply about. This shows that you aren’t putting in the effort to read and respond to what is being said or you see the point and have no response for it (which is fine).

    As far as audible chat. If you have used Paltalk before then you know that you can’t “talk over” someone because it doesn’t allow anyone to speak except the person who is currently on the mic. If you don’t want to do this then just say so. I sincerely hope that you will go back read these posts again and see why I make a big deal about you not answering the questions at hand. I do this because they answer the very objections that you are making! To ignore them is to be dishonest and that is not something either of us I believe are intentionally trying to do.

    P.S. – I only call out a strawman when I see it. I hope that you would do the same.

    LetsBeLogical

    Like

Tell us what you think:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.