Your argument regarding the term arche in Revelation 3:14 overlooks its semantic range. While arche can mean "beginning" in the sense of the first in a sequence, it also carries the meaning of "source" or "ruler." In the context of Revelation, arche emphasizes Christ's role as the origin and sovereign of creation. This interpretation aligns with Revelation 1:8 and 22:13, where Christ is identified as the "Alpha and Omega," titles that affirm his eternal and uncreated nature. Your claim that arche here implies Christ's creation is inconsistent with the broader context of Revelation and the New Testament.
If you insists on just spamming I going to have to block you I already dealt with this Revelation ch.1:8 has nothing to do with creation and arche is rendered as begining not source here so your argument makes no sense either engage with my arguments in a honest way or get lost.
Litigious:The argument that Christ cannot be Jehovah because Jehovah "is not a man" (Numbers 23:19) misunderstands the doctrine of the Incarnation. Trinitarian theology does not claim that the divine nature changes into human nature. Instead, the Incarnation teaches that the eternal Son took on human nature while remaining fully divine (John 1:14; Philippians 2:6-8). The Son’s humanity does not negate his deity but fulfills the redemptive purpose of God. Malachi 3:6 affirms God's immutability, which is fully consistent with the Incarnation, as it pertains to the divine nature, not the addition of a human nature.
Myself:God and man are mutually exclusive terms and you claim his becoming a man made him dependent when he wasn't before becoming a man so obviously the Incarnation changed him. Your reference to church law does not counter the Bible that is what you need to understand only the Bible can counter the Bible. Find a scripture that says JEHOVAH was only the most high God until the first century and I will look at it,but but the fact that your church simply pulls an idea out of greco-roman speculation is reason to dismiss it out of hand in these parts, so respect your audience.
Your interpretation of John 10:29 and Matthew 24:36 does not refute Christ's deity. John 10:29 emphasizes the Father's greatness in the context of divine protection and unity, not a denial of the Son's equality. In fact, John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") asserts their unity in essence. Regarding Matthew 24:36, Christ's statement about the Son not knowing the day or hour reflects his voluntary limitation in knowledge during his earthly ministry, consistent with the doctrine of the hypostatic union. This does not imply inferiority but demonstrates the Son's humility in fulfilling his mission.
The unincarnated spirit would not fall under the self-limiting fallacy JEHOVAH does not change no creation can limit JEHOVAH so your argument is unscriptural expression "the Father only" would exclude the unincarnated spirit . He already mentioned men and angels if only the human Son were meant there would be no need to mention him separately he us mentioned after the superhuman angels to imply that even in his superhuman state he would not know. And if he does know anything then he is not JEHOVAH
LITIGIOUS:Finally, your argument that “Jehovah” does not have a God (Revelation 3:12) fails to consider the relational dynamic within the Trinity. As the incarnate Son, Jesus refers to the Father as "my God" to express his role within the economy of salvation. This relational language does not diminish his deity but reflects his mission as the mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5).
Myself JEHOVAH is the most high God therefore the Trinity is nonsense jesus is not JEHOVAH because he is not the most high God. Keep it simple.
Ps.Among instances where thayer's lexicon considers dia to denote instrumentality by an authority
Winer's Grammar, 379 (355))) ἐγένετο or ἐκτίσθη: John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6 (where he is expressly distinguished from the first cause: ἐξ αὐτοῦ (Winer's Grammar, 419 (391))); Colossians 1:16 (Winer's Grammar, the passage cited), cf. Hebrews 1:2 (Philo de cherub. § 35). The instrumental cause and the principal are distinguished in 1"
tropically Christ is called πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (partitive genitive (see below), as in τά πρωτότοκα τῶν προβάτων, Genesis 4:4; τῶν βοῶν, Deuteronomy 12:17; τῶν υἱῶν σου, Exodus 22:29), who came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things
Brown Driver Briggs on qanah at Proverbs ch.8:22
of God as originating, creating, קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ Genesis 14:19,22; Deuteronomy 32:6 (Israel), Psalm 139:13 (כִּלְֹיתָ֑י); Proverbs 8:22 ( חכמה q. v.).
In Rev. 3:14, the term arche can indeed mean "beginning," but its semantic range is broader. It often carries the connotation of "origin" or "source," particularly in contexts involving authority or primacy. In this passage, arche emphasizes Christ as the originator of creation, aligning perfectly with Col. 1:16-17, where Paul states that "all things were created through him and for him." This interpretation is consistent with Rev. 1:8 and 22:13, where Christ is identified as the "Alpha and Omega," titles that affirm his eternal nature and sovereign rule over all creation. To claim that arche here implies Christ was created is to ignore this broader biblical context and the consistency of the NT's portrayal of Jesus as uncreated and divine. Your assertion that arche cannot mean "source" in this passage lacks linguistic and contextual support.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Numbers 23:19 and the Incarnation, you assert that "God and man are mutually exclusive terms." However, this objection misunderstands the doctrine of the Incarnation, which does not suggest that God's divine nature became human or ceased to exist as divine. Instead, as John 1:14 teaches, the eternal Word "became flesh," taking on human nature without altering his divine essence. Phil. 2:6-8 explains this mystery further, showing that Christ "emptied himself" not by ceasing to be God but by humbly assuming the limitations of human existence. God's immutability (Malachi 3:6) pertains to his divine nature, which remains unchanged even as he took on human nature for the purpose of our redemption. Your claim that the Incarnation fundamentally changed God fails to account for this nuanced understanding of Christ's two natures—fully divine and fully human—in one person.
On Matthew 24:36 and Christ's knowledge, the doctrine of the hypostatic union explains that Christ, in his humanity, voluntarily limited certain aspects of divine knowledge and power. This self-limitation does not diminish his divinity but rather reflects his humility and obedience to the Father (Phil. 2:5-8). The phrase "the Father only" does not exclude the Holy Spirit but emphasizes the unique role of the Father as the ultimate source and determiner of times and seasons (Acts 1:7). A syncategorematical use of "only" (monos), just like for example in Jude 4, does not exclude other divine persons. The distinction between "men," "angels," and "the Son" in this verse serves to highlight the unique roles within God's redemptive plan, not to imply inferiority or created status. To insist that Christ must know all things at all times to be divine misunderstands the Incarnation and the way the Son fulfills his redemptive mission within the framework of human limitations.
Finally, your interpretation of Rev. 3:12 misrepresents the relational dynamics within the Trinity. When Jesus refers to the Father as "my God," he speaks from the perspective of his human nature and role as mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). This language does not negate his divinity but rather reflects his function within the economy of salvation. Throughout the NT, Jesus is consistently presented as sharing in the divine nature (e.g., John 1:1, John 10:30, Col. 2:9), while also functioning as the obedient Son who accomplishes the Father's will for our salvation. Jehovah, as revealed in Scripture, is not limited to the Father alone but encompasses the full Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each fully and equally divine.
Your final point, that "Jehovah is the most high God, therefore the Trinity is nonsense," is reductionism, oversimplifies and misrepresents Trinitarian theology. The Trinity affirms that there is one God (Deut. 6:4), who exists in three coequal and coeternal persons. The title "Most High God" applies equally to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as all three share the one divine essence. To dismiss this as illogical or unscriptural is to ignore the depth and coherence of biblical revelation and the consistent witness of the early Church in articulating this mystery.
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/01/dia-when-used-of-logos-according-to.html
ReplyDeleteThe reference to Winer's Grammar and the claim about John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Colossians 1:16 misunderstandingly suggests that these passages distinguish between God as the "principal cause" (source) and Christ as the "instrumental cause" (agent) in creation. However, this interpretation stems from a failure to grasp the full theological implications and the consistent biblical witness regarding Christ's divine identity.
ReplyDeleteFirst, John 1:3 explicitly states that "all things were made through (διά, dia) Him, and without Him, nothing was made that has been made." The text does not imply a subordinate, created status for Christ but affirms His role as the active Creator. The use of "through" (dia) in no way diminishes Christ's divine identity, as it is consistent with Trinitarian theology: the Father is the source (ἐξ αὐτοῦ, "from Him"), the Son is the agent (δι' αὐτοῦ, "through Him"), and the Spirit is the perfecter of creation. This distinction reflects roles within the unity of the Godhead rather than a hierarchy of essence.
Similarly, 1 Corinthians 8:6 emphasizes this dynamic: "For us, there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." The parallel structure of the verse elevates Christ to the same creative authority as the Father. The distinction between "from" (ἐκ) and "through" (διά) does not imply inferiority but rather distinguishes relational roles in creation. To claim that Christ is merely a created instrument based on this verse overlooks the high Christology that permeates the Pauline corpus.
Colossians 1:16, which declares that "by Him all things were created," likewise places Christ as the central agent of creation. The genitive construction "firstborn of all creation" (πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως) does not denote partitive genitive (implying that Christ is part of creation). Instead, it conveys preeminence and supremacy, as evidenced by the following verses (vv. 17–18), which affirm that "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." This "firstborn" language aligns with the cultural understanding of the term as denoting rank and authority, not sequential creation.
Regarding the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon and the use of qanah in Proverbs 8:22, this claim misunderstands the Hebrew term's semantic range. While qanah can mean "create" in some contexts, its primary meaning is "to acquire" or "to possess." In Proverbs 8:22, which personifies Wisdom, the term should be understood in the sense of being possessed or established, not created. The broader context of Proverbs 8, which poetically describes Wisdom as present "before the beginning of the earth" (v. 23), does not align with the idea of Wisdom being a created entity. Instead, it reflects the eternal, uncreated nature of God's Wisdom—a concept that Christian theology identifies with Christ (cf. John 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:24).
Finally, to assert that Christ "came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things" imposes an Arian interpretation that contradicts the consistent witness of Scripture. The Bible uniformly presents Christ as eternal, not as a created being. Hebrews 1:2-3 affirms that the Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact imprint of His nature, sustaining all things by His word. This description is incompatible with the notion of Christ being part of creation.
@ Nincsnevem
ReplyDeleteYou said: “This description is incompatible with the notion of Christ being part of creation.”
Why?
Litigious:Finally, to assert that Christ "came into being through God prior to the entire universe of created things" imposes an Arian interpretation that contradicts the consistent witness of Scripture: the BDB author's are your fellow trinitarians you know that right?
ReplyDelete