You appeal to the Greek, and yet you presented no arguments from the Greek. And even if you did, you mention that it is quite clear for those who know Greek. But how many Christians know Greek? I do, but most Christians do not. As the saying goes, its all Greek to me! So if it only clear to those who know Greek then this is an admission that your argument is not clear to most Christians, since most Christians do not know Greek!
where I left off
The Jehovah Witness, being at heart an Arian, believes that Jesus is a god, but not the God. Being a god, Jesus was the first one created by the God. In Col:15, it says He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. The Jehovah Witness would argue that if Jesus was the firstborn of all creation, then that must mean that Jesus was part of creation even though by being firstborn that means He was the first to be created. And once Jesus was created, God then created everything else.
Yep that is what they would say . . . but this verse directly refutes that. Look at the contention of the verse:
John 1:3
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being
NASU
The first assertion is that ALL THINGS came into being by Him. There can be an arguement made that panta is a relative term and not absolute . . . and this is true, sometimes panta refers to a entire group and is not universal. The answer to its meaning is in context.
But that is exactly where they are proved wrong. Context interprets that statement in the next following assertion:
and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being
So contextually what is "all things?" . . . the text qualifies the "all things" itself with the statement of
"anything that can be said to have "come into being" . . . or can be said to have a beginning . . . comes into being BY HIM"
By definition if things that have beginnings come into being BY HIM . . . and ALL THINGS that have beginnings (noted by the negative "nothing that has a beginning" ) cannot have beginnings with out Him . . . HE DOESNT QUALIFY AS ONE WHO HAS A BEGINNING.
Even w/o Greek it isnt hard to see. It is texts like these that gave tradition its authority because tradition has no authority apart from scripture. Tradition IS what it IS BECAUSE of texts like these . . . and texts like these are what were understood clearly even before there was a structured concept of tradition.
I agree that the Jehovah Witnesses are blinded by Satan. But the Jehovah Witness would look at us as being the ones who are blinded by Satan. If you were to use this in a debated with a Jehovah Witness, this argument would be an ad hominem attack, which is consider an invalid argument.
Agreed, but it is entirely moot. I am NOT in a conversation with a JW . . . so because we share the same view it doesnt matter. U and I both know that their arguements are done from the perspective of deception . . . so to promote their view as valid when we both agree that it is not is pointless.
The issue is whether the scriptures clearly teach the deity of Christ. Pointing to someones perspective when we both know that that perspective is decieved is errant. We both know it is wrong.
The question for you is, where does tradition derive its authority? Tradition is rooted in scripture. Tradition affirms a right view of the passages, but that in and of its self attests to the truthfulness of the passage AND THE ABILITY OF THE PASSAGE TO BE CLEAR IN WHAT IT TEACHES.
Only by defeating the Jehovah Witness with the truth can it then be shown that he is blinded by Satan. If we start with the premise that he is blinded by Satan and therefore we will not discuss it with them, then we are no better than he is.
I dont think that u understand conversion tho . . . conversion is a gift of God . . . therefore, w/o God moving on the person, truth can smack that person in the face till day breaks and it not do anything.
And, we dont say "he is blinded so we wont share" we say "he is blinded so we WILL share and pray that God opens his eyes, and if his eyes are not opened, then that is in God's sovereign hands."
Logic doesnt convert . . . sound and reasoned arguements dont convert . . . u can present logical arguements till youre blue in the face and it still wont convert . . . it takes the revelation of the move of the Spirit of God to call a dead man to life (Eph 2) that converts . . . and if that REALLY happens then truth comes rushing in like a flood and the blind see.
True, he is ultimately blinded by Satan. But that does not mean that the devil could not use secondary means to accomplish this. Satan can use the persons pride, or his upbringing, or his tradition to blind him from the truth. If fact, Jesus did say that we can be blinded by our own man-made traditions (Mark 7:9).
Agreed . . . but blind is blind is blind . .. secondary or primary or tertiary . . .
The JW would agree that it says that Jesus was involved in the creation. But it only says He was involved in creating everything. It says that everything was created THROUGH HIM. But it does not say that everything was created BY Him.
See above, the philosophical contention of the verse requires anything that has a beginning to be brought to being by Him . . . which excludes Him from the category of anything that has a beginning.
Also, the most you can say is that this IMPLIES That Jesus is uncreated.
Not really. Tie the whole concept from 1:1 together through the pericope:
John 1:1-3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
NASU
In the beginning is the reference to the Genesis 1:1 statement of the ha'sho mayim eretez . . . in Hebrew there r 4 words for heaven and 5 for earth (or it may be the inverse) . . . when this peculiar combination of these words is combined it means ONLY ONE THING . . . ALL OF CREATION. So John hearkens back to the creation of all things that have a beginning in the VERY FIRST STATEMENT.
Further his usage presupposes the existence of the "word" prior to the beginning as he goes on the stress. John's perspective in his description he rounds out. IOW he states and restates so that he can be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR as to what he means. He is redundant with a little additional information in each progressive statement.
Into this THERE IS NO IMPLICATION . . . JOHN IS CRYSTAL CLEAR.
He places the location of the word as with God, prior to the beginning and further EXPLAINS that all the created order was through Him and that all things that have a beginning have their beginning in Him. It is stated clearly. No inference at all. He cannot be part of the created order as all things that can be said to have a beginning have so IN HIM . . . which makes HIM UNCREATED.
We can infer that since all things were created through Him, ergo that must mean He was uncreated, because He could not have created Himself. But I dont think the Bible has these things nicely laid as this.
You would be right if only 1:3a were the statement . . . but it is not. 1:3b is the clarifying statement that John makes so that there is no mistaking what he means.
"apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being."
notice the first "all things" and the inverse "nothing" . . . panta (all things) is placed over and against oude en (nothing) to make sure that HE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR. He makes two statements from two angles to affirm the same truth. There is no escaping it.
I think that the author could have implied that Jesus was exception. I think that the author could have meant that Jesus create all created things except, of course, Himself. I think that goes without saying.
As I said, were 1:3a not attached to 1:3b . . . you may be able to strain such a point . . . as this is not the case, you cant.
For instance, the Bible says that God can do all things. But then there are verses that say that God cannot lie and God cannot change. It that a contradiction? No. When it says that God can do all things, it is implied that lying and changing His nature are exceptions. Also, Paul said I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Obviously, this is a hyperbole. Certain things Paul cannot do, even though Christ strengthens him. For instance, Paul cannot be God!
I totally agree. Context determines meaning and a healthy systematic must be in place within which to make calls such as these. The meaning is found in the immediate context AND in authorial intent . . . good principles. WHole heartedly agree.
Problem is tho that this passage doesnt fall into those same parameters.
1. Context shows exactly what is the authorial intent
2. Authorial intent is unmistakable in his philosophical intentions and inverted reasoning (coming at the same issue from several different angles) so as to make his intent CLEAR
So, while your point is true . . . this is not one of those passages as the authors construction and pains in statement and statement again make it CLEAR what he is meaning.
So in summary, the most you do is infer from this verse. And you can only infer from this verse is that Christ is uncreated. It does not explicitly teach that Christ is uncreated, or that He is God.
No. It does explicitly teach this, as I have shown. And as the system of Judaism even before Christianity affirms that God alone is uncreated, this only allows Jesus to be God.
I want to compare the Biblical passages you have given so far to the Nicene Creed. The Nicene Creed says that Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father. That he is God from God, Light from Light, True God from True. One in being with the Father. There is no way that this passage can be interpreted other than Jesus is fully God. I know of no cult that accept the Nicene Creed and rejects the deity of Christ. This is an open-and-shut case.
Agreed.
Think tho . . . if one were to challenge one who believes this . . . what would that one do? Point to the scripture. They would say "this is why I believe this."
The issue is whether this Council is just as infallible as the Bible. I think it is. Did the Holy Spirit lead the Council to infallibly define truth, just as the Holy Spirit lead men to infallibly write the Bible? I think He has. And I believe I can prove it, but that is for another topic.
And I would take the opposite stance
it actually may come to us having to follow this trail . . .
I know it is wrong, because Gods Church tells me so.
Dont get me wrong bro . . . I have a HIGH view of the Church . . . I think that the church is one of the indispensible means of God's voice in the earth . . . but I dont think that the voice of God will contradict what He has already stated in the scripture . . . and I think that if you heard from some priest in your diocese somewhere that Jesus wasnt God, you would recognize him as heretical, you would point to the council and the council would point you to the Scripture . . . the council derrives its authority (cause it does have authority in as much as it reflects the scripture) FROM THE SCRIPTURE . . . but the council is not necessary for the affirmation of the truths of Scripture.
I recall a time when I was still a Protestant and I was visited by a JW. We went back and forth on scripture, and I could not make a dent on his position. Finally, we were done, and I was frustrated. But just before he left, I gave him one more argument. And this argument took his smile right off his face. I said Your religion has been in existence for about 150 years. Correct. So what are the odds that your religion is correct and the rest of Christianity has been wrong for these last 2,000 years? What are the odds that all Christians got it wrong about Jesus these last 2 centuries, and only recently did your religion come into being and got it right?
I did not realize at that time, but I was arguing from tradition. And that was the only thing that shook this JW.
And that is awesome . . . but does this mean that tradition is required to know the truth of the scripture or that the Bible DOESNT teach cleary the deity of Christ? No. Remember tradition derrives its authority in that it reflects the scripture.
What this DOES mean is that you have and ADDITIONAL weapon in your arsenal . . .
But I can dismantle a JW just as easy when I break out my Greek NT and ask him to read it because he wants to make so many arguements about what texts mean from the Greek!
Further, the TRUTH is that the JW's position has been around for almost as long as ours! . . . it was the ARIANS that were prominent prior to the Council of Nicea in 325 AD . . . so they predate Nicea . . . making the JW's position about 1700 + years old . . . almost as old as our's.
And a JW who knows his history would point to the polemics of the 3rd century as proof that JW theology was close to the inception of the church (I kno this because I have had this said to me).