Litigious:The phrase apo archē (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς) is context-dependent. While it often refers to a temporal starting point, it can also emphasize a state of existence or origin. For example:
• 1 John 1:1: "That which was from the beginning (apo archē), which we have heard..." Contextually, this refers to the eternal existence of the Logos (Christ), consistent with John 1:1 ("In the beginning was the Word").
Myself:that is tremendously circular even by trinitarian standards what in the "context " mandates a departure from the default.
Litigious:• John 8:44: Jesus says the devil "has been a murderer from the beginning (apo archē)," referring to the devil's enduring nature rather than a specific moment in time.
Myself there was a definite moment when he became the slanderer.
Ezekiel ch.28:15NIV"You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you."
Litigious:Thus, apo archē in 1 John 1:1 underscores Christ’s eternal existence, not a created origin.
Myself:Argument by assertion and circular logic fallacy.
Litigious:Reputable translations (e.g., NASB, ESV, NIV) are based on rigorous textual analysis and scholarly consensus. Even non-Trinitarian scholars often reject the claim that Proverbs 8 or Colossians 1 teaches Christ's creation. The insertion of "other" in the New World Translation (e.g., Colossians 1:16-17) reflects theological bias, as the word "other" does not appear in the Greek text.
Myself:Why is it that you people are ALWAYS the first, as in every single time ,to mention the NWT You people far more obsessed with the NWT than I,I said and I say again that The word "all" is ROUTINELY used with sensible exceptions throughout the scriptures as at Genesis ch.3:20 where Eve is called the mother of ALL with sensible exceptions, the use of the prepositions "en" and "dia" which are NEVER EVER used of JEHOVAH'S Role in creation indicate the Logos is Not the source of the energy and information manifest in creation.
Litigious:Bruce Metzger, a renowned textual critic, highlights how the Watchtower Society’s translation of Colossians 1:16-17 distorts the text to align with Arian theology, an approach inconsistent with sound exegesis.
Myself:I promise to never use the NWT In our discussion O.K
Litigious:In conclusion, the broader biblical and linguistic evidence overwhelmingly supports the eternal pre-existence of Christ as the Logos and Wisdom of God. Proverbs 8 poetically describes Wisdom's role in creation without implying ontological creation. Colossians 1:15-17 and Revelation 3:14 affirm Christ's supremacy and role as Creator, not a created being. Your interpretation relies on selective readings, misunderstandings of language, and theological presuppositions inconsistent with the full biblical witness.
Myself: all I see more extremely circular logic and argument by assertion. The assertion that your position is true is evidence of nothing especially if you are arguing for a departure from the mutually agreed upon default.
Among the examples of dia being used to denote instrumentality by thayers lexicon we have John ch.1:3 ,1Corinthians ch.8:6,Hebrews ch.1:2,colossians ch.1:16
https://biblehub.com/thayers/1223.htm
The objection is that interpreting apo archē in 1 John 1:1: as referring to Christ's eternal existence is circular. However, this interpretation is context-driven. For instance, in 1 John 1:1, apo archē is associated with the Logos (Word), paralleling John 1:1, which explicitly affirms the Word's eternal existence: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." In this context, apo archē cannot simply mean "from the starting point of time" but rather points to Christ’s pre-temporal existence as the source of all creation. This is reinforced by the surrounding verses in John 1, which describe the Word as actively involved in creation (John 1:3). The comparison to John 8:44 (the devil being a murderer "from the beginning") is not analogous. The devil’s “beginning” refers to the onset of his sinful rebellion (cf. Ezekiel 28:15), which is a temporal event. In contrast, Christ’s relationship to creation is foundational, eternal, and uncreated.
ReplyDeleteThe objection accuses Trinitarian interpretations of argument by assertion. However, interpreting apo archē in 1 John 1:1 as indicating Christ’s eternal existence is consistent with the overall Johannine theology. For example John 1:3 declares that "all things were made through Him, and without Him, nothing was made that was made." This includes time itself. Revelation 22:13 identifies Christ as "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end," affirming His eternal existence. These scriptural affirmations provide a broader context, making the claim of eternal pre-existence a reasonable and evidence-based conclusion, not mere assertion.
The argument references Ezekiel 28:15 to claim the devil had a definite moment of sinning and was not "always" a murderer. While this is true, it does not refute the contextual use of apo archē in 1 John 1:1, where the focus is on Christ's eternal pre-existence. The contrast highlights the distinction between a created being (the devil) and Christ, who is uncreated.
The example of Genesis 3:20, where Eve is called the "mother of all living," is used to argue that "all" (Greek: pas) often has sensible exceptions. However, this analogy fails in Colossians 1:16-17 because Paul explicitly clarifies that "all" includes "things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, rulers, or authorities." This comprehensive list eliminates the possibility of exceptions, including Christ Himself. The inclusion of the prepositions en ("in Him") and dia ("through Him") further reinforces Christ’s role as the source and instrument of creation.
The claim that en and dia are never used for the Father (not “Jehovah”) is demonstrably false.
Romans 11:36: "For from Him and through (dia) Him and to Him are all things."
Hebrews 2:10: "...for whom and through (dia) whom all things exist."
These examples show that dia can describe both the Father and the Son's roles in creation. However, the distinction lies in their functions: the Father as the ultimate source and the Son as the agent through whom creation occurs.
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/01/against-litigious-vi.html
DeleteThe assertion that the interpretation of Christ's eternal pre-existence relies on circular reasoning is unfounded. It is supported by the linguistic context of prototokos in Colossians 1:15, which denotes preeminence, not sequence, and the explicit teaching of Christ as the Creator of "all things" in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2 and 1:10.
ReplyDeleteThe objection cites dia as indicating instrumentality in Thayer’s lexicon (e.g., John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:2, Colossians 1:16). However, this does not reduce Christ’s role to a secondary or subordinate one. Instead, dia highlights the distinct persons of the Father and the Son in the act of creation: The Father as the source (ek), and the Son as the active agent (dia), through whom creation is accomplished.
While the objection criticizes the frequent mention of the New World Translation (NWT), it is relevant because the NWT inserts "other" in Colossians 1:16-17 without manuscript evidence, altering the text to align with Watchtower theology. Metzger’s critique addresses this distortion, emphasizing that the original Greek text affirms Christ as Creator, not a created being.
So the interpretation of apo archē as referring to Christ’s eternal existence is grounded in scriptural context and consistent with broader biblical theology. The claim that Christ is "the firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15) is clarified in the following verses, which describe His role as the Creator, sustaining all things. The term prototokos emphasizes rank and authority, not temporal sequence. Attempts to subordinate Christ’s role in creation (e.g., NWT’s "other") or misinterpret dia as indicating a lesser role lack textual and theological support. Instead, the evidence overwhelmingly affirms Christ’s divine, uncreated nature.
https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/01/against-litigious-vi.html
ReplyDelete