Search This Blog

Thursday, 16 January 2025

Against litigious VI

 Litigous:The claim that the Father alone is the source of creation (ex hou, "from whom," as in 1 Corinthians 8:6) does not diminish the Son’s divinity or creative role. 

Myself the Father is the only God EX whom all things are there us no other God EX whom all things are the God EX whom all things are is the only God that is entitled to latreo.

1corinthians ch.8:6NKJV"yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him;.. "

Obviously the Father is a nontriune God,if there also a triune God who is also entitled to latreo then we have a case of polytheism only the God EX whom are all things is entitled to latreo.

If the Son is not the source of the power and wisdom in the creation the obviously he is inferior only the one who is the source of the power and wisdom in the creation would be supreme, just as only the one who is the source of the law would be the supreme 

John ch.1:17NKJV"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. "

By your logic Moses must be equal to JEHOVAH

The ones through whom JEHOVAH acts are never equal to him 


Litigious:In Trinitarian theology, the Father is the source (arche), but the Son is the agent through whom creation is accomplished. This cooperative activity reflects the unity and equality within the Godhead.

Myself:We don't believe in "theology" we believe in scripture all who JEHOVAH act through ate subordinate to him without exception

Hebrews ch.1:1 NIV"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, "

By your logic the prophets are part of the Godhead.

Note the distinction is not between the Father and his instrument  but the GOD and his instrumentality 

Litigious:To assert that Christ’s creative role is secondary misunderstands the relational distinction within the Trinity. The Son’s dependence on the Father, as expressed in passages like John 5:19, reflects his incarnational mission and voluntary submission, not his inferiority in essence or nature.

Myself;the distinction is between the God and his instrument not the Father and his instrument,the Father is a nontriune God we cross the line into polytheism if we assert that there is also a triune God who is entitled to latreo.

He is not JEHOVAH if he can become a creature because bible repeatedly assures is that JEHOVAH is not a man see numbers ch.23;19 all statements about JEHOVAH'S Nature are unchangeable facts see malachi ch.3:6 that is why we can put total faith in him.

He mentions raising the dead this after his resurrection when he is no longer man see galatians ch.1:1


Litigious:Moreover, the identification of Christ as the arche ("beginning") in Revelation 3:14 does not support the claim that he is a created being. The term arche has a range of meanings, including "origin," "source," and "ruler." In the context of Revelation and the broader New Testament, it is best understood as signifying Christ’s role as the source and ruler of creation, 

Myself: We know that THE God who is distinguished from in the statement and who we agree he is not Numerically identical to is the ultimate source of the creation and that when John wanted to depict him as ruler over the princes of the world he used archon not arche see Revelation ch.1:5.

So know the king James is spot on here the God tou theou is the source and ruler and his son is the starting point of his creation.

Litigious:not as its first product. This interpretation is consistent with Revelation 1:8 and 22:13, where the same term is used for God, who is unquestionably uncreated. Christ shares in this divine identity, as evidenced by his titles "Alpha and Omega" and "First and Last."

Myself: unfortunately for you creation is not mentioned anywhere in this verse  thus mist likely has to do with Godhood the God and Father of jesus being declared the only God entitled to latreo

Christ title of first and last has to do with his resurrection,he is the only one who us resurrected without s creature as an instrument every other resurrected one us through Him.

Revelation ch.1:17,18NUV"When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."

JEHOVAH being the unchangeably immortal God cannot die and thus cannot be resurrected. And again nothing to do with creation.


Litigious:Finally, the theological implication that Christ must be subordinate because "the Son can do nothing by himself" (John 5:19) ignores the context of Christ’s earthly ministry and the doctrine of the hypostatic union.

We reject your argument by assertion the scriptures are clear JEHOVAH us not a man nor a Son of Man malachi ch.3:6 let's us know that this is a permanent state of affairs that is the only way it can serve as a guarantee. The fact that he can become lower than the angels proves conclusively that he is not JEHOVAH. 

Litigious;In his incarnation, the Son operates in full dependence on the Father to fulfill his redemptive mission. This voluntary dependence does not negate his equality with the Father, as affirmed in John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one") and Philippians 2:6 ("though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped").

Myself;John ch.10:29 jesus makes it plain that his God and Father is greater than all others not most others, this would include the unincarnated spirit,so your incarnation fudge does not work here. At Matthew ch.24:36 he clearly states that only his God and father knows the day or hour this would also exclude the unincarnated spirit,if this knowledge only included Christ in his below the angels state he would not have mentioned the Son after mentioning men,which would include the human christ and angels who were then above the human christ.   No, clearly the superhuman christ is included, the unincarnated spirit is not even mentioned. 

After his restoration to the superhuman Glory his father continues to be his GOD

Ephesians ch.1:17NIV"I keep asking that the GOD of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit f of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18I"

Revelation ch.3:12NIV"The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my GOD. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my GOD and the name of the city of my GOD, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my GOD; and I will also write on them my new name."

JEHOVAH is the MOST HIGH and thus worships NO ONE.


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.).

3 comments:

  1. The assertion that the Father is "the only God from whom all things exist" (1 Corinthians 8:6) does not deny the deity or co-equality of the Son within the Trinity. The verse distinguishes the relational roles of the Father and the Son in creation. The Father is described as the source (ex hou, "from whom") and the Son as the agent (di' hou, "through whom"). These roles are complementary and do not imply a hierarchy of essence or nature. This distinction is inherent to Trinitarian theology, where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal in deity but distinct in their relational roles.

    Your claim that recognizing the Son's role as the agent of creation implies his inferiority misunderstands the biblical text and Trinitarian theology. Agency (di' hou) does not denote subordination in essence but rather expresses the cooperative action within the Godhead. The Son is the Logos (Word) through whom the Father speaks creation into existence (John 1:1-3). This role does not make the Son a passive instrument; rather, it affirms his active participation in creation as God. To suggest otherwise contradicts the explicit affirmation in Colossians 1:16 that "all things were created through him and for him."

    Your argument that "only the source of power and wisdom in creation would be supreme" misapplies the concept of source. In Trinitarian theology, the Father as the source does not exclude the Son from being fully divine. The relational distinctions within the Trinity do not negate the shared essence of deity. The Nicene Creed articulates this unity clearly: the Son is "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God." The Son's role as the Logos ensures that he is not subordinate in nature but shares fully in the divine essence.

    Your comparison to Moses (John 1:17) misrepresents the relationship between the Father and the Son. Moses was a servant through whom the Law was given, but he was not divine. Jesus, on the other hand, is the eternal Logos, who is not only the agent of creation but also the source of grace and truth. John 1:14-17 emphasizes the qualitative difference between Moses and Christ: "The Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." Moses is not comparable to Christ because Christ, as the Logos, is the source of divine revelation and salvation.

    The assertion that "all whom Jehovah acts through are subordinate" oversimplifies the biblical text. While prophets and other instruments of God's will are subordinate because they are created beings, the Son is not a created being but the eternal Word of God. Hebrews 1:1-3 affirms this by distinguishing between the prophets through whom God spoke and the Son, who is the "radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being." The Son's role in creation and redemption does not make him subordinate but demonstrates his unique divine identity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 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.

      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.

      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.

      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).

      Delete
  2. https://aservantofjehovah.blogspot.com/2025/01/dia-when-used-of-logos-according-to.html

    ReplyDelete