Nincs:The assertion that "there is no such thing" (?!) as a non-temporal emergence is nothing more than proof by assertion, and a misunderstanding of metaphysical concepts. In Christian theology, specifically Nicene Christology, the Son's begetting by the Father is understood as an eternal generation, not a temporal event. This means it is a logical, not temporal, subalternation and relationship, affirming the co-eternity of the Son with the Father. "Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle." (Council of Florence) Orthodox Christology affirms the eternal, non-temporal begetting of the Son.
Me:if the Son has always existed then logically he never emerged whether his continued existence is dependent on another is a separate issue although such depedendence would render him inferior to the one God of scripture who is totally self sustaining and is in no ones debt.
Roman's ch.11:34,35,NKJV"“For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35“Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”"
It is a rhetorical question JEHOVAH is in no ones debt especially for his continued existence.
Nincs:Origen explains this as an eternal act within the Godhead:
"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood."
"Now this expression which we employ — that there never was a time when He did not exist — is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words when or never have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages. "
Any Creed that can be accepted without logic can certainly be rejected on account of logic indeed the ones rejecting for logic sake have a better cause for rejecting,than those who accept despite a plain conflict with logic.
Nincs:This affirms that the Logos (Word) existed eternally with the Father, beyond the confines of time.1 John 1:1 uses "apo archē" (from the beginning) to indicate the Logos’ existence before creation, aligning with John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word." This indicates a pre-temporal existence, not a temporal beginning. The claim that "apo archē" refers to a temporal beginning is refuted by the context of John 1:1-3, which clearly states that the Logos was with God and was God, emphasizing the eternal nature of the Word.
Me:Apo arkhe ALWAYS Means from the beginning never from eternity which would definitionally mean without beginning.
The fact that he is apo arkhe excludes his being from eternity, notice that JEHOVAH is NEVER spoken of as being "apo arkhe" because it would be absurd.
Nincs:The phrase "archē tēs ktiseōs" in Revelation 3:14 is often mistranslated in the NWT as "the beginning of the creation BY God." The correct translation, "the 'archē' of the creation OF God," indicates Christ as the source or origin of creation, not the first created being. The NWT's use of "by" instead of "of" is misleading. The Greek text does not support "hupo" (by), but rather "archē" denotes the origin or source, aligning with John 1:3 where all things were made through Him. It is also no coincidence that no one referred to Rev. 3:14 in the 4th century Arian debates, why? Because a native Greek speaker would never think of such nonsense, since all educated Greeks knew that the archē is the first principle from which creation flows, not the first piece of created things. Read this: https://justpaste.it/bv4ep
Me: I never quoted from the NWT why is it that you people are ALWAYS the First to bring up the NWT, the creation OF JEHOVAH Would logically have JEHOVAH as its source
Thus the context indicates the Jesus is starting point of JEHOVAH's Creation JEHOVAH himself being the source of that creation including Jesus which would match
Proverbs ch.8:24,25 which shows his expressed wisdom being brought forth/begotten all the information and energy in the creation being from JEHOVAH This is a fitting analogy
Your claim that a prophet cannot be equal to God and can be replaced overlooks the unique nature of Christ. Jesus is not just a prophet but the incarnate Word of God (John 1:14), fully divine and human.
Christ is actually superhuman having permanently sacrificed his human perfection for our sakes he has now been rewarded with superhuman perfection by his God and Father and still he acknowledges his God and Father as His superior
Revelation ch.3:12NKJV"He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of MY GOD, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of MY GOD and the name of the city of MY GOD, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from MY GOD. And I will write on him My new name."
Nincs:Hebrews 1:3 states, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being," affirming the full deity of Christ. Unlike prophets, Jesus shares the same nature as the Father, making Him indispensable and uniquely qualified as the Redeemer.
Me: more trinitarian cope a representation us never equal to the thing it represents,that is why if someone destroys your photograph they will not be charged with murder the photo is but a representation of you, it is not the reality of you, the reality is always of superior worth, note too that he is a representation of THE God (JEHOVAH) see Hebrews ch.1:1 not merely the Father,though that would be O.K because only the father is the unqualified "ho theos" in the N.T
Eternal generation is not about the Son "emerging" in a temporal sense but about the eternal relationship within the Godhead. The Father eternally begets the Son, meaning that the Son's existence and nature are derived from the Father in a manner beyond time and space. This is not subordination in essence but a distinction in relation. The claim that dependence renders the Son inferior to the Father also misrepresents Christian theology. The Nicene Creed affirms that the Son is HOMOOUSIOS (of the same essence) with the Father. The Son's dependence on the Father as His source does not imply inequality but reflects their relationship. For instance, John 5:26 states, “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” This demonstrates equality in nature but distinction in relation. Romans 11:34-35, cited to claim that YHWH is "in no one's debt," is irrelevant to the concept of eternal generation. The verse addresses God's sovereignty and independence from creation, not the intra-Trinitarian relationships within the Godhead.
ReplyDeleteWhile APO ARCHĒ generally refers to "from the beginning," its meaning must be understood in context. In passages like 1 John 1:1, APO ARCHĒ refers to the Word's existence prior to creation, which aligns with John 1:1, where the Logos is described as existing "in the beginning" (en archē), implying eternal existence. To argue that APO ARCHĒ excludes eternity is to ignore the context of John’s writings, where the emphasis is on Christ’s pre-existence before all creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). The fact that the Father is not described as APO ARCHĒ is irrelevant since God is described as eternal using other terms, such as "Alpha and Omega" (Revelation 1:8, 22:13), which are also ascribed to Christ.
The phrase ARCHĒ TĒS KTISEŌS in Revelation 3:14 does not mean that Jesus is the first created being but that He is the source or origin of creation. In Greek philosophy and the New Testament, ARCHĒ often denotes the "principle" or "source" of something. For example, John 1:3 declares that "all things were made through Him," indicating Christ's role as Creator, not a creature. Colossians 1:16-17 further supports this, stating that "all things were created in Him, through Him, and for Him," excluding the possibility of Christ being part of creation. If ARCHĒ TĒS KTISEŌS meant that Jesus was the first creation, it would contradict these passages, which affirm Christ’s active role in creating all things. The appeal to Proverbs 8:24-25 to support the idea that Christ is "brought forth" misunderstands the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs. Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is a literary device, not a direct reference to Christ, as even many early Church Fathers acknowledged. Moreover, the New Testament explicitly presents Christ as eternal and uncreated.
The claim that Christ’s acknowledgment of "My God" (Revelation 3:12) indicates inferiority misunderstands the Incarnation. As the God-Man, Christ speaks from His human nature, acknowledging the Father as His God. This is consistent with Trinitarian theology, which affirms that Christ, in His human nature, is subordinate to the Father while remaining equal in His divine nature. Similarly, the argument that Jesus being "a representation" (Hebrews 1:3) implies inferiority ignores the text’s clear affirmation of Christ's full deity. Hebrews 1:3 describes the Son as the "radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being." This language emphasizes that Christ perfectly manifests the divine essence. A representation that fully embodies the essence of what it represents is not inferior but identical in nature. The analogy of a photograph fails because a photograph does not share the essence of the person it represents. In contrast, Christ is described as sharing the same divine essence with the Father (John 10:30, Philippians 2:6).
It is co dependence it is out of harmony with the scriptures depiction of JEHOVAH as utterly self-sustaining and independent
ReplyDeleteJob ch.41:11NLT"Who has given me anything that I need to pay back? Everything under heaven is mine."
The fact that the creation is dia him no more precludes his part of the creation than the fact that the resurrection is dia him precludes his being resurrected, non sequitir alert
ReplyDelete1Corinthians ch.15:21NIV"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. "
Note Adam is numbered among the dead even though death came through Him the second Adam is numbered among the resurrected even though the resurrection is dia him
The fact that the creation is dia him no more precludes his part of the creation than the fact that the resurrection is dia him precludes his being resurrected, non sequitir alert
ReplyDelete1Corinthians ch.15:21NIV"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. "
Note Adam is numbered among the dead even though death came through Him the second Adam is numbered among the resurrected even though the resurrection is dia him