Who Is The Creator?

[gadar perets]

John 1
1 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.

14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.​

--David

You are reading the Son into verses 1-3. They refer to YHWH's spoken words and thoughts which eventually became the Son in verse 14. Do not be misled by the word "Him" in verse 3. That is a trinitarian translators bias put into the text. Several major Bible translations prior to the KJV (Tyndale's Bible, Geneva Bible, Thomas Matthew Bible, The Great Bible, The Bishop's Bible, etc., render verse 3 as follows;

All things came into being through it, and apart from it nothing came into being that has come into being.
​

Why? Because the logos is a thing, not a person. That thing was made flesh when YHWH spoke His Son into existence in verse 14.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thanks for your respect, but I don't think you would be arguing with me by explaining how you harmonize Isaiah 44:24 with your belief that the Son had a hand in creation.

The trinity is a very difficult concept to understand fully and there would be arguments on both sides with scriptural justification. I just accept that there are some who believe that there is just one God, and there are others who believe that God is made up of three persons. I really don't think that believing either is a hindrance to a full salvation in Christ and a successful and effective Christian life and ministry. Usually, debates about it suck people into a non-winnable vortex, ending up sometimes with folks "kicking each other instead of the ball", and finally finishing in an impasse.

I leave those things to my spiritual adviser who is sitting on my lap most evenings!

 

[erealmz]

First, I would say that the true Creator of the Heavens and the Earth did not need any tools. He simply spoke everything into existence from nothing.

Second, while your scenario is feasible in your game, it is not in real life. The true Creator interacts with His creation through His creatures, primarily His prophets. The ultimate prophet was His Son Yeshua who came to save a broken world. The Creator put His Spirit into His Son and not only taught this fallen world how it could be fixed, but actually began to fix it. It is only a matter of time before it is functioning as the Creator originally intended it to function.

I appreciate the reply. Though I was not intending for the video game scenario to explain creation, I was using it as an example of how I related my understanding of the matter.

I agree that an all powerful God would not need tools to create the universe. Nonetheless here is it, in all it's systematic, automatic, clock-work glory. Not only did he need no tools to create it, he had no need to interact with it at all. It works.

Yet you mention that he had to zap himself into his son to fix the world. So my video game rhetoric about creating an Avatar to interact with the virtual world is perfectly valid.

When programmers create a software, they also create and/or utilize tools to debug and "fix" it. It is always broken in the beginning. They have to teach it to fix itself and begin to fix it until it is functioning as the creator originally intended. No argument there.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Tbh talking about the creator from this perspective in the op is more interesting gonna jump on this later

 

[Dartman]

Scripture also says that Jesus is Wisdom

No, it doesn't.

and that he is also the Word (Logos and Rhema) of God.

No, Jesus is the fulfillment of his God's words/logos.

That makes him equal with God.

Not remotely. Jesus stated "My Father is greater than I".

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Not remotely. Jesus stated "My Father is greater than I".

In the account where the paralytic man was lowered through the roof, Jesus forgave the man's sins. The Jews got angry with Him because they believed that only God can forgive sins. Jesus did not contradict them. Does this mean that if God is the only one who forgives sin and Jesus forgave the man, He is God, or He is mistakenly presenting Himself as God? Wasn't this one of the significant reasons why the Jews wanted to have Jesus killed - that He made Himself equal with God?

 

[Dartman]

In the account where the paralytic man was lowered through the roof, Jesus forgave the man's sins. The Jews got angry with Him because they believed that only God can forgive sins. Jesus did not contradict them. Does this mean that if God is the only one who forgives sin and Jesus forgave the man, He is God, or He is mistakenly presenting Himself as God? Wasn't this one of the significant reasons why the Jews wanted to have Jesus killed - that He made Himself equal with God?

I disagree with your claim that Jesus did not contradict them. Jesus said his God had GIVEN him the power over life, and had committed judgment to Jesus as "the son of man";

John 5:22-27 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

So, yes, Jesus DID contradict them.
And, Jesus' comments agree flawlessly with Paul's statement;
Acts 17:31 Because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised him from the dead.

The Jews, AND the trinity, were/are wrong

 

[St_Worm2]

We are not taught that in Scripture.


I disagree. A superficial reading leads one to believe that the "his" and "him" of verse 41 refers to Yeshua and ties in with verse 37. For the sake of clarity these verses will be quoted with [brackets] designating the speaker.

John 12:37,38, "But though he [Yeshua] had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him [Yeshua]: That the saying of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he [Isaiah] spoke, Lord, 'who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the YHWH been revealed?' (The underlined is a quote from Isaiah 53:1. The "arm of Yahweh" is Isaiah's reference to the Messiah).
​

The passage continues with verses 39-41;

"Therefore they could not believe, because that Isaiah said again, 'He [YHWH] hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I [YHWH] should heal them.' These things said Isaiah, when he [Isaiah] saw his [YHWH's] glory, and spake of him [YHWH]."
​

Verse 40 (underlined) is a quote from Isaiah 6:10. John is quoting a second passage from Isaiah to show why they could not believe on Yeshua; because YHWH blinded them. Verse 41 therefore, is referring to Isaiah 6:10, not Isaiah 53:1. In Isaiah 6:1-3 YHWH is seen in all His glory. That is the glory referred to in verse 41. It was not Yeshua's glory.


YHWH is not the name of the Son.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: YHWH hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.​

The Father is YHWH. The Son is Yeshua.


There is not one verse in Scripture that calls the Son "YHWH". Therefore, phrases like "YHWH the Son" are unscriptural.

Hi again GP, I'm obviously Trinitarian, but I used to believe exactly what you do now, that YHWH is the name of Father, alone. However, since I hold to the church's understanding/doctrine of the Trinity, as well the dual nature of the Son, I am also able to believe in this expanded understanding of who the Son really is (which I obviously believe is a Biblical understanding, of course). I also understand that as long as you deny both the Trinity and the dual nature of the Messiah, you can never even begin to believe what I do (and remain faithful to your presupposition).

So I am happy to agree to disagree It took me a long time to come to first, the understanding of the Godhead that I hold today (cf the church's doctrine of the Trinity), and then second, the more complete understanding that I have concerning God the Son, especially where His pre-incarnate existence is concerned.

Yours and His,
David
p.s. - I believe (also in accordance with what the Bible teaches) that since the time of the Creation, it was Jesus who held (and continues to hold) the universe together, and that even while He lived among us as a man (as all the fullness of Deity dwelled in Him, even then .. e.g. Colossians 2:9).

Colossians 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him.
.​

 

[gadar perets]

In the account where the paralytic man was lowered through the roof, Jesus forgave the man's sins. The Jews got angry with Him because they believed that only God can forgive sins. Jesus did not contradict them. Does this mean that if God is the only one who forgives sin and Jesus forgave the man, He is God, or He is mistakenly presenting Himself as God? Wasn't this one of the significant reasons why the Jews wanted to have Jesus killed - that He made Himself equal with God?

The Jews were wrong about who can forgive sins. Anyone can forgive sins if the Almighty gives him the authority to. The Father gave the Son all authority (Matthew 28:18; John 5:27; John 17:2). Yeshua never "presented himself as God". He was, however, misunderstood to be making himself equal with God. He is the victim of man's ignorance.

 

[Winken]

First, I would say that the true Creator of the Heavens and the Earth did not need any tools. He simply spoke everything into existence from nothing.

Second, while your scenario is feasible in your game, it is not in real life. The true Creator interacts with His creation through His creatures, primarily His prophets. The ultimate prophet was His Son Yeshua who came to save a broken world. The Creator put His Spirit into His Son and not only taught this fallen world how it could be fixed, but actually began to fix it. It is only a matter of time before it is functioning as the Creator originally intended it to function.

New Heaven, New Earth!

 

[gadar perets]

Hi again GP, I'm obviously Trinitarian, but I used to believe exactly what you do now, that YHWH is the name of Father, alone. However, since I hold to the church's understanding/doctrine of the Trinity, as well the dual nature of the Son, I am also able to believe in this expanded understanding of who the Son really is (which I obviously believe is a Biblical understanding, of course).

That's the problem. The "church" took it upon themselves to "expand" the understanding of who the Son is. The Bible makes it clear who he is, but the "church" muddied the waters with the man made trinity doctrine and added to Scripture what is not there.

Colossians 1

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him.
17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him.
.

This is one of the false translations that cause people to erroneously think the Son is the Creator. The Greek does not say "by him", but "in him". Isaiah 44:24 tells us YHWH created alone. His Son did NOT have a hand in creation. Your faulty translation says he did have a hand in creation. If the Son created everything, then the Father created nothing. Yet, we are told in Revelation that Father YHWH is the Creator.

The book of The Revelation comes to us from Yeshua. Revelation 4:10,11 reads;

"The four and twenty elders fall down before Him that sat on the throne [YHWH], and worship Him that lives for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord [YHWH], to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."
​

Then, Revelation 5:6-7 says;

"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God [YHWH] sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne."
​

Notice that the Lamb, Yeshua, takes the book from YHWH who sits on the throne. We just saw, in Revelation 4:10-11, that the one who sits on the throne is the Creator. Therefore, the one who takes the book from the Creator is NOT the Creator.

 

[St_Worm2]

You are reading the Son into verses 1-3. They refer to YHWH's spoken words and thoughts which eventually became the Son in verse 14.

Hi GP, I'm sorry, but I don't believe there is any ground for believing what you do about John 1, except for the necessity that your particular presupposition creates, that is

John 1:1-2 says

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God."​

I don't believe that the words God speaks are any more "Him", than the words that we speak are "us". I also don't believe that there is any justification for the choice you've made to personify His words in the manner you have in John 1:1-2, except for the demands of the presupposition that you've brought to the table (that the Trinity doesn't exist/that God the Son is actually a created being).

Yours and His,
David

 

[gadar perets]

John 1:1-2 says

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God."​

I don't believe that the words God speaks are any more "Him", than the words that we speak are "us". I also don't believe that there is any justification for the choice you've made to personify His words in the manner you have in John 1:1-2, except for the demands of the presupposition that you've brought to the table (that the Trinity doesn't exist/that God the Son is actually a created being).

Yours and His,
David

The key to understanding this lies in the word order of John 1:1c. Here is an excerpt from one of the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.)

"As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.' But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,​

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.​

We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.' Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation (Revised English Bible) brings out this force.​

In other words, If YHWH our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If YHWH is powerful, so is His word. If YHWH is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of YHWH are the same as the attributes of YHWH Himself.

 

[gadar perets]

BTW, has anyone noticed that not one person has addressed the verses in the OP? When I read those verses, I see there is only one Creator and that the Son did not have a hand in Creation. Some of you have tried to show, albeit with poorly translated verses, that the Son did have a hand in creation. However, you are failing to harmonize the verses you provided with the two I gave in the OP (Proverbs 30:4 and Isaiah 44:24. When I first came across Isaiah 44:24, it hit me like a ton of bricks and I immediately knew all other verses on the subject had to harmonize with this didactic verse. If they did not, then there was a problem with the verses that did not harmonize and no problem with Isaiah 44:24 itself. As it turns out, trinitarian translators put their personal bias/ignorance into various texts even to the point of adding their own words into the text such as in Ephesians 3:9;

"And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God [Father YHWH], who created all things by Jesus Christ:" KJV.
​

The oldest Greek manuscripts do not have the words "by Jesus Christ" which would lead one to believe that he was involved in creation. The Pulpit Commentary, for example, says, "The words, by Jesus Christ (A.V.), are not found in a great preponderance of textual authorities."

 

[Cearbhall]

This verse leaves no room for co-creators or a Creator other than YHWH.

I know you have your verses that seem to say the Son created and you are welcome to post them later. First, I ask that you address only these two verses and how the Son fits in as the Creator.

I personally don't consider those Bible verses to contain any information about the origins of the universe, nor do I have any verses to share that support my own views.

 

[Dave G.]

BTW, has anyone noticed that not one person has addressed the verses in the OP? When I read those verses, I see there is only one Creator and that the Son did not have a hand in Creation. Some of you have tried to show, albeit with poorly translated verses, that the Son did have a hand in creation.

All bibles are translations anyway and then you have to look at who wrote the particular scripture and his bend on what he had to pen. It's believed that Agur wrote Proverbs 30 and it's likely he would have penned differently than Solomon. The bible is our guide but we have human influence to some degree all through it's history. In some cases later versions are actually more accurate than early versions and as you say, in other cases, it is possible that someone could include some bias another way. I always get a kick out of the King James flag wavers for instance,let's just say it isn't perfect. But that is true of any translation outside the original and then someone had to pen that even . Our pastor is great for referencing the Greek or Hebrew for this reason but that brings no guarantees either. It's God inspired Word, it's not as thought the Holy Spirit picked up a pen and wrote it all out. So I'm not sure exactly where you are trying to go with all this ?

 

[gadar perets]

I personally don't consider those Bible verses to contain any information about the origins of the universe, nor do I have any verses to share that support my own views.

I didn't post them to teach about the origins of the universe, but to teach who the Creator is and isn't.

 

[gadar perets]

So I'm not sure exactly where you are trying to go with all this ?

I am simply showing that Yeshua is not our Creator. His Father, Almighty YHWH is the Creator and He created all by Himself by speaking everything into existence. He needed no help and had no help.

 

[St_Worm2]

The key to understanding this lies in the word order of John 1:1c. Here is an excerpt from one of the most, if not the most widely used Biblical Greek Grammars (Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.)

"As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, 'and the Word was God.' But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,​

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.​

We know that "the Word" is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: 'and the Word was God.' Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεὸς thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article? In brief, its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: 'What God was, the Word was' is how one translation (Revised English Bible) brings out this force.​

In other words, If YHWH our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If YHWH is powerful, so is His word. If YHWH is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of YHWH are the same as the attributes of YHWH Himself.

Hi GP, Mounce is about as orthodox as you can get concerning the Trinity of YHWH. Here is the entirety of what he wrote on the page of his Grammar that your excerpt was taken from (the portion of it that you posited for us earlier is in blue below).

//////////

Chapter 6
Nominative and Accusative;
Definite Article
(First and Second Declension Nouns)
Exegetical Insight ​

The nominative case is the case that the subject is in. When the subject takes an equative verb like “is” (i.e., a verb that equates the subject with something else), then another noun also appears in the nominative case— the predicate nominative. In the sentence, “John is a man,” “John” is the subject and “man” is the predicate nominative. In English the subject and predicate nominative are distinguished by word order (the subject comes first). Not so in Greek. Since word order in Greek is quite flexible and is used for emphasis rather than for strict grammatical function, other means are used to distinguish subject from predicate nominative. For example, if one of the two nouns has the definite article, it is the subject.

As we have said, word order is employed especially for the sake of emphasis. Generally speaking, when a word is thrown to the front of the clause it is done so for emphasis. When a predicate nominative is thrown in front of the verb, by virtue of word order it takes on emphasis. A good illustration of this is John 1:1c. The English versions typically have, “and the Word was God.” But in Greek, the word order has been reversed. It reads,

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
and God was the Word.
​

We know that “the Word” is the subject because it has the definite article, and we translate it accordingly: “and the Word was God.” Two questions, both of theological import, should come to mind: (1) why was θεός thrown forward? and (2) why does it lack the article?

In brief, 1 its emphatic position stresses its essence or quality: “What God was, the Word was” is how one translation brings out this force. Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the Word (Jesus Christ) with the person of “God” (the Father). That is to say, the word order tells us that Jesus Christ has all the divine attributes that the Father has; lack of the article tells us that Jesus Christ is not the Father. John’s wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find.

As Martin Luther said, the lack of an article is against Sabellianism; the word order is against Arianism.

To state this another way, look at how the different Greek constructions would be rendered:

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός
“and the Word was the God”
(i.e., the Father; Sabellianism)

καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν θεός
“and the Word was a god”
(Arianism)

καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was God”
(Orthodoxy).
​

Jesus Christ is God and has all the attributes that the Father has. But he is not the first person of the Trinity. All this is concisely affirmed in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. ~Mounce, William D, Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 3rd edition, Chpt 6, pg 1, Zondervan​

//////////

NOTHING Mounce said above lends support to your non-Trinitarian POV, neither does your summation logically follow the point(s) he makes in his Grammar.

For anyone who is interested, here's an excerpt from Professor Mounce's personal Statement of Faith:

Article Two: The Trinity
There is one God, infinitely perfect, without change, creator of all yet not created, distinct from His creation yet everywhere present, perfectly balanced in all His attribute, omniscient over all time, wholly sovereign. He alone is the sole object of worship.

God exists eternally in three persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-equal in essence and divine perfection, all three uncreated, executing distinct but harmonious offices.

Article Three: God the Father
God the Father is an infinite, personal spirit, perfect in holiness, wisdom, power and love. He concerns himself mercifully in the affairs of his creation, hearing and answering prayers, saving from sin all who come to him through Jesus Christ. All life is to be lived ultimately for his glory.

Article Four: God the Son
God the Son is fully God and fully human, without confusion or mixture, the unique and only Son. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, died on the cross as the sacrifice for our sins, was physically raised from the dead as prophesied, ascended into heaven, and now sits at the right hand of God the Father, interceding for the saints as the sole mediator. He will return to earth and ultimately every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Article Five: God the Holy Spirit
God the Spirit is sent to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. He fully indwells every true believer as a guarantee of his inheritance, guides and empowers them, interceding in accordance with the will of God. ~Beliefs | billmounce.com
​

Yours and His,
David

Matthew 22
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question:
42 What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He? They said to Him, The son of David.
43 He said to them, Then how does David, speaking in the Spirit, call Him Lord, saying,
44 THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET?
45 If David calls Him 'Lord', how can He be his son?​

 

[redleghunter]

To back this up, I appeal to Isaiah 44:24;

"Thus saith YHWH, thy redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am YHWH that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" (Isaiah 44:24)

Love that verse.

The chapter or passage must take into account all the attributes addressed.

Starting with Isaiah 44:6 we have the following:

6 Thus says Yahweh, the king of Israel,
and its redeemer, Yahweh of hosts:
“I am the first, and I am the last,
and there is no god besides me.
7 And who is like me? Let him proclaim it!

Also it would help if you could reveal if you accept the New Testament as canon or portions of it. If so we can do an attribute crosswalk and clarify a few passages.