Who Is The Creator?

[redleghunter]

I would say the Father created everything through His Son, but the Son was not "the Word" (logos) before he was made flesh. The concept of creating "through" the Son is something I will address later on. I would like others to comment on the verses provided first.

Would you like to comment on this now?

 

[gadar perets]

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?​

I was not addressing Mounce's personal beliefs, but only the grammar. In spite of the Grammar, he still reads the Son into John 1:1. Consider his words I put in red above:

"John's wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find." Amein! But when the author's own theological sentiments are removed the true clarity and meaning of the verse comes out.

Did you notice the subtle way that the author inserted his own theology? This is no different than how many different scholars and theologians subtly introduce their own doctrines in their works, which has led to the deception of many. Pay close attention to the following sentences.

"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."

He introduces his own theology, and that of the majority of traditional Christianity, by placing "Jesus Christ" and "the Father" in parentheses after the words he is describing. He then proceeds to use his theological sentiments from that point forward, completely skewing the true interpretation. Let's look at the statement again without the author's theology being inserted (including the unfounded capitalization mentioned in a previous section).

"Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the word with the person of 'God'. That is to say, the word order tells us that the word has all the divine attributes that the Father has, lack of the article tells us that the word is not the Father."

Removing the author's theology from the statement completely changes the meaning and brings out the true meaning of the verse without bias. John 1:1c is not making some complex theological statement about how Yeshua is part of some mystical Trinity or Binity. On the contrary, John is making it extremely clear that the "word" is not to be identified with "God" in any way in this verse. John is emphasizing the qualities of the "word" as they relate to the qualities of Elohim [God].

Doesn't it just make sense? If יהוה our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If יהוה is powerful, so is His word. If יהוה is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of יהוה are the same as the attributes of יהוה Himself. The personification of the "word" in this verse is simply an assumption and incorrect eisegetical insertion into the text. There is no need to make such an assumption or insertion when the correct understanding of the Greek text is understood. Reference​

 

[gadar perets]

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!

"Yahweh" and "Yahweh of hosts" refer to the same being/person who is not only the "king of Israel", but Israel's redeemer. He redeemed Israel from Egypt. Later, He would send Yeshua to redeem the world from sin.

There is no god besides YHWH, as the verse says, implying He is the only true God as Yeshua said in John 17:3.

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

Yes, I accept the entire NT as canon. I reject the modern church's interpretation of a good portion of it.

 

[gadar perets]

Would you like to comment on this now?

I will try to address it tonight.

 

[St_Worm2]

I was not addressing Mounce's personal beliefs, but only the grammar. In spite of the Grammar, he still reads the Son into John 1:1. Consider his words I put in red above:

"John's wording here is beautifully compact! It is, in fact, one of the most elegantly terse theological statements one could ever find." Amein! But when the author's own theological sentiments are removed the true clarity and meaning of the verse comes out.

Did you notice the subtle way that the author inserted his own theology? This is no different than how many different scholars and theologians subtly introduce their own doctrines in their works, which has led to the deception of many. Pay close attention to the following sentences.

"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."

He introduces his own theology, and that of the majority of traditional Christianity, by placing "Jesus Christ" and "the Father" in parentheses after the words he is describing. He then proceeds to use his theological sentiments from that point forward, completely skewing the true interpretation. Let's look at the statement again without the author's theology being inserted (including the unfounded capitalization mentioned in a previous section).

"Its lack of a definite article keeps us from identifying the person of the word with the person of 'God'. That is to say, the word order tells us that the word has all the divine attributes that the Father has, lack of the article tells us that the word is not the Father."

Removing the author's theology from the statement completely changes the meaning and brings out the true meaning of the verse without bias. John 1:1c is not making some complex theological statement about how Yeshua is part of some mystical Trinity or Binity. On the contrary, John is making it extremely clear that the "word" is not to be identified with "God" in any way in this verse. John is emphasizing the qualities of the "word" as they relate to the qualities of Elohim [God].

Doesn't it just make sense? If יהוה our Elohim is holy, so is His word. If יהוה is powerful, so is His word. If יהוה is creative, so is His word. The attributes of the word of יהוה are the same as the attributes of יהוה Himself. The personification of the "word" in this verse is simply an assumption and incorrect eisegetical insertion into the text. There is no need to make such an assumption or insertion when the correct understanding of the Greek text is understood. Reference​

Hi GP, I appreciate your reply, but before I answer, I'd like to hear what you have to say to @redleghunter concerning this:

I would say the Father created everything through His Son, but the Son was not "the Word" (logos) before he was made flesh. The concept of creating "through" the Son is something I will address later on.

Thanks!

--David

 

[ViaCrucis]

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

...

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son He is worshiped and glorified." - from the Nicene Creed.

Who is the Creator? The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God, Holy Trinity.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters .... and God said, 'Let there be...'"

"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, this one was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him and nothing that was made was made without Him."

"By Him [Christ] and for Him were all things made."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gadar perets]

Here are a few Biblical facts;

1) Yeshua’s Father is the “only true God” (John 17:3)
2) Yeshua’s Father is YHWH (Psalm 2:7)
3) YHWH created everything alone, all by Himself (Isaiah 44:24)
4) Yeshua, the Lamb, takes a book out of the hand of the Creator (Revelation 4:10-11; 5:7)​

Based on those facts we MUST conclude that Yeshua is not our Creator. What, then, do we do with verses that suggest Yeshua created everything? Here are a few from the KJV with my commentary [brackets mine];

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:​

Here is Adam Clarke's commentary on the phrase "by Jesus Christ": "But the words δια Ιησου Χριστου, by Jesus Christ, are wanting in ABCD*FG, and several others; also in the Syriac, Arabic of Erpen, Coptic, Ethiopic, Vulgate, and Itala; as also in several of the fathers. Griesbach has thrown the words out of the text; and Professor White says, “certissime delenda,” they are indisputably spurious. The text, therefore, should be read: which from the beginning of the world had been hidden in God who created all things."

Colossians 1:16,17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:​

The first word “by” is from the Greek “en” meaning “in”. The second word “by” is from the Greek “di” meaning “through”.

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

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he [YHWH] hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he [YHWH] made the worlds;​

The words “by” in both of these verses are “di” meaning “through”. If we translate “di” as “by” then we make Yeshua the Creator in opposition to about one hundred verses that say Father YHWH is the Creator. YHWH had no help in creation. He simply spoke and it was done.

Psalm 33:6,9 By the word of YHWH were the heavens made; and all the host by the breath of His mouth. . . For He spoke and it was; He commanded, and it stood fast."​

Since Hebrews 1:2 says Yeshua is “heir” of all things, that means his Father YHWH is the owner of all things. YHWH created all things and therefore owns all things and can make His Son His heir. Yeshua, on the hand, is not the owner of creation. He can receive it, but he cannot give it.

The simple erroneous translation of “di” as “by” has caused millions of people to be deceived.

Read the above verses with the proper translation and you come away with a clear, harmonious picture of Yeshua’s Father creating all things “through” His Son. What does that mean, “through”, or how was that accomplished?

Yeshua is said to be the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. In other words, in YHWH’s mind/plan of salvation, He knew His Son had to die for the sins of the world. When YHWH created all things, He did it because the Lamb slain needed a venue or a stage, so to speak, for that to be fulfilled. Therefore, the impetus for creation was the Son. Without the Son in YHWH's mind there would be no creation. It was done "through" the Son. YHWH created a planet for the creatures Yeshua would die for to live. He created everything they needed to live and He created His Son to die for them.

At the same time, YHWH created everything "for" His Son. It was part of His plan to give all things to His heir including power and authority so that Yeshua would rule the entire Kingdom until he gave it back to his Father after the last enemy, death, is destroyed.

 

[St_Worm2]

Here are a few Biblical facts;

1) Yeshua’s Father is the “only true God” (John 17:3)
2) Yeshua’s Father is YHWH (Psalm 2:7)
3) YHWH created everything alone, all by Himself (Isaiah 44:24)
4) Yeshua, the Lamb, takes a book out of the hand of the Creator (Revelation 4:10-11; 5:7)​

Based on those facts we MUST conclude that Yeshua is not our Creator.

Hi again GP, actually, based on these facts, and many more that tell us Jesus is Divine, the church created the doctrine of the Trinity to both define and safeguard exactly what is meant by this great mystery.

On the same subject (but on a slightly different note), who do you believe the "Savior" is, Jesus or His Father?

Thanks!

--David

 

[gadar perets]

Hi again GP, actually, based on these facts, and many more that tell us Jesus is Divine, the church created the doctrine of the Trinity to both define and safeguard exactly what is meant by this great mystery.

On the same subject (but on a slightly different note), who do you believe the "Savior" is, Jesus or His Father?

Thanks!

--David

His Father YHWH is the ultimate Savior. The way He chose to save the world is through the death of His Son which makes Yeshua our Savior as well. YHWH chose to save Israel through several men in the past which makes them saviors as well.

The word “Savior” in both is from the Hebrew “yasha” (Strong’s #3467) and means “to be open, wide or free, that is, (by implication) to be safe; causatively to free or succor:”

Here is how “yasha” was used in Judges 6:14-15:

“And YHWH looked upon him [Gideon], and said, Go in this your might, and you shall save [yasha] Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent you? And he said unto Him, Oh my Adonai, how shall I save Israel? behold, my family is poor in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.”​

These words were spoken to Gideon long before YHWH used Isaiah and Hosea to prophesy about there being no Savior besides Him.

“And YHWH gave Israel a savior [yasha], so that they went out from under the hand of the Syrians: and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents, as beforetime.” 2 Kings 13:5​

We learn that the savior YHWH gave them was Joash (vs.25).

Isaiah prophesied that YHWH would send a future savior to Egypt to deliver them from their oppressors.

“And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto YHWH of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto YHWH because of the oppressors, and He shall send them a savior [yasha], and a great one, and he shall deliver them. “ Isaiah 19:20​

Nehemiah 9:27 speaks of saviors that YHWH sent to save Israel.

“Therefore you delivered them into the hand of their enemies, who vexed them: and in the time of their trouble, when they cried unto you, you heard them from heaven; and according to your manifold mercies you gave them saviors, who saved them out of the hand of their enemies.”​

Obadiah also prophesied about future saviors that will be sent to Israel.

“And saviors shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be YHWH’s.” Obadiah 1:21​

YHWH can choose any method He wants to save people. He can choose to save by Himself or He can choose to save by raising up men to act as saviors. The men He raises up do not replace Him as the ultimate Savior from whom all salvation flows. They are vessels through whom YHWH saves just as Yeshua is.

 

[gadar perets]

Hi again GP, actually, based on these facts, and many more that tell us Jesus is Divine, the church created the doctrine of the Trinity to both define and safeguard exactly what is meant by this great mystery.

How can the church "define" something that is a "great mystery"? In actuality, the church created a great mystery when they created the man made doctrine of the trinity and their new teaching has led to the erroneous translations of trinitarian translators who imposed their preconceived ideas into scripture.