Free #44 Part 1
Let's try this again:
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (ESV)
1. What does a plain reading of the text tell you?
2. Do you agree that if "all things were made through [the Word, the Son]" and that "without him was not anything made that was made," that the only logical conclusion is that the Word (the Son) could not have been made? If he was made, or in other words did not exist at some point in time, then John just told a lie (as did Paul, twice)
"At least I have given what I believe are reasonable answers to your assertions, yet you do not give the same courtesy to those you disagree with."
There's that critical ad hominem thinking again. I'm beginning to think you really don't know you're doing it. It's become so much a part of you. Makes me think there's no point.
But if you insist, and since I haven't anything better to do at the moment:
If Jesus is God, then the usual understanding of these verses by Trinitarians is sufficiently reasonable.
I reiterate (because I think I've already said this, maybe on a different forum) my view of that passage if Jesus isn't God. It's not the typical non-Trinitarian view.
1 The Word is a function, not a person or an essence. The word is thus both God as the source of the word and the Son of God to whom the word has been given. The word as a function became flesh in the Son. That is, whereas before the word was given to man through prophets (sometimes angels), the Word came in a different way through the Son. As part of his person. Because all the fullness of God is pleased to dwell within him. That is never said of any Old Testament prophet. That is the difference that is portrayed throughout the letter to the Hebrews. The word came in the flesh. And why the allusion in Hebrews 1:1-2 is so similar to what is said in John 1:1-3.
The son is not "a god". The son is the divine son of God. As partaking of the divine nature by believers does not make the believers God or Gods, so also the divine nature of the Son does not make the son God or a separate God.
2 The Son was not made or created, he was generated at a specific point in eternity. When he was generated is not revealed. There was a point in eternity that he did not exist. A point in eternity that is prior to the beginning of time as we understand it. Otherwise you have a relationship that makes no sense in relation to father and son. You have to consider what the beginning is referring to. It can't be the beginning of eternity, because eternity has no beginning and no end. I think the beginning is the beginning of time. When the universe or the earth was created. I don't remember if I brought this up on the forum. But regarding the issue regarding the Old Earth vs. young earth, I think the earth is young. Around fifteen thousand years. The universe is old. Young earth, old universe. I haven't met anyone who doesn't say either old earth old universe or young earth young universe. Neither of which is persuasive to me.
The son isn't the first created angel (the "to which" passage in Hebrews).
Colossians 1:15 is taken out of context and misunderstood by Trinitarians and non-Trinitarians alike. Jesus isn't the firstborn of all believers. Nor is he the first creation of the universe. Just prior to Paul saying that he is "the firstborn of all creation" (ESV, I think the correct translation), he says "he is the image of the invisible God". In context the two go together. It means exactly what is said in John. Jesus is the only begotten of the Father. God generated the Son, and is the firstborn of all of creation. Particularly that portion of man who are sons of God in Christ. All of mankind are sons of God in Adam.
The Holy Spirit proceeds out of the father. Alone. The West is mistaken on that issue. That he proceeds out of the father and the son. The Spirit is sent by both the father and the son. After the ascension. So there was a time the Holy Spirit didn't exist. When was that? Don't know. We need to be careful not to try to know more than what's revealed. Or we may start contemplating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
This has no bearing on the issue of whether or not angels were at the creation of the earth. What it does suggest is that the son was there as part of the process. Created through the son. In order for that to make sense you have to know my understanding of the Genesis creation account. Which is perhaps more similar to the Gap theory than anything else, But is not the gap theory. For to me Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 follow each other naturally apart from there being some kind of gap between the two. Try to understand what I'm saying before you dismiss it out of hand.
Genesis says God created the heavens and the earth. This could be a statement of the creation of the universe. But the word translated as heavens, is elsewhere translated as "air" (Genesis 1:28 KJV, RSV, NIV) or "sky" (NASB, NCV). ESV and Darby translates this as "heavens" in this verse. ESV translates this word as "air" in Exodus 9:8 & 10. Darby seems to be the only one who translates this word consistently as heaven.
The point is that Genesis 1:1 may not be a reference to the creation of the universe at all. This passage may be in toto just a reference to that which has to do with man, the earth. From Genesis 1:2 on the reference is obviously to the earth and its inhabitants. I think from the view of one standing on the earth so that man can understand it. Science fiction is a recent phenomena. That kind of thinking didn't commonly exist fifty years ago. Star Trek and Star Wars changed all that. Hence, the necessity to describe events in a way that could be understood by generations of man. Genesis 1:16 is hard to understand in English translations because of a Traditional mistranslation. I only say here that it isn't a reference to the creation of the stars.
And I know you didn't accept this when I said it before. But When God creates, it necessarily excludes him from being a part of the creation. So also the Son. Creator and Creation are separate, unless one wishes to think of it like pantheism or whatever ism it is that thinks God and the universe is the same.
Not only are you still wrong about being able to read the Bible without interpreting it, you fail to understand how difficult some passages of the Bible are to understand and which require much more in-depth interpretation, which is probably more along your too narrow view of what interpretation is.
Interpretation--An explanation of something that is not immediately obvious. (WordWeb Dictionary)
This definition I think fits what is generally regarded as interpretation relating to a written document. It's an action of the mind alone. Has nothing to do with the Spirit. Unless the teaching of the Son through the Spirit (Colossians) is interpreted. Then the interpretation just replaces what would have otherwise been learned.
I guess a Biblical exposition would be necessary if one was having a hard time understanding the Bible. And so long as the exposition is a clear explanation of the text, rather than an interpretation of it, it might be helpful. Understanding what the Bible says hasn't really been much of a problem for me. For the most part it's very straightforward. I've had a few problems (rare) where a mistranslation led me to think it said something it didn't. I don't know Hebrew. I understand Greek. Even better with a little help from my friends. I don't even have that much trouble understanding doctrinal issues. I've talked to many people from different denominations. People tend to be pretty good at explaining their own doctrines. And I have Gruden's "Systematic Theology". He's good at giving several points of view before giving his own. Which helps as a quick reference. If you don't have that volume, it would be worth your while to get it. I think Christianbooks.com has it on sale at the moment for twenty bucks. Pretty cheap for a volume that size.
In summary: interpretation is a common way to know most things. Especially understanding documents where the author isn't present. But supposedly, Christians don't have the same situation regarding their Bible. First, the Bible isn't just another writing of man, or so they say. They constantly contradict what they say by constant interpretation. Second, most Christians acknowledge the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But they seem to understand that as if he isn't there for any practical purpose. Interpretation gives that impression.
