I agree that tradition does not always square with Scripture. I think the situation went something like this: The Bible tells us nothing about God before creation.
1. I believe scripture does indicate there was divine activity taking place before the creation of time as we know it (John 17:24; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 Corinthians 2:7) .
Angels were created prior to the universe because they were already in existence shouting for joy when at least the earth, and we can assume "time" was created (Job 38:7;Psalms 104:4). Some argue divine activity was improbable because time did not exist. That would limit God to only operate within human time and space, which you and I know cannot be true.
What can we glean from knowing there was divine, creative activity before the creation of the cosmic entities we use to measure time? Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 provide strong clues on at least one entity created during this vacuum of time. Who then assisted His creator in creating the universe and time as we know it ( John 1;1,3)
Now, the early fathers assumed that God was wholly immutable, the actualizat6ion of all potentiality. Hence, the Son had to eternally preexist. Otherwise, there would have been a time when God was only potentially a Father, which was then actualized when the Son came along.
2. That is the interpretation of some of the church fathers, but not all. The writings of the early fathers hold some value, but the scriptures, not the father's opinions about the scriptures, are my barometer for truth.
You seem to be taking a gnostic approach, with a hierarchy of gods. The church viewed Gnosticism as a heresy because this would make for idols.
3. I'd like to think I take a scriptural approach to the hierarchy/family of gods (Psalms 82; Ephesians 3:14-15). The challenge with your sectarian approach is we sabotage our critical thinking by inculcating the opinions of those we hold in high esteem, which potentially closes our minds to any new revelation or knowledge God may be attempting to provide, hindering the growth He may want us to achieve (2 Peter 3:18).
The question should be: Why were they not consist in omitting it in Jn. 6 and 9? I think that the answer is it makes no difference. He is a teacher. he is the teacher. Same thing. He is a prophet. He is the prophet. Same thing. He is a devil to deal with. hew is the devil to deal with. Same thing.
4. If it made no difference, why doesn't the end of John 1:1 read "was a God" or even "the" God? We can say it did make a difference enough for them to exclude it from John 1:1, which has major doctrinal implications, but not for the other grammatically similar scriptures that had no implications.
I Cor. 15:28 touches on a major problem. As I mentioned in other posts, the Bible is not a book of metaphysics, tells us very little about how God is built, gives but conflicting snap shots that we have to struggle to piece together. Here is one such instance. In these, and other passages, there is a pervasive subrodinationism, where the Father and father alone appears to be God, strictly speaking, the Boss of bosses, with the Son merely a lesser divine being, not Deity, simply one of the Boss's lieutenants he sends to do his bidding.
In other passages, Christ is said to be God (Jn. 1:1, 8,10, etc.). This has led to major contradictions in many of the Trinitarian doctrines, such as in Calvin, where he says the Father did not descend, be he who was sent by him, did not duffer, but he who was sent by him. I think it is possible to work out these contradictions, but that this requires an entirely different metaphysical system from that which the fathers followed. I would be happy to discuss this with you sometime. But that is another story, one that would require a long digression.
5. That is a fair and accurate assessment of 1 Co 15:28. To reconcile it to John 1:1 we can ask, "Was John aware that the "Word" [glorified] He speaks of in John 1:1, and manifested in the OT (Genesis 15:1; 1 Samuel 3:21) may have been part of the "God/YHVH" family name hierarchy spoken of in Psalms 82 and Ephesians 3:14-15?
Luke 24:27 indicates this was most likely. Christ Himself admitted being associated within the subordinate, hierarchal, supernatural God
s from Psalms 82 (John 10:33-35). We know they are supernatural because Psalms 82:7 states "you shall die like men". A redundant and unnecessary phrase, if these were human judges. But an appropriate punishment for disobedient, supernatural beings.
Allowing Jesus to be referred to as simply God/YHVH, or "the God" [with us--Matthew 1:23], or "a" God/YHVH. Similar to a Father and Son surnamed "Smith". The son(s) can be referred to as [Mr.] Smith or "a" Smith. So you are right, addressing him as "the" God, or "a" God makes no difference.
BTW..It would help immensely if you could paragraph your responses....Thanks..
