Dizerner
Well-known member
For the record, I'm not a big fan of the kind of arguments he uses; many are not logically legimate nor necessary to make the point.
I wish I were a Unitarian...
- Thread starter Dizerner
- Start date
For the record, I'm not a big fan of the kind of arguments he uses; many are not logically legimate nor necessary to make the point.
And yet no passages have yet been cited by you in which you believe Jesus is called theos.
You are continually being evasive.
civic
Well-known member
What is the source of this post ?
Dizerner
Well-known member
Matthias
Well-known member
That’s great! When would you like to start your fast? I’ll agree to fast in the fashion I’m accustomed to on any one of the 3 days of your fast that you stipulate.
Dizerner
Well-known member
Well, I'm excited so I'll start tomorrow.
I think anytime this week should be close enough personally.
Matthias
Well-known member
I’m not being evasive. I told you that I would look up Harris’s list at halftime of the football game I’m watching. From the Table of Contents - John 1:1,1:18, 20:28; Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; Psalm 45:7-8; 20:28 and Hebrews 1:8-9; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20; other texts (Matthew 1:23; John 17:3; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 2:2; 2 Thessalonians 1:12 and 1 Timothy 3:16).
I was willing to review and discuss all of them - and any others you might think there are - with you. I’m looking for good conversation. I’m not finding that with you.
Irrelevant.
I am asking you which ones DO YOU think refer to Jesus?
Why is this so difficult for you to see and do?
Because you are dodging what I ask.
Matthias
Well-known member
I‘ll begin my fast tomorrow too then.
Matthias
Well-known member
Hardly. I did what I told you I would do.
It isn’t.
You have a bad attitude. I’ll discuss it with others.
While dodging the question that I asked you.
Matthias
Well-known member
Many trinitarian scholars (both Catholic and Protestant; conservative and liberal) make concessions to unitarianism. I (currently) find them persuasive, but everyone must decide for themselves.
I’ll try to keep an open mind as we go forward.
Dizerner
Well-known member
I will too.
I did have one point earlier in my walk when all the verses emphasizing Christ's humanity just kind of struck me in a way, that really made me question whether I had it completely right.
I had my "Calvinist" phase as well, where all the predestination verses kept popping out at me.
Ultimately I just kept in prayer, and settled back eventually.
Dizerner
Well-known member
Okay, I have prayerfully read through John 1 this morning, and what memories I have in this beloved chapter. I shall take John 1 on the first day as a framework for my discussion. I don’t want to act like we are brand new as we both probably know reams of arguments on both sides. But we can only pray for fresh vision and spiritual eyes.
If we were, say theoretically, to allow a creature to share many attributes and functions of God—to share his throne, his glory, his work of salvation, his upholding of all things, the perfection of his character, his place as Judge of all, his authority and power, his preeminence as being before all things—but then made sure to demote him to just “a little bit less than God,” you have to understand to me, this confuses all boundaries of what idolatry even means, and obscures the most fundamental uniqueness God ascribes to himself. It is like Icarus wanting to fly as close to the sun as possible—and when you let the creature get there, get so very close, the heat will melt off his wings with so many functionally identical attributes and roles of God.
Now you have to admit that idea—for even in the competing religions of Islam and Judaism we see a singular focus and objection to the attributes of the Person of Christ, in particular, more than any other objection to the Christian religion; and you cannot tell me these millions of alternate religious zealots are merely doing all this objecting just because they don’t understand how good the argument is against Christ’s deity. Were this the case, they could confidently dismiss all claims to Christ’s deity as simply, obviously and grossly unbiblical, and although Muslims claim our Bible Is corrupted, I have not heard one use this claim without at the very least, having to excise Paul completely from the canon. So let me say clearly, what you are willing to allow in a creature is considered, far and away and to a man completely across the board, pure idolatry among the millions of adherents to Judaism and Islam. You have let your “man” fly too close to the sun.
And so let us start here:
Clearly we see the parallel and reference to Genesis one starting with the same two Greek words, and this time, like the Spirit of God already hovering, before the beginning has even progressed we have a character already, the Word. Now Jesus' name is directly and forcefully attested to be “the Word of God” even after his incarnation, so many who would try to deflect and deflate this pre-existence somehow, strike here at the very beginning with the strategy and tactic of de-personalization. That may not be your particular take but we will cover it to be thorough. No longer is this an intimate and personal relation, but just a colorful depiction of an abstract attribute of God, his analytical thoughts and plans or such. But I will strenuously object to such a thing even if on one unshakable ground—no where in Scripture do we see an abstract object or attribute later becoming an actual personal identity or human being. Granted, we have “wisdom” in the Old Testament, and unlike the majority of commentators I actually do not ascribe this to the Son but rather the Spirit—and in this OT personification I would equally object that something so personal would be, in such a deeply misleading way, used as a lifeless abstract attribute. For we see even in Proverbs 1-8 the deeply impassioned and emotional pleas and longings of something far more than a heartless dry abstract principle. I cannot accept that God would be so misleading.
So in the beginning WAS the Word already, he did not “come into being,” which could clearly have been brought out, and many commentators ancient and new have made good note of this ἦν here. There is a reason the entire Bible starts out “in the beginning God,” and not “in the beginning angels” or “in the beginning Satan,” or “in the beginning man.” God’s unique status as the only one true source of all things is declared and upheld first thing, by his solo entrance upon creation: in the beginning GOD. And yet here in John 1 we get another character “just chilling” along with him. Now much has been made about the lack of article, or the few scraped together examples one could find where things other than God were called “god,” angels or judges or so forth, and they are exceedingly few and far between, and always have this certain logic behind them of an extension of God’s authority. But never in these (very few) examples, do we see as here, an extension of God’s pre-existence and God’s attributes. This is not just a delegation or stand-in for God, clearly, but rather something far, far beyond such a thing. For “through him all things came into being,” and just in case we miss the import, John reinforces it without making sure we don’t miss the fact that “not even one thing” came into being without him—nothing. And now some more divine attributes of life and light, things you will be hard pressed to find attributed to any creaturely thing anywhere else in all of Scripture, while constantly being attributed to God—are liberally and generously applied to our mysterious Logos, such that this life and light in fact reaches every single human being and overcomes all opposition to it. The ultimate life, light, victory and redemption—God’s salvation—attributed to a “thing” that was right there with him before all things, with no reference or description to a time when “he was not,” as phrase has been used. I’m perfectly comfortable saying “the Word was Godness,” because I have thorough and Biblical case that none can fly so close to the sun without their wings burned off—you cannot just have “an attribute or two” of God and somehow not be him. The Creator versus creature distinction is an infinite gulf, and only God himself could possibly possess his fundamental attributes and essence.
As we continue to work our way through John one in relation to Jesus here, and the next two days center around John 14 and Colossians 1, I want you to know it is time well spent for me whether you fail to be convinced, and I believe we will get that little bit closer to the Lord. You are free of course to begin describing your own point of view and objections, but I will be focusing on making a positive case for now so any lack of response must not be considered acquiescence. I’m sure it will not.
6 There arose a man, sent from God, whose name was, John:
7 The same, came, for a witness, That he might bear witness, concerning the light, that, all, might believe, through him.
8 He, was not the light,--but, that he might bear witness concerning the light,
9 It, was--The real light that enlighteneth every man--Coming into the world.
10 In the world, he was, and, the world, through him, came into existence, and, the world, knew him not.
11 Into his own possessions, he came, and, his own people, received him not home.
12 But, as many as did receive him, he gave, unto them, authority, children of God, to become,--unto them who were believing on his name:
13 Who--not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but--of God, were born.
14 And, the Word, became, flesh, and pitched his tent among us, and we gazed upon his glory,--a glory, as an Only-begotten from his Father. Full of favour and truth. (Jn. 1:6-14 ROT)
We have added two more qualities here—ownership and glory. Now some make much ado about saying “God really does share his glory!” and shoot, we all get a free sample, glory for everyone. Of course when we say “share his glory” there is more than one way we can mean that and it becomes quite equivocal. God could share his glory in the sense of allowing someone to experience or see it, or even carry it, quite without sharing his glory in the sense of allowing someone to fundamentally deserve and possess it meritoriously. That is the sense in which God says “I will not share my glory with another,” and the fundamental idea of salvation—although, indeed, many small “saviors” have been granted—also cannot be shared in the ultimate sense of the base salvation that all other “sub” saviors partake in. Nobody truly owns creation as his own, but the one who by virtue of his authorship has every complete authorial right to own it—the “made by” label as it were, the “receipt” of acquiring from a legitimate source, only God himself can be said to own creation in this way, of much more than a temporary lease or subcontract.
And Hebrews 1 is a beautiful corollary to this passage so far, telling us the Son upholds all things by the Word of his power, and is the very expression of the character of God himself. Notice too it flows into “who alone purged our sins,” and we will realize how deeply only a divine attribute could bridge such an infinite gulf that sin created between God and man, when we consider the height and perfection of God’s purity and hatred for evil, and the fullness and completeness of his judgment upon it.
And, although it is “all good” of course in every sense, I will end the meditation of John 1 here in this last passage as that which in particular pertains to the attribute and person of Christ:
15 (John beareth witness concerning him, and hath cried aloud, saying--the same, was he that said--He who, after me, was coming, before me, hath advanced; because, my Chief, was he.)
16 Because, out of his fulness, we all, received, even favour over against favour.
17 Because, the law, through Moses, was given, favour and truth, through Jesus Christ, came into existence.
18 No one, hath seen, God, at any time: An Only Begotten God, The One existing within the bosom of the Father, He, hath interpreted [him]. (Jn. 1:15-18 ROT)
As John bears witness of course, we see two other distinct characters, the voice and the Dove, and we should have to go on quite a Easter Egg hunt to gather together all Biblical references to these, but suffice to say, this threefold witness is here as everywhere.
Now it is quite remarkable that the “law” here is said to be given through Moses instead of God himself, and “grace and truth” given this additional category as if there were no grace and truth in the law of Moses! I seem to remember a whole mountain burning on fire and I’m pretty sure Moses didn’t rig up pyrotechnics or decided to utilize volcanic activity. I read this here as showing that Christ indeed is the only who can interpret and fulfill the Law of God for us, and without the grace going along with the truth, without his intermediary intercessory life, that law would have held no grace at all for any of us, but we would all be swallowed alive in sin as Korah.
Now I really like the reading in verse 18 and I understand not all versions will accept it, but I believe there is a powerful case contextually, textually and theologically for it. There is more early motivation to remove than add it, and it fits perfectly with the overall theme. To quote Comfort on the textual evidence:
Jesus has indeed “exegeted” God for us, being what God has spoken, that heart-utterance that contains the central nature, desires and ideas of the one who speaks the words—and of course Jesus revealing God in a way that no one else did or could, seems far more than a super special holy man who happened to live extra super holy. As Christ himself said “there was none greater born among women than John the Baptist,” and yet John the Baptist clearly says here in John 1, Christ is before him and he is not worthy to untie his sandals.
Now if the greatest born among women isn’t worthy to untie someone else’s sandals, who must that someone be?!
Now I’m not trying to play unfair: if I have indeed been engrossed in the utter giving of myself over to idolatry and breaking the 1st and 2nd commandments all these decades, I desperately want to know, and cry out daily for God’s vision. Of course you must know that I believe I have put in the work—thousands of hours crying out from the heart—and been answered by God with experiences and revelation.
But I certainly don’t believe that devoting myself completely and utterly to an idol in Jesus Christ and being unrepentant for it, could ever possibly be a forgivable sin, and I will most certainly burn in hell for all eternity for the hours, days, weeks and years I have spent absolutely worshiping Christ in every way. This is not some little mistake, this is the single greatest sin a creature could commit—creating his own god.
And I sincerely appreciate and honor your prayers, and want you to know I am completely open to my need to repent of this, were that the case. It would be the very first thing I would ever want to know, in fact, the very first thing that you, or any real Christian, should warn me of!
I look forward to joining you again tomorrow for a wonderful meditation on John 14!
If we were, say theoretically, to allow a creature to share many attributes and functions of God—to share his throne, his glory, his work of salvation, his upholding of all things, the perfection of his character, his place as Judge of all, his authority and power, his preeminence as being before all things—but then made sure to demote him to just “a little bit less than God,” you have to understand to me, this confuses all boundaries of what idolatry even means, and obscures the most fundamental uniqueness God ascribes to himself. It is like Icarus wanting to fly as close to the sun as possible—and when you let the creature get there, get so very close, the heat will melt off his wings with so many functionally identical attributes and roles of God.
Now you have to admit that idea—for even in the competing religions of Islam and Judaism we see a singular focus and objection to the attributes of the Person of Christ, in particular, more than any other objection to the Christian religion; and you cannot tell me these millions of alternate religious zealots are merely doing all this objecting just because they don’t understand how good the argument is against Christ’s deity. Were this the case, they could confidently dismiss all claims to Christ’s deity as simply, obviously and grossly unbiblical, and although Muslims claim our Bible Is corrupted, I have not heard one use this claim without at the very least, having to excise Paul completely from the canon. So let me say clearly, what you are willing to allow in a creature is considered, far and away and to a man completely across the board, pure idolatry among the millions of adherents to Judaism and Islam. You have let your “man” fly too close to the sun.
And so let us start here:
Clearly we see the parallel and reference to Genesis one starting with the same two Greek words, and this time, like the Spirit of God already hovering, before the beginning has even progressed we have a character already, the Word. Now Jesus' name is directly and forcefully attested to be “the Word of God” even after his incarnation, so many who would try to deflect and deflate this pre-existence somehow, strike here at the very beginning with the strategy and tactic of de-personalization. That may not be your particular take but we will cover it to be thorough. No longer is this an intimate and personal relation, but just a colorful depiction of an abstract attribute of God, his analytical thoughts and plans or such. But I will strenuously object to such a thing even if on one unshakable ground—no where in Scripture do we see an abstract object or attribute later becoming an actual personal identity or human being. Granted, we have “wisdom” in the Old Testament, and unlike the majority of commentators I actually do not ascribe this to the Son but rather the Spirit—and in this OT personification I would equally object that something so personal would be, in such a deeply misleading way, used as a lifeless abstract attribute. For we see even in Proverbs 1-8 the deeply impassioned and emotional pleas and longings of something far more than a heartless dry abstract principle. I cannot accept that God would be so misleading.
So in the beginning WAS the Word already, he did not “come into being,” which could clearly have been brought out, and many commentators ancient and new have made good note of this ἦν here. There is a reason the entire Bible starts out “in the beginning God,” and not “in the beginning angels” or “in the beginning Satan,” or “in the beginning man.” God’s unique status as the only one true source of all things is declared and upheld first thing, by his solo entrance upon creation: in the beginning GOD. And yet here in John 1 we get another character “just chilling” along with him. Now much has been made about the lack of article, or the few scraped together examples one could find where things other than God were called “god,” angels or judges or so forth, and they are exceedingly few and far between, and always have this certain logic behind them of an extension of God’s authority. But never in these (very few) examples, do we see as here, an extension of God’s pre-existence and God’s attributes. This is not just a delegation or stand-in for God, clearly, but rather something far, far beyond such a thing. For “through him all things came into being,” and just in case we miss the import, John reinforces it without making sure we don’t miss the fact that “not even one thing” came into being without him—nothing. And now some more divine attributes of life and light, things you will be hard pressed to find attributed to any creaturely thing anywhere else in all of Scripture, while constantly being attributed to God—are liberally and generously applied to our mysterious Logos, such that this life and light in fact reaches every single human being and overcomes all opposition to it. The ultimate life, light, victory and redemption—God’s salvation—attributed to a “thing” that was right there with him before all things, with no reference or description to a time when “he was not,” as phrase has been used. I’m perfectly comfortable saying “the Word was Godness,” because I have thorough and Biblical case that none can fly so close to the sun without their wings burned off—you cannot just have “an attribute or two” of God and somehow not be him. The Creator versus creature distinction is an infinite gulf, and only God himself could possibly possess his fundamental attributes and essence.
As we continue to work our way through John one in relation to Jesus here, and the next two days center around John 14 and Colossians 1, I want you to know it is time well spent for me whether you fail to be convinced, and I believe we will get that little bit closer to the Lord. You are free of course to begin describing your own point of view and objections, but I will be focusing on making a positive case for now so any lack of response must not be considered acquiescence. I’m sure it will not.
6 There arose a man, sent from God, whose name was, John:
7 The same, came, for a witness, That he might bear witness, concerning the light, that, all, might believe, through him.
8 He, was not the light,--but, that he might bear witness concerning the light,
9 It, was--The real light that enlighteneth every man--Coming into the world.
10 In the world, he was, and, the world, through him, came into existence, and, the world, knew him not.
11 Into his own possessions, he came, and, his own people, received him not home.
12 But, as many as did receive him, he gave, unto them, authority, children of God, to become,--unto them who were believing on his name:
13 Who--not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but--of God, were born.
14 And, the Word, became, flesh, and pitched his tent among us, and we gazed upon his glory,--a glory, as an Only-begotten from his Father. Full of favour and truth. (Jn. 1:6-14 ROT)
We have added two more qualities here—ownership and glory. Now some make much ado about saying “God really does share his glory!” and shoot, we all get a free sample, glory for everyone. Of course when we say “share his glory” there is more than one way we can mean that and it becomes quite equivocal. God could share his glory in the sense of allowing someone to experience or see it, or even carry it, quite without sharing his glory in the sense of allowing someone to fundamentally deserve and possess it meritoriously. That is the sense in which God says “I will not share my glory with another,” and the fundamental idea of salvation—although, indeed, many small “saviors” have been granted—also cannot be shared in the ultimate sense of the base salvation that all other “sub” saviors partake in. Nobody truly owns creation as his own, but the one who by virtue of his authorship has every complete authorial right to own it—the “made by” label as it were, the “receipt” of acquiring from a legitimate source, only God himself can be said to own creation in this way, of much more than a temporary lease or subcontract.
And Hebrews 1 is a beautiful corollary to this passage so far, telling us the Son upholds all things by the Word of his power, and is the very expression of the character of God himself. Notice too it flows into “who alone purged our sins,” and we will realize how deeply only a divine attribute could bridge such an infinite gulf that sin created between God and man, when we consider the height and perfection of God’s purity and hatred for evil, and the fullness and completeness of his judgment upon it.
And, although it is “all good” of course in every sense, I will end the meditation of John 1 here in this last passage as that which in particular pertains to the attribute and person of Christ:
15 (John beareth witness concerning him, and hath cried aloud, saying--the same, was he that said--He who, after me, was coming, before me, hath advanced; because, my Chief, was he.)
16 Because, out of his fulness, we all, received, even favour over against favour.
17 Because, the law, through Moses, was given, favour and truth, through Jesus Christ, came into existence.
18 No one, hath seen, God, at any time: An Only Begotten God, The One existing within the bosom of the Father, He, hath interpreted [him]. (Jn. 1:15-18 ROT)
As John bears witness of course, we see two other distinct characters, the voice and the Dove, and we should have to go on quite a Easter Egg hunt to gather together all Biblical references to these, but suffice to say, this threefold witness is here as everywhere.
Now it is quite remarkable that the “law” here is said to be given through Moses instead of God himself, and “grace and truth” given this additional category as if there were no grace and truth in the law of Moses! I seem to remember a whole mountain burning on fire and I’m pretty sure Moses didn’t rig up pyrotechnics or decided to utilize volcanic activity. I read this here as showing that Christ indeed is the only who can interpret and fulfill the Law of God for us, and without the grace going along with the truth, without his intermediary intercessory life, that law would have held no grace at all for any of us, but we would all be swallowed alive in sin as Korah.
Now I really like the reading in verse 18 and I understand not all versions will accept it, but I believe there is a powerful case contextually, textually and theologically for it. There is more early motivation to remove than add it, and it fits perfectly with the overall theme. To quote Comfort on the textual evidence:
Jesus has indeed “exegeted” God for us, being what God has spoken, that heart-utterance that contains the central nature, desires and ideas of the one who speaks the words—and of course Jesus revealing God in a way that no one else did or could, seems far more than a super special holy man who happened to live extra super holy. As Christ himself said “there was none greater born among women than John the Baptist,” and yet John the Baptist clearly says here in John 1, Christ is before him and he is not worthy to untie his sandals.
Now if the greatest born among women isn’t worthy to untie someone else’s sandals, who must that someone be?!
Now I’m not trying to play unfair: if I have indeed been engrossed in the utter giving of myself over to idolatry and breaking the 1st and 2nd commandments all these decades, I desperately want to know, and cry out daily for God’s vision. Of course you must know that I believe I have put in the work—thousands of hours crying out from the heart—and been answered by God with experiences and revelation.
But I certainly don’t believe that devoting myself completely and utterly to an idol in Jesus Christ and being unrepentant for it, could ever possibly be a forgivable sin, and I will most certainly burn in hell for all eternity for the hours, days, weeks and years I have spent absolutely worshiping Christ in every way. This is not some little mistake, this is the single greatest sin a creature could commit—creating his own god.
And I sincerely appreciate and honor your prayers, and want you to know I am completely open to my need to repent of this, were that the case. It would be the very first thing I would ever want to know, in fact, the very first thing that you, or any real Christian, should warn me of!
I look forward to joining you again tomorrow for a wonderful meditation on John 14!
Last edited by a moderator:
civic
Well-known member
Excellent insight into the Logos. Well done !!!Okay, I have prayerfully read through John 1 this morning, and what memories I have in this beloved chapter. I shall take John 1 on the first day as a framework for my discussion. I don’t want to act like we are brand new as we both probably know reams of arguments on both sides. But we can only pray for fresh vision and spiritual eyes.
If we were, say theoretically, to allow a creature to share many attributes and functions of God—to share his throne, his glory, his work of salvation, his upholding of all things, the perfection of his character, his place as Judge of all, his authority and power, his preeminence as being before all things—but then made sure to demote him to just “a little bit less than God,” you have to understand to me, this confuses all boundaries of what idolatry even means, and obscures the most fundamental uniqueness God ascribes to himself. It is like Icarus wanting to fly as close to the sun as possible—and when you let the creature get there, get so very close, the heat will melt off his wings with so many functionally identical attributes and roles of God.
Now you have to admit that idea—for even in the competing religions of Islam and Judaism we see a singular focus and objection to the attributes of the Person of Christ, in particular, more than any other objection to the Christian religion; and you cannot tell me these millions of alternate religious zealots are merely doing all this objecting just because they don’t understand how good the argument is against Christ’s deity. Were this the case, they could confidently dismiss all claims to Christ’s deity as simply, obviously and grossly unbiblical, and although Muslims claim our Bible Is corrupted, I have not heard one use this claim without at the very least, having to excise Paul completely from the canon. So let me say clearly, what you are willing to allow in a creature is considered, far and away and to a man completely across the board, pure idolatry among the millions of adherents to Judaism and Islam. You have let your “man” fly too close to the sun.
And so let us start here:
View attachment 202
Clearly we see the parallel and reference to Genesis one starting with the same two Greek words, and this time, like the Spirit of God already hovering, before the beginning has even progressed we have a character already, the Word. Now Jesus name is directly and forcefully attested to be “the Word of God” even after his incarnation, so many who would try to deflect and deflate this pre-existence somehow, strike here at the very beginning with the strategy and tactic of de-personalization. That may not be your particular take but we will cover it to be thorough. No longer is this an intimate and personal relation, but just a colorful depiction of an abstract attribute of God, his analytical thoughts and plans or such. But I will strenuously object to such a thing even if on one unshakable ground—no where in Scripture do we see an abstract object or attribute later becoming an actual personal identity or human being. Granted, we have “wisdom” in the Old Testament, and unlike the majority of commentators I actually do not ascribe this to the Son but rather the Spirit—and in this OT personification I would equally object that something so personal would be, in such a deeply misleading way, used as a lifeless abstract attribute. For we see even in Proverbs 1-8 the deeply impassioned and emotional pleas and longings of something far more than a heartless dry abstract principle. I cannot accept that God would be so misleading.
So in the beginning WAS the Word already, he did not “come into being,” which could clearly have been brought out, and many commentators ancient and new have made good note of this ἦν here. There is a reason the entire Bible starts out “in the beginning God,” and not “in the beginning angels” or “in the beginning Satan,” or “in the beginning man.” God’s unique status as the only one true source of all things is declared and upheld first thing, by his solo entrance upon creation: in the beginning GOD. And yet here in John 1 we get another character “just chilling” along with him. Now much has been made about the lack of article, or the few scraped together examples one could find where things other than God were called “god,” angels or judges or so forth, and they are exceedingly few and far between, and always have this certain logic behind them of an extension of God’s authority. But never in these (very few) examples, do we see as here, an extension of God’s pre-existence and God’s attributes. This is not just a delegation or stand-in for God, clearly, but rather something far, far beyond such a thing. For “through him all things came into being,” and just in case we miss the import, John reinforces it without making sure we don’t miss the fact that “not even one thing” came into being without him—nothing. And now some more divine attributes of life and light, things you will be hard pressed to find attributed to any creaturely thing anywhere else in all of Scripture, while constantly being attributed to God—are liberally and generously applied to our mysterious Logos, such that this life and light in fact reaches every single human being and overcomes all opposition to it. The ultimate life, light, victory and redemption—God’s salvation—attributed to a “thing” that was right there with him before all things, with no reference or description to a time when “he was not,” as phrase has been used. I’m perfectly comfortable saying “the word was Godness,” because I have thorough and Biblical case that none can fly so close to the sun without their wings burned off—you cannot just have “an attribute or two” of God and somehow not be him. The Creator versus creature distinction is an infinite gulf, and only God himself could possibly possess his fundamental attributes and essence.
As we continue to work our way through John one in relation to Jesus here, and the next two days center around John 14 and Colossians 1, I want you to know it is time well spent for me whether you fail to be convinced, and I believe we will get that little bit closer to the Lord. You are free of course to begin describing your own point of view and objections, but I will be focusing on making a positive case for now so any lack of response must not be considered acquiescence. I’m sure it will not.
6 There arose a man, sent from God, whose name was, John:
7 The same, came, for a witness, That he might bear witness, concerning the light, that, all, might believe, through him.
8 He, was not the light,--but, that he might bear witness concerning the light,
9 It, was--The real light that enlighteneth every man--Coming into the world.
10 In the world, he was, and, the world, through him, came into existence, and, the world, knew him not.
11 Into his own possessions, he came, and, his own people, received him not home.
12 But, as many as did receive him, he gave, unto them, authority, children of God, to become,--unto them who were believing on his name:
13 Who--not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but--of God, were born.
14 And, the Word, became, flesh, and pitched his tent among us, and we gazed upon his glory,--a glory, as an Only-begotten from his Father. Full of favour and truth. (Jn. 1:6-14 ROT)
We have added two more qualities here—ownership and glory. Now some make much ado about saying “God really does share his glory!” and shoot, we all get a free sample, glory for everyone. Of course when we say “share his glory” there is more than one way we can mean that and it becomes quite equivocal. God could share his glory in the sense of allowing someone to experience or see it, or even carry it, quite without sharing his glory in the sense of allowing someone to fundamentally deserve and possess it meritoriously. That is the sense in which God says “I will not share my glory with another,” and the fundamental idea of salvation—although, indeed, many small “saviors” have been granted—also cannot be shared in the ultimate sense of the base salvation that all other “sub” saviors partake in. Nobody truly owns creation as his own, but the one who by virtue of his authorship has every complete authorial right to own it—the “made by” label as it were, the “receipt” of acquiring from a legitimate source, only God himself can be said to own creation in this way, of much more than a temporary lease or subcontract.
And Hebrews 1 is a beautiful corollary to this passage so far, telling us the Son upholds all things by the Word of his power, and is the very expression of the character of God himself. Notice too it flows into “who alone purged our sins,” and we will realize how deeply only a divine attribute could bridge such an infinite gulf that sin created between God and man, when we consider the height and perfection of God’s purity and hatred for evil, and the fullness and completeness of his judgment upon it.
And, although it is “all good” of course in every sense, I will end the meditation of John 1 here in this last passage as that which particular pertains to the attribute and person of Christ:
15 (John beareth witness concerning him, and hath cried aloud, saying--the same, was he that said--He who, after me, was coming, before me, hath advanced; because, my Chief, was he.)
16 Because, out of his fulness, we all, received, even favour over against favour.
17 Because, the law, through Moses, was given, favour and truth, through Jesus Christ, came into existence.
18 No one, hath seen, God, at any time: An Only Begotten God, The One existing within the bosom of the Father, He, hath interpreted [him]. (Jn. 1:15-18 ROT)
As John bears witness of course, we see two other distinct characters, the voice and the Dove, and we should have to go on quite a Easter Egg hunt to gather together all Biblical references to these, but suffice to say, this threefold witness is here as everywhere.
Now it is quite remarkable that the “law” here is said to be given through Moses instead of God himself, and “grace and truth” given this additional category as if there were no grace and truth in the law of Moses! I seem to remember a whole mountain burning on fire and I’m pretty sure Moses didn’t rig up pyrotechnics or decided to utilize volcanic activity. I read this here as showing that Christ indeed is the only who can interpret and fulfill the Law of God for us, and without the grace going along with the truth, without his intermediary intercessory life, that law would have held no grace at all for any of us, but we would all be swallowed alive in sin as Korah.
Now I really like the reading in verse 18 and I understand not all versions will accept it, but I believe there is a powerful case contextually, textually and theologically for it. There is more early motivation to remove than add it, and it fits perfectly with the overall theme. To quote Comfort on the textual evidence:
Jesus has indeed “exegeted” God for us, being what God has spoken, that heart-utterance that contains the central nature, desires and ideas of the one who speaks the words—and of course Jesus revealing God in a way that no one else did or could, seems far more than a super special holy man who happened to live extra super holy. As Christ himself said “there was none greater born among women than John the Baptist,” and yet John the Baptist clearly says here in John 1, Christ is before him and he is not worthy to untie his sandals.
Now if the greatest born among women isn’t worthy to untie someone else’s sandals, who must that someone be?!
Now I’m not trying to play unfair: if I have indeed been engrossed in the utter giving of myself over to idolatry and breaking the 1st and 2nd commandments all these decades, I desperately want to know, and cry out daily for God’s vision. Of course you must know that I believe I have put in the work—thousands of hours crying out from the heart—and been answered by God with experiences and revelation.
But I certainly don’t believe that devoting myself completely and utterly to an idol in Jesus Christ and bein unrepentant for it, could ever possibly be a forgivable sin, and I will most certainly burn in hell for all eternity for the hours, days, weeks and years I have spent absolutely worshiping CHrist in every way. This is not some little mistake, this is the single greatest sin a creature could commit—creating his own god.
And I sincerely appreciate and honor your prayers, and want you to know I am completely open to my need to repent of this, were that the case. It would be the very first thing I would ever want to know, in fact, the very first thing that you, or any real Christian, should warn me of!
I look forward to joining you again tomorrow for a wonderful meditation on John 14!
Matthias
Well-known member
Okay, I have prayerfully read through John 1 this morning, and what memories I have in this beloved chapter. I shall take John 1 on the first day as a framework for my discussion. I don’t want to act like we are brand new as we both probably know reams of arguments on both sides. But we can only pray for fresh vision and spiritual eyes.
If we were, say theoretically, to allow a creature to share many attributes and functions of God—to share his throne, his glory, his work of salvation, his upholding of all things, the perfection of his character, his place as Judge of all, his authority and power, his preeminence as being before all things—but then made sure to demote him to just “a little bit less than God,” you have to understand to me, this confuses all boundaries of what idolatry even means, and obscures the most fundamental uniqueness God ascribes to himself. It is like Icarus wanting to fly as close to the sun as possible—and when you let the creature get there, get so very close, the heat will melt off his wings with so many functionally identical attributes and roles of God.
Now you have to admit that idea—for even in the competing religions of Islam and Judaism we see a singular focus and objection to the attributes of the Person of Christ, in particular, more than any other objection to the Christian religion; and you cannot tell me these millions of alternate religious zealots are merely doing all this objecting just because they don’t understand how good the argument is against Christ’s deity. Were this the case, they could confidently dismiss all claims to Christ’s deity as simply, obviously and grossly unbiblical, and although Muslims claim our Bible Is corrupted, I have not heard one use this claim without at the very least, having to excise Paul completely from the canon. So let me say clearly, what you are willing to allow in a creature is considered, far and away and to a man completely across the board, pure idolatry among the millions of adherents to Judaism and Islam. You have let your “man” fly too close to the sun.
And so let us start here:
View attachment 202
Clearly we see the parallel and reference to Genesis one starting with the same two Greek words, and this time, like the Spirit of God already hovering, before the beginning has even progressed we have a character already, the Word. Now Jesus' name is directly and forcefully attested to be “the Word of God” even after his incarnation, so many who would try to deflect and deflate this pre-existence somehow, strike here at the very beginning with the strategy and tactic of de-personalization. That may not be your particular take but we will cover it to be thorough. No longer is this an intimate and personal relation, but just a colorful depiction of an abstract attribute of God, his analytical thoughts and plans or such. But I will strenuously object to such a thing even if on one unshakable ground—no where in Scripture do we see an abstract object or attribute later becoming an actual personal identity or human being. Granted, we have “wisdom” in the Old Testament, and unlike the majority of commentators I actually do not ascribe this to the Son but rather the Spirit—and in this OT personification I would equally object that something so personal would be, in such a deeply misleading way, used as a lifeless abstract attribute. For we see even in Proverbs 1-8 the deeply impassioned and emotional pleas and longings of something far more than a heartless dry abstract principle. I cannot accept that God would be so misleading.
So in the beginning WAS the Word already, he did not “come into being,” which could clearly have been brought out, and many commentators ancient and new have made good note of this ἦν here. There is a reason the entire Bible starts out “in the beginning God,” and not “in the beginning angels” or “in the beginning Satan,” or “in the beginning man.” God’s unique status as the only one true source of all things is declared and upheld first thing, by his solo entrance upon creation: in the beginning GOD. And yet here in John 1 we get another character “just chilling” along with him. Now much has been made about the lack of article, or the few scraped together examples one could find where things other than God were called “god,” angels or judges or so forth, and they are exceedingly few and far between, and always have this certain logic behind them of an extension of God’s authority. But never in these (very few) examples, do we see as here, an extension of God’s pre-existence and God’s attributes. This is not just a delegation or stand-in for God, clearly, but rather something far, far beyond such a thing. For “through him all things came into being,” and just in case we miss the import, John reinforces it without making sure we don’t miss the fact that “not even one thing” came into being without him—nothing. And now some more divine attributes of life and light, things you will be hard pressed to find attributed to any creaturely thing anywhere else in all of Scripture, while constantly being attributed to God—are liberally and generously applied to our mysterious Logos, such that this life and light in fact reaches every single human being and overcomes all opposition to it. The ultimate life, light, victory and redemption—God’s salvation—attributed to a “thing” that was right there with him before all things, with no reference or description to a time when “he was not,” as phrase has been used. I’m perfectly comfortable saying “the Word was Godness,” because I have thorough and Biblical case that none can fly so close to the sun without their wings burned off—you cannot just have “an attribute or two” of God and somehow not be him. The Creator versus creature distinction is an infinite gulf, and only God himself could possibly possess his fundamental attributes and essence.
As we continue to work our way through John one in relation to Jesus here, and the next two days center around John 14 and Colossians 1, I want you to know it is time well spent for me whether you fail to be convinced, and I believe we will get that little bit closer to the Lord. You are free of course to begin describing your own point of view and objections, but I will be focusing on making a positive case for now so any lack of response must not be considered acquiescence. I’m sure it will not.
6 There arose a man, sent from God, whose name was, John:
7 The same, came, for a witness, That he might bear witness, concerning the light, that, all, might believe, through him.
8 He, was not the light,--but, that he might bear witness concerning the light,
9 It, was--The real light that enlighteneth every man--Coming into the world.
10 In the world, he was, and, the world, through him, came into existence, and, the world, knew him not.
11 Into his own possessions, he came, and, his own people, received him not home.
12 But, as many as did receive him, he gave, unto them, authority, children of God, to become,--unto them who were believing on his name:
13 Who--not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but--of God, were born.
14 And, the Word, became, flesh, and pitched his tent among us, and we gazed upon his glory,--a glory, as an Only-begotten from his Father. Full of favour and truth. (Jn. 1:6-14 ROT)
We have added two more qualities here—ownership and glory. Now some make much ado about saying “God really does share his glory!” and shoot, we all get a free sample, glory for everyone. Of course when we say “share his glory” there is more than one way we can mean that and it becomes quite equivocal. God could share his glory in the sense of allowing someone to experience or see it, or even carry it, quite without sharing his glory in the sense of allowing someone to fundamentally deserve and possess it meritoriously. That is the sense in which God says “I will not share my glory with another,” and the fundamental idea of salvation—although, indeed, many small “saviors” have been granted—also cannot be shared in the ultimate sense of the base salvation that all other “sub” saviors partake in. Nobody truly owns creation as his own, but the one who by virtue of his authorship has every complete authorial right to own it—the “made by” label as it were, the “receipt” of acquiring from a legitimate source, only God himself can be said to own creation in this way, of much more than a temporary lease or subcontract.
And Hebrews 1 is a beautiful corollary to this passage so far, telling us the Son upholds all things by the Word of his power, and is the very expression of the character of God himself. Notice too it flows into “who alone purged our sins,” and we will realize how deeply only a divine attribute could bridge such an infinite gulf that sin created between God and man, when we consider the height and perfection of God’s purity and hatred for evil, and the fullness and completeness of his judgment upon it.
And, although it is “all good” of course in every sense, I will end the meditation of John 1 here in this last passage as that which in particular pertains to the attribute and person of Christ:
15 (John beareth witness concerning him, and hath cried aloud, saying--the same, was he that said--He who, after me, was coming, before me, hath advanced; because, my Chief, was he.)
16 Because, out of his fulness, we all, received, even favour over against favour.
17 Because, the law, through Moses, was given, favour and truth, through Jesus Christ, came into existence.
18 No one, hath seen, God, at any time: An Only Begotten God, The One existing within the bosom of the Father, He, hath interpreted [him]. (Jn. 1:15-18 ROT)
As John bears witness of course, we see two other distinct characters, the voice and the Dove, and we should have to go on quite a Easter Egg hunt to gather together all Biblical references to these, but suffice to say, this threefold witness is here as everywhere.
Now it is quite remarkable that the “law” here is said to be given through Moses instead of God himself, and “grace and truth” given this additional category as if there were no grace and truth in the law of Moses! I seem to remember a whole mountain burning on fire and I’m pretty sure Moses didn’t rig up pyrotechnics or decided to utilize volcanic activity. I read this here as showing that Christ indeed is the only who can interpret and fulfill the Law of God for us, and without the grace going along with the truth, without his intermediary intercessory life, that law would have held no grace at all for any of us, but we would all be swallowed alive in sin as Korah.
Now I really like the reading in verse 18 and I understand not all versions will accept it, but I believe there is a powerful case contextually, textually and theologically for it. There is more early motivation to remove than add it, and it fits perfectly with the overall theme. To quote Comfort on the textual evidence:
Jesus has indeed “exegeted” God for us, being what God has spoken, that heart-utterance that contains the central nature, desires and ideas of the one who speaks the words—and of course Jesus revealing God in a way that no one else did or could, seems far more than a super special holy man who happened to live extra super holy. As Christ himself said “there was none greater born among women than John the Baptist,” and yet John the Baptist clearly says here in John 1, Christ is before him and he is not worthy to untie his sandals.
Now if the greatest born among women isn’t worthy to untie someone else’s sandals, who must that someone be?!
Now I’m not trying to play unfair: if I have indeed been engrossed in the utter giving of myself over to idolatry and breaking the 1st and 2nd commandments all these decades, I desperately want to know, and cry out daily for God’s vision. Of course you must know that I believe I have put in the work—thousands of hours crying out from the heart—and been answered by God with experiences and revelation.
But I certainly don’t believe that devoting myself completely and utterly to an idol in Jesus Christ and being unrepentant for it, could ever possibly be a forgivable sin, and I will most certainly burn in hell for all eternity for the hours, days, weeks and years I have spent absolutely worshiping Christ in every way. This is not some little mistake, this is the single greatest sin a creature could commit—creating his own god.
And I sincerely appreciate and honor your prayers, and want you to know I am completely open to my need to repent of this, were that the case. It would be the very first thing I would ever want to know, in fact, the very first thing that you, or any real Christian, should warn me of!
I look forward to joining you again tomorrow for a wonderful meditation on John 14!
Have you read John’s prologue (John 1:1-5) as presented in the Geneva Bible?
Matthias
Well-known member
Matthias
Well-known member
You wish you were a unitarian … I wish you were too.
You wish you were a unitarian ... for the wrong reason.
You wish you were a unitarian … I don’t believe you really do.
You wish you were a unitarian … the Messiah himself is.
You wish you were a unitarian … maybe someday you really will wish it.
You wish you were a unitarian ... maybe someday you will be.
You wish you were a unitarian … let’s talk about it.
Whenever you should happen to read this, I hope it finds you well.
Goodnight.
You wish you were a unitarian ... for the wrong reason.
You wish you were a unitarian … I don’t believe you really do.
You wish you were a unitarian … the Messiah himself is.
You wish you were a unitarian … maybe someday you really will wish it.
You wish you were a unitarian ... maybe someday you will be.
You wish you were a unitarian … let’s talk about it.
Whenever you should happen to read this, I hope it finds you well.
Goodnight.
Dizerner
Well-known member
Okay, I appreciate your patience with me.
Let’s finish up, and of course, these chapters are beautiful but I only wanted to focus on parts.
16 And ||I|| will request the Father,
And ||Another′ Advocate|| will he give unto you,
That he may be with you age-abidingly,—
17 The Spirit of truth,—
Which ||the world|| cannot receive,
Because it beholdeth it not､ nor getteth to know it.
But ||ye|| are getting to know it;
Because |with you| it abideth,
And |in you| it is.
18 I will not leave you bereft,—
I am coming unto you.
24 <He that loveth me not>
Doth not keep ||my word||;—
And ||the word which ye hear|| is not mine′,
But |the Father’s′ who sent me|.
25 |These things| have I spoken unto you､
||With′ you abiding||;
26 But <the Advocate,
The Holy Spirit､ which the Father will send in my name>
||He|| will teach you all things､
And will put you in mind |of all things which ||I|| told you|.
The thing I want to bring out here, is to clearly show the personalities involved. To request someone else, to send someone else, to know someone, to be with someone, to love and come to someone, to be sent by someone, to teach someone, and remind them, these are all personal actions, especially in the context of interrelating with others. If these three were Persons—Father, Spirit, Son, here—there could be no more natural and plainer way than to write here. To establish the divinity of the Spirit is a trivial thing, and if as many cults do, one were to demote the Spirit to an energy or force, or just to recapitulate him as a redundancy of the Father, at the very least in both instances no one could even possibly deny the Spirit acts with divine attributes.
But here, we have the most beautiful and descriptive, the most poignant and meaningful, direct interactions of the Trinity just described as plainly and directly as you could hope to imagine. Now remember—there is no set of words, that with a predetermined bias and commitment against the most literal and immediate meaning, cannot still be reinterpreted to fit some prior presupposition. And there are times we are forced to admit we cannot take something literally, and that is okay, and we should admit that. But we should also be reticent, and only resort to it where we feel we absolutely have to.
And we have here as clear and direct interpersonal descriptions as could be thought—it would be nonsensically redundant to say “I will ask the Father and he will send you another advocate,” when in fact It was not another at all—and this is another “of the same kind” in the Greek, very important. Another means “not the same” in any language and context, there simply is no way around that. One would not say, as in verse 26, “But the advocate, the Father, which the Father will send in my name,” as this is a completely meaningless and unnecessary redundancy. This point is very important, and because it proves the distinction as best a fair and unbiased person could ask for. And again—for those committed to a belief, remember that no set of contradictory words will dislodge it.
Now lastly we want to turn to Colossians 2, another wonderful flight of Icarus up to the sun:
13 Who hath rescued us out of the authority of the darkness､
And translated [us] into the kingdom of the Son of his love;
14 |In whom| we have our redemption—the remission of our sins,—
15 ||Who|| is an image of the unseen God､
Firstborn of all′ creation,—
16 Because ||in him|| were created all things in the heavens and upon the earth､ The things seen and the things unseen, Whether thrones or lordships or principalities or authorities,—||They all|| |through him and for him| have been created, 17 And ||he|| is before all､ And ||they all|| |in him| hold together;
18 And ||he|| is the head of the body､ the assembly, Who is the beginning､ Firstborn from among the dead､ In order that ||he|| might become |in all things| ||himself|| pre-eminent;—
19 Because ||in him|| was all′ the fulness well pleased to dwell,
20 And ||through him|| fully to reconcile all things unto him､ Making peace through the blood of his cross,—
[||Through him||]—Whether the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens;
Really, John 1 was in and of itself an overwhelming case already, nothing more need be added, for any open and unbiased soul, but we do have an embarrassment of riches to behold.
And the cults love to fixate on “firstborn of all creation” as if that is the long and short of it, and settles the case—but remember, we have here an unusual thing, a Being that is both uncreated and created both, and we clearly see both attributes. One can opt to simply eliminate and turn a blind eye to one or the other side, but an honest person has to admit both. So “created” does not hurt our side here at any rate, for it Is very fundamental to the belief.
The question we must ask, and that naturally arises, is again—what attributes of God simply cannot be shared. If we say “none,” well, we’ve lost all distinction, and dialogue becomes meaningless. We could say God created an “almost god” that does all his stuff, and since it’s cool with him, then he can pawn off a few of his attributes, and many take this line; but we must know, this violates fundamental things about God’s nature and character. One cannot simply “pass around” divine attributes. Yes, Christians are said to share in the “divine nature,” but this is not to say we have the fundamental attributes of God, rather to say something of God is united to us. Christians do not uphold all things by their word of their power, and I think few would disagree with that.
In him were created all things—we might think this excludes himself, naturally, however it really does not say this. All authorities are not just created through him, as if he were some divine monkey wrench God used to twist the last bolts of the created, but more fundamentally and powerfully, they are created FOR him. In all things he is pre-eminent, and reconciles all things through his Blood. I would argue vigorously—nay, even die on this hill—that all creation can ONLY be created for its Creator. This is absolutely non-negotiable, and we can pull in many verses for it. It is a very strong and compelling argument with any thought, for those who really understand the heights and purity of the thrice-holiness of God, to see that no mere measured or mortal thing could bridge an infinite gap between that, and the true blackness of the vileness of sin and God’s degree of hatred for it, that would cause him to unleash his wrath for all eternity.
The fullness of the Godhead—not only a plurality, but a definite emphasis on all it means or contains—dwelling in this one being. And we are told quite clearly that “the heaven of heavens cannot contain God,” he is indeed immeasurable and limitless, and thus, it is no wild or weird logic to clearly see no created thing could fully contain him, by actual definition. And his clear unity and vicarious atonement for all humanity, again defy the parameters of limitations put upon any created thing. Along with divine attributes we see his creaturely attributes clearly expressed, and since both are told to us, and only God can define himself or let us know what he is capable of—mystery is no cheap cop out, nor sneaky way out of the rules, but rather the actual reverence for the greatness of the Divine, as Scripture clearly and everywhere exhorts us. “You O Lord, know.”
And thus I rest my case.
Icarus has flown too close to the sun, and his wings have burned off. Either we strip him entirely of all his ability to fly, or we humble ourselves and admit he is—indeed simply must—be an extension of the sun itself to fly so close to the blaze.
If you feel unconvinced, perhaps my spiritual influence is simply not strong enough to overcome the opposition, but here I stand, I can do no other.
I must worship and adore my God: Jesus Christ.
Thank you for sharing this beautiful journey with me.
Let’s finish up, and of course, these chapters are beautiful but I only wanted to focus on parts.
16 And ||I|| will request the Father,
And ||Another′ Advocate|| will he give unto you,
That he may be with you age-abidingly,—
17 The Spirit of truth,—
Which ||the world|| cannot receive,
Because it beholdeth it not､ nor getteth to know it.
But ||ye|| are getting to know it;
Because |with you| it abideth,
And |in you| it is.
18 I will not leave you bereft,—
I am coming unto you.
24 <He that loveth me not>
Doth not keep ||my word||;—
And ||the word which ye hear|| is not mine′,
But |the Father’s′ who sent me|.
25 |These things| have I spoken unto you､
||With′ you abiding||;
26 But <the Advocate,
The Holy Spirit､ which the Father will send in my name>
||He|| will teach you all things､
And will put you in mind |of all things which ||I|| told you|.
The thing I want to bring out here, is to clearly show the personalities involved. To request someone else, to send someone else, to know someone, to be with someone, to love and come to someone, to be sent by someone, to teach someone, and remind them, these are all personal actions, especially in the context of interrelating with others. If these three were Persons—Father, Spirit, Son, here—there could be no more natural and plainer way than to write here. To establish the divinity of the Spirit is a trivial thing, and if as many cults do, one were to demote the Spirit to an energy or force, or just to recapitulate him as a redundancy of the Father, at the very least in both instances no one could even possibly deny the Spirit acts with divine attributes.
But here, we have the most beautiful and descriptive, the most poignant and meaningful, direct interactions of the Trinity just described as plainly and directly as you could hope to imagine. Now remember—there is no set of words, that with a predetermined bias and commitment against the most literal and immediate meaning, cannot still be reinterpreted to fit some prior presupposition. And there are times we are forced to admit we cannot take something literally, and that is okay, and we should admit that. But we should also be reticent, and only resort to it where we feel we absolutely have to.
And we have here as clear and direct interpersonal descriptions as could be thought—it would be nonsensically redundant to say “I will ask the Father and he will send you another advocate,” when in fact It was not another at all—and this is another “of the same kind” in the Greek, very important. Another means “not the same” in any language and context, there simply is no way around that. One would not say, as in verse 26, “But the advocate, the Father, which the Father will send in my name,” as this is a completely meaningless and unnecessary redundancy. This point is very important, and because it proves the distinction as best a fair and unbiased person could ask for. And again—for those committed to a belief, remember that no set of contradictory words will dislodge it.
Now lastly we want to turn to Colossians 2, another wonderful flight of Icarus up to the sun:
13 Who hath rescued us out of the authority of the darkness､
And translated [us] into the kingdom of the Son of his love;
14 |In whom| we have our redemption—the remission of our sins,—
15 ||Who|| is an image of the unseen God､
Firstborn of all′ creation,—
16 Because ||in him|| were created all things in the heavens and upon the earth､ The things seen and the things unseen, Whether thrones or lordships or principalities or authorities,—||They all|| |through him and for him| have been created, 17 And ||he|| is before all､ And ||they all|| |in him| hold together;
18 And ||he|| is the head of the body､ the assembly, Who is the beginning､ Firstborn from among the dead､ In order that ||he|| might become |in all things| ||himself|| pre-eminent;—
19 Because ||in him|| was all′ the fulness well pleased to dwell,
20 And ||through him|| fully to reconcile all things unto him､ Making peace through the blood of his cross,—
[||Through him||]—Whether the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens;
Really, John 1 was in and of itself an overwhelming case already, nothing more need be added, for any open and unbiased soul, but we do have an embarrassment of riches to behold.
And the cults love to fixate on “firstborn of all creation” as if that is the long and short of it, and settles the case—but remember, we have here an unusual thing, a Being that is both uncreated and created both, and we clearly see both attributes. One can opt to simply eliminate and turn a blind eye to one or the other side, but an honest person has to admit both. So “created” does not hurt our side here at any rate, for it Is very fundamental to the belief.
The question we must ask, and that naturally arises, is again—what attributes of God simply cannot be shared. If we say “none,” well, we’ve lost all distinction, and dialogue becomes meaningless. We could say God created an “almost god” that does all his stuff, and since it’s cool with him, then he can pawn off a few of his attributes, and many take this line; but we must know, this violates fundamental things about God’s nature and character. One cannot simply “pass around” divine attributes. Yes, Christians are said to share in the “divine nature,” but this is not to say we have the fundamental attributes of God, rather to say something of God is united to us. Christians do not uphold all things by their word of their power, and I think few would disagree with that.
In him were created all things—we might think this excludes himself, naturally, however it really does not say this. All authorities are not just created through him, as if he were some divine monkey wrench God used to twist the last bolts of the created, but more fundamentally and powerfully, they are created FOR him. In all things he is pre-eminent, and reconciles all things through his Blood. I would argue vigorously—nay, even die on this hill—that all creation can ONLY be created for its Creator. This is absolutely non-negotiable, and we can pull in many verses for it. It is a very strong and compelling argument with any thought, for those who really understand the heights and purity of the thrice-holiness of God, to see that no mere measured or mortal thing could bridge an infinite gap between that, and the true blackness of the vileness of sin and God’s degree of hatred for it, that would cause him to unleash his wrath for all eternity.
The fullness of the Godhead—not only a plurality, but a definite emphasis on all it means or contains—dwelling in this one being. And we are told quite clearly that “the heaven of heavens cannot contain God,” he is indeed immeasurable and limitless, and thus, it is no wild or weird logic to clearly see no created thing could fully contain him, by actual definition. And his clear unity and vicarious atonement for all humanity, again defy the parameters of limitations put upon any created thing. Along with divine attributes we see his creaturely attributes clearly expressed, and since both are told to us, and only God can define himself or let us know what he is capable of—mystery is no cheap cop out, nor sneaky way out of the rules, but rather the actual reverence for the greatness of the Divine, as Scripture clearly and everywhere exhorts us. “You O Lord, know.”
And thus I rest my case.
Icarus has flown too close to the sun, and his wings have burned off. Either we strip him entirely of all his ability to fly, or we humble ourselves and admit he is—indeed simply must—be an extension of the sun itself to fly so close to the blaze.
If you feel unconvinced, perhaps my spiritual influence is simply not strong enough to overcome the opposition, but here I stand, I can do no other.
I must worship and adore my God: Jesus Christ.
Thank you for sharing this beautiful journey with me.
Matthias
Well-known member
I can see that you put a lot of effort into your presentation.
What exactly are you expecting in terms of a response from me?
Is it an in-kind lecture / meditation that you‘re looking for? Is it something else?
P.S.
Are you still fasting? If so, would you like for me to wait until your fast is ended or would you prefer for me to respond while you’re still fasting?
Last edited:
