JW's Preach A Different Gospel

[Oeste]

Jesus ' revealed ' his God - John 14:7-9; John 14:23. Jesus did Not speak of himself - John 14:10 B. Rather, as Jesus already stated at John 12:44.
That is why Jesus could continue to say who was greater than him at John 14:28 which Jesus previously stated at John 10:29 that his Father is greater than all.

God had No beginning, No start - Psalms 90:2. God can Not die.
Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning - Psalms 90:2; Revelation 3:14; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; Exodus 33:20
God has His throne, and Jesus has his own separate throne - Revelation 3:21
The resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him - Revelation 3:12

------------

Jesus ' revealed ' his God - John 14:7-9; John 14:23. Jesus did Not speak of himself - John 14:10 B. Rather, as Jesus already stated at John 12:44.

That is why Jesus could continue to say who was greater than him at John 14:28 which Jesus previously stated at John 10:29 that his Father is greater than all.

No Christian disputes any of the passages here, but I'm not sure how you apply them to your prior arguments.
You still have the problem of introducing conflict into scripture which you did not address.

According to your assertion, Jesus has a beginning because of Revelation 3:14, yet the exact same word- arche-is used to describe God in Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13. This means that both God and Jesus have a beginning...an incredulous concept for any bible believing Christian.

Then you state the following:

God had No beginning, No start - Psalms 90:2.

Which now tells us that Psalm 90:2 conflicts with Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13! Why? Because the exact same word that told you about Jesus' alleged beginning is used of God!

God can Not die.

I agree, but a consistent application of your exegesis leads to conflict. You state God cannot die yet Revelation 21:6 says he has an end, and he has an end because he has a beginning, the same word you stated proves Jesus' had a beginning at Revelation 3:14!

Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning - Psalms 90:2; Revelation 3:14; John 1:18; 1 John 4:12; Exodus 33:20

None of these scriptures explain your assertion "Jesus was not before the beginning as God was before the beginning". The verse you cited to show Jesus has a beginning was Revelation 3:14, and this verse uses the same word for beginning ("arche") for Jesus as it does for God in Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13, two scriptures not addressed in your response.

No Christian here doubts God had no beginning, so quoting scripture like John 1:18, John 4:12, and Exodus 33:20 doesn't help your assertion. What would help your assertion are scriptures which show Jesus has the beginning you claim, and so far all we've seen is Revelation 3:14 which shows Jesus has the exact same beginning as Jehovah, because the exact same word- "arche"- is used in Revelation 3:14, Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13.

Also, you have not addressed Micah 5:2, Hebrew 13:8, nor why time is not the firstborn of creation since Jehovah would have had to create time first in order to give Jesus a "beginning". Nevertheless I appreciate your attempt to respond.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:13 Does Not say before the beginning - Psalms 90:2
God has No end, God does Not die, God was before the beginning, and No last ending for God, whereas it is God who grants immortality ( life in one's self ) to Jesus - John 5:26
Only God was before the beginning - Psalms 90:2- Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning - Genesis 1:26
The uncreated God is Not talking to Himself at Genesis 1:26 but to the created one of Revelation 3:14.
Jesus remains the same - Revelation 3:14 - yesterday, today, and forever - Hebrews 13:8; Revelation 1:5; Revelation 1:17; Revelation 2:8 - and God was never dead - Psalms 90:2
Since Jesus was the first - Revelation 3:14 - his start was from back in unknown ancient everlasting time - Micah 5:2 - being the first of God's creation.

 

[Oeste]

Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:13 Does Not say before the beginning

How does these two verses "Not say before the beginning" help your argument?

Revelation 3:14, the verse you claim proves Jesus had a beginning, "does not say before the beginning" either, so I'm not seeing the point you're trying to make. The fact is all 3 verses use the word "arche" which, if we are to apply your definition consistently across 3 scriptures, means Jesus and God have a beginning which I believe we can both agree is ludricous.

- Psalms 90:2
God has No end, God does Not die, God was before the beginning,

Whether God has no end or does not die is not in dispute, so why raise this scripture? Also, where do you find "God was before the beginning" in Psalms 90:2??? It looks like something you've added to the verse.

I don't mind using Psalms 90:2, it helps my argument (you'll see why), but I'm not understanding how this supports your argument that Jesus was a created creature.

We were discussing whether Jesus has a beginning or not, not whether God has a beginning. You stated Revelation 3:14 shows Jesus has a beginning, and I showed that the exact same word is used at Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13, so using the exact same logic, God would have a beginning also!

So the word "beginning" used in Revelation 3:14 CANNOT mean Jesus has a created beginning, because the same "beginning" is used of God in Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Only God was before the beginning - Psalms 90:2- Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning

I think you need to check your interlinear URAVIPTOME. The exact same words "...from everlasting" used to describe God in Psalms 90:2 is used to describe Jesus in Micah 5:2!

The same "beginning" (Greek - arche) and "everlasting" (Hebrew - olam) , used to describe God also describe Jesus. The only reason at this point for insisting that Jesus is a created creature is one based on doctrine, not exegesis.

So let's recap. You state Jesus has a "created beginning" due to your interpretation of "arche" at Revelation 3:14. I stated your interpretation cannot possibly be correct because the EXACT same word is used to describe God at Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13. If Revelation 3:14 means Jesus has a beginning than God would have one too based on Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13. Any such conclusion on our part would be ludicrous.

You then point to Psalm 90:2, but the exact same "from everlasting" (olam) used here is also used to describe Jesus at Micah 5:2!

עֹלָם עוֹלָם
‛ôlâm ‛ôlâm

But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2)

Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. (Psalms 90:2)

The uncreated God is Not talking to Himself at Genesis 1:26 but to the created one of Revelation 3:14.
Jesus remains the same - Revelation 3:14 - yesterday, today, and forever - Hebrews 13:8; Revelation 1:5; Revelation 1:17; Revelation 2:8 - and God was never dead - Psalms 90:2

Your assertion defeats itself and supports mine in the process. We cannot deduce that Jesus is a created "creature" from Revelation 3:14, and we certainly cannot deduce it from Psalm 90:2 because the exact same words used to describe Jehovah is used to describe Jesus...at Revelation, at Psalms, and at Micah.

As for the rest of your post...Jehovah not having a beginning or end....this is not an issue between us and has no bearing on your original premise. Ditto for whether God talks to Himself. I'm not sure why this was raised as the question of whether God talks to Himself on occasion has no bearing on whether Jesus was a created "creature".

The specific issue I'd like to focus on is whether Revelation 3:14 or any other scripture casts Jesus as a created being or "creature", and your quote of Psalms 90:2 only helps to answer this as "No".

 

[james2ko]

Disclaimer: I am not, nor was I ever a JW, and never did I study with them or allow them in my house.

The Watchtower defines the Greek word "arche" as meaning the first in a series, and here as the first in a series of created events. However arche can also mean origin or source, and should be construed as such because any attempt to define it as the Watchtower has introduces conflict into scripture.

1. That's correct. It can mean both-first in series or source/origin. Context defines the term. In this instance, Albert Barnes, noted Protestant Trinitarian and Scholar, carefully studied every NT passage containing this word (arche) and humbly came to the conclusion Christ was not referring to Him being the ruler, author, origin, or cause of the creation (see his commentary of Rev 3:14).

Christ’s own words confirm Mr. Barnes’ assertion. If Christ wanted to impress upon the reader He was only the "ruler" of creation, why didn't He simply utilize the same word He used in Mat 20:25[archon-G758] which only means first in rank/power, without the connotation of being the first created being? Neither did He use the term in Mat 5:32 [poieo-G4160] that would render Him as the "exclusive " cause of creation. Neither did He use the term Paul used in Heb 5:9 [aitios-G159] to suggest He is the author "of the creation of God".

If Christ's intention was to impress upon the reader He was only the ruler, author, or cause of His creation in Rev 3:14, He had several different terms at His disposal to definitively do so. Instead He curiously used the term "arche”, which includes aspects of the same definition as "archon, poieo, and aitios" but is broader in scope to also mean the very first or original created being. In other words, the broader context of scripture testify He was both--an arche (first created being) created to be an archon-source, cause, and author of creation!

For example, If Jesus has a beginning based on Revelation 3:14, then God has a beginning at Revelation 21:5-6:

"And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true." Then He said to me, "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to the one who thirsts from the spring of the water of life without cost."

Since the Watchtower asserts that Jehovah is speaking at Rev 21:6 and Rev 22:13, if we are to insist that Revelation 3:14 means Jesus has a created beginning, then Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13 mean that God not only has a beginning but a defined end as well! Worse, if they decide to change it (new light) to Jesus speaking, it means Jesus has a beginning and demise.

2. Consider each verse carefully. In Rev 3:14, The Father is the subject-theos. Christ--the object [arche-the Beginning]- is followed by two genitive phrases creating what Daniel Wallace, noted Greek Scholar, calls a subjective genitive. In other words, the object--The Beginning (Christ) is a creation of the subject--God The Father (theos)! [see subjective genitive in Daniel Wallace's work, "Greek Grammar-Beyond the Basics" where he lists Rev 3:14 as an example of this grammatical nuance].

As opposed to Rev 21:6 where The Father claims He is the "beginning and end" with no subsequent genitive phrase to immediately tell us what He is the "beginning and end" of. Thus distinguishing it from the context and meaning of the term "arche" in Rev 3:14. The Father is the ultimate beginning (arche) and end of all things through Christ. In other words, He can begin and end the existence of anything and anyone, if He so chooses. This interpretation is apparent in the context as He chose to end the former heaven and earth (vs 1) and replace it with a new heaven and earth.

How can Jesus be "from everlasting" if he has a beginning or start?(Micah 5:2)

3. Ps 90:2 is referring to a single being (EL)--God the Father, as opposed to multiple beings (Elohim) . We know this from the context of Peter's reference to verse 4 of this Psalm in 2 Pet 3:8. A closer look reveals Peter is actually talking about the coming of God the Father to finally dwell with mankind on the new heaven and earth (2 Pe 3:13; Rev 21:1-3).

Micah 5 is obviously referring to the Messiah's (Jesus) first coming. The Hebrew term for everlasting is "olam" which does not necessarily mean forever in the past in every context. It can also mean from ancient time or long time in the past (see BDB's definition). In our passage, "olam" is preceded by the term "yom" [day]. The instances where "yom" is used in conjunction with or in close proximity to "olam", implies temporal action (from ancient times or a long time in the past--Psa 21:4; 77:5; Isa 51:9; 63:9,11; Amo 9:11; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4) and not eternity in the past. Young’s Literal Translation more precisely renders it:

Mic 5:2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth--to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity.​

Jesus was not "the beginning of the creation by God". "Arche" (beginning) does not mean he had a start anymore than "telos" (end) means God has a demise. The word "arche" can mean beginning but it can also mean origin or primary source. Why read an inherent conflict into scripture when there is absolutely no need to do so? As you've already pointed out, saying God has a beginning conflicts with Psalm 90:2. Likewise saying Jesus has a beginning conflicts with Micah 5:2 and Hebrews 13:8

4. I will address Heb 13:8 since the other objections were addressed in my previous three points. That Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever could also be telling us that He has been the same from the day He was created a long time ago; from the days of antiquity (yesterday); He is the same (today);and will always be the same forever (in the future).

Joh 14:6-7 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7 "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."

Using Jesus' own words above, how would you answer your question?

5. Keep reading to get the full intent of Christ's words. Verse 9 illustrates what Jesus meant in verse 7 about the disciples having "seen" the Father:

Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?​

Christ represented the Father. It's similar to the ancient idea of a king's messenger representing the king himself to the one of whom the message was delivered. The NAB's footnotes states for verse 7: "An alternative reading, "If you knew me, then you would have known my Father also," would be a rebuke, as in Joh 8:19". In other words, the intent was they have "seen" the Father through Christ's actions, words, deeds, and appearance as opposed to literally having seen the Father themselves.

BTW. Welcome to the forum. You brought up very good objections. I believe JW's are in error with several doctrines. But I'm afraid they have this one doctrine right.

 

[Oeste]

The Watchtower defines the Greek word "arche" as meaning the first in a series, and here as the first in a series of created events. However arche can also mean origin or source, and should be construed as such because any attempt to define it as the Watchtower has introduces conflict into scripture.

1. That's correct. It can mean both-first in series or source/origin. Context defines the term. In this instance, Albert Barnes, noted Protestant Trinitarian and Scholar, carefully studied every NT passage containing this word (arche) and humbly came to the conclusion Christ was not referring to Him being the ruler, author, origin, or cause of the creation (see his commentary of Rev 3:14).

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to saying he didn't see Christ as being the ruler, since he did say "....he holds the primacy over all, and is at the head of the universe."

Barnes also stated the following: "...that it means that he was the first created being, it may be observed:

(a) that this is not a necessary signification of the phrase, since no one can show that this is the only proper meaning which could be given to the words, and therefore the phrase cannot be adduced to prove that he is himself a created being. If it were demonstrated from other sources that Christ was, in fact, a created being, and the first that God had made, it cannot be denied that this language would appropriately express that fact. But it cannot be made out from the mere use of the language here; and as the language is susceptible of other interpretations, it cannot be employed to prove that Christ is a created being.

(b) Such an interpretation would be at variance with all those passages which speak of him as uncreated and eternal; which ascribe divine attributes to him; which speak of him as himself the Creator of all things. Compare John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2, Hebrews 1:6, Hebrews 1:8, Hebrews 1:10-12 (Commentary on Revelation Overview, Albert Barnes).

Christ’s own words confirm Mr. Barnes’ assertion.

Agreed! As Mr. Barnes states, Christ is uncreated and eternal.

If Christ wanted to impress upon the reader He was only the "ruler" of creation, why didn't He simply utilize the same word He used in Mat 20:25[archon-G758] which only means first in rank/power, without the connotation of being the first created being? Neither did He use the term in Mat 5:32 [poieo-G4160] that would render Him as the "exclusive " cause of creation. Neither did He use the term Paul used in Heb 5:9 [aitios-G159] to suggest He is the author "of the creation of God".

If Christ's intention was to impress upon the reader He was only the ruler, author, or cause of His creation in Rev 3:14, He had several different terms at His disposal to definitively do so. Instead He curiously used the term "arche”, which includes aspects of the same definition as "archon, poieo, and aitios" but is broader in scope to also mean the very first or original created being.

James2ko, this is an excellent point to bring up! With a plethora of words available, the author is moved by the Spirit to use the same word.. "arche".. when speaking of Jesus as he does Jehovah. Obviously if John was moved to draw distinctions he could have, instead he uses the exact same word.

Very curious indeed!!

In other words, the broader context of scripture testify He was both--an arche (first created being) created to be an archon-source, cause, and author of creation!

I must respectfully disagree:

(1) The very same argument you use for arche at Rev 3:14 can also be used at Rev 21:6 and Rev 22:16 to argue God has a beginning and

(2) If Jesus is created he cannot possibly be an archon-source, cause, and author of creation. Jesus cannot be the source of creation if he himself is created.

2. Consider each verse carefully. In Rev 3:14, The Father is the subject-theos. Christ--the object [arche-the Beginning]- is followed by two genitive phrases creating what Daniel Wallace, noted Greek Scholar, calls a subjective genitive. In other words, the object--The Beginning (Christ) is a creation of the subject--God The Father (theos)! [see subjective genitive in Daniel Wallace's work, "Greek Grammar-Beyond the Basics" where he lists Rev 3:14 as an example of this grammatical nuance].

As opposed to Rev 21:6 where The Father claims He is the "beginning and end" with no subsequent genitive phrase to immediately tell us what He is the "beginning and end" of.

By construct you're going to have more subjective genitives than objective, and more objective than plenary.
But you haven't shown why we need to switch the definition of arche from "source" or "ruler" to "first in a series" especially since source or ruler can apply to Jesus here as it does to God. You appear to switch definitions based on the pronoun used (Jehovah or Jesus) rather than allowing the verse (and its surrounding context) to define the meaning for you.

As you already know, context helps define meaning, so where we have genitive constructs that threaten to change the semantics of a given verse our first appeal is to authorial usage in the same document, and each time the author uses "arche" in Revelation (Rev 1:8, Rev 21:6 and Rev 22:13) the author clearly intends arche to mean source/origin/ruler rather than "first in a created series".

Thus distinguishing it from the context and meaning of the term "arche" in Rev 3:14.

If we are to distinguish beginning in Rev 21:6 from the beginning in Rev 3:14, we now have two beginning and two ends. Somehow I don't think John was trying to convey that.

The Father is the ultimate beginning (arche) and end of all things through Christ.

Then the Father is the beginning and end, and Jesus is an imposter when he says he's the beginning and end, or Jesus is the beginning and end and the Father is the imposter, or we have one (ultimate) beginning and another (non-ultimate) beginning which by definition and consistency means we also have one (ultimate) end and another (non-ultimate) end, or they are both the same beginning and end.

Which hypothesis sounds more likely, or is there another I'm not seeing?

In other words, He can begin and end the existence of anything and anyone, if He so chooses. This interpretation is apparent in the context as He chose to end the former heaven and earth (vs 1) and replace it with a new heaven and earth.

Jesus can do the same, so it doesn't really help the argument for a created Jesus.

 

[Oeste]

Jesus was not "the beginning of the creation by God". "Arche" (beginning) does not mean he had a start anymore than "telos" (end) means God has a demise. The word "arche" can mean beginning but it can also mean origin or primary source. Why read an inherent conflict into scripture when there is absolutely no need to do so? As you've already pointed out, saying God has a beginning conflicts with Psalm 90:2. Likewise saying Jesus has a beginning conflicts with Micah 5:2 and Hebrews 13:8

3. Ps 90:2 is referring to a single being (EL)--God the Father, as opposed to multiple beings (Elohim) . We know this from the context of Peter's reference to verse 4 of this Psalm in 2 Pet 3:8. A closer look reveals Peter is actually talking about the coming of God the Father to finally dwell with mankind on the new heaven and earth (2 Pe 3:13; Rev 21:1-3).

Micah 5 is obviously referring to the Messiah's (Jesus) first coming. The Hebrew term for everlasting is "olam" which does not necessarily mean forever in the past in every context. It can also mean from ancient time or long time in the past (see BDB's definition). In our passage, "olam" is preceded by the term "yom" [day]. The instances where "yom" is used in conjunction with or in close proximity to "olam", implies temporal action (from ancient times or a long time in the past--Psa 21:4; 77:5; Isa 51:9; 63:9,11; Amo 9:11; Mic 7:14; Mal 3:4) and not eternity in the past. Young’s Literal Translation more precisely renders it:

Mic 5:2 And thou, Beth-Lehem Ephratah, Little to be among the chiefs of Judah! From thee to Me he cometh forth--to be ruler in Israel, And his comings forth are of old, From the days of antiquity.

I also notice that Young's literal translation states Jesus comings forth "are of old"... the same terms used of Jehovah at Habakkuk 1:12. Again it seems your definition has been colored by the pronoun used...Jehovah or Jesus... thus lending exegesis more doctrinal than grammatical.

4. I will address Heb 13:8 since the other objections were addressed in my previous three points. That Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever could also be telling us that He has been the same from the day He was created a long time ago; from the days of antiquity (yesterday); He is the same (today);and will always be the same forever (in the future).

That fine, as we have plenty of time for discussion, but I can't help but notice we have to insert a little extra..."from the day He was created"...to arrive at your preferred meaning. We'll save this for later.

People saw Jesus and lived, so how could people see their God and still live ?

Isn't this the same question the Pharisees would ask of Jesus? Isn't it similar to Philip's own?
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life.No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." (John 14: 6-7)

Using Jesus' own words above, how would you answer your question?

5. Keep reading to get the full intent of Christ's words. Verse 9 illustrates what Jesus meant in verse 7 about the disciples having "seen" the Father:
Joh 14:9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

Exactly right, and I couldn't agree with you more. URAVIPTOME's question is answered.

Christ represented the Father. It's similar to the ancient idea of a king's messenger representing the king himself to the one of whom the message was delivered. The NAB's footnotes states for verse 7: "An alternative reading, "If you knew me, then you would have known my Father also," would be a rebuke, as in Joh 8:19". In other words, the intent was they have "seen" the Father through Christ's actions, words, deeds, and appearance as opposed to literally having seen the Father themselves.

Agreed. Another verse to succinctly answer URAVIPTOME's question. It's a question that pops up from JW's from time to time, however I have no idea if URAVIPTOME is a JW or not.[/quote]

BTW. Welcome to the forum. You brought up very good objections.

Thank you James2ko. You bring up some very good objections as well.

Religion is still one of those "taboo" subjects not to be discussed with strangers, yet here I am with a chock full of others willing to do the same. It's both enthralling and time consuming. I get busy but I'll try to respond as soon as I can. I'm here to share and learn and I appreciate the interaction.

I believe JW's are in error with several doctrines. But I'm afraid they have this one doctrine right.

Even a broken clock can be right two times a day, but I don't think they're right at this time.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A broken clock can also be a broken clock because it has a crack in it. Blessed are the cracked because they let the light shine through.

 

[Oeste]

A broken clock can also be a broken clock because it has a crack in it. Blessed are the cracked because they let the light shine through.

I can see that.

We're all a bit cracked and need to get cracking, so let he who is without cracks crack the first wisecrack.

 

[james2ko]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to saying he didn't see Christ as being the ruler, since he did say "....he holds the primacy over all, and is at the head of the universe."

1. Notice I said, "In this instance". The point was that Mr Barnes does not believe Rev 3:14 can be used to conclude Christ was the ruler, author, origin or cause of creation.

(b) Such an interpretation would be at variance with all those passages which speak of him as uncreated and eternal; which ascribe divine attributes to him; which speak of him as himself the Creator of all things. Compare John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2, Hebrews 1:6, Hebrews 1:8, Hebrews 1:10-12 (Commentary on Revelation Overview, Albert Barnes).

2. I put together a comprehensive 28 pg study on the doctrine. I did not find any passages in their original languages, grammar, and/or context that testify to Christ’s uncreated status. Although that does not rule out the notion I may have missed a passage or two. I'll be more than happy to discuss any of them.

James2ko, this is an excellent point to bring up! With a plethora of words available, the author is moved by the Spirit to use the same word.. "arche".. when speaking of Jesus as he does Jehovah. Obviously if John was moved to draw distinctions he could have, instead he uses the exact same word. Very curious indeed!!

3. John used the term for the Father and Son because both can be classified as “arche”. But only one of the two was the first in series. The Father created Christ (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14; Isa 43:10), which classifies The Father as an “arche”(source, origin of Christ). Subsequently, Christ created everything else (Joh 1:3), also making Christ an “arche”—the source, origin of all things seen and unseen! Essentially making Christ the first created being who created all things.

I must respectfully disagree1) The very same argument you use for arche at Rev 3:14 can also be used at Rev 21:6 and Rev 22:16 to argue God has a beginning and

4. I disagree. No genitive phrase follows Rev 21:6 or Rev 22:16 hence creating a semantical distinction from Rev 3:14, which suggests The Father created the “Beginning” [Christ].

(2) If Jesus is created he cannot possibly be an archon-source, cause, and author of creation. Jesus cannot be the source of creation if he himself is created.

5. Are you implying the Father is incapable of creating an eternal spirit being with the capacity to create the universe and other spirit beings?

By construct you're going to have more subjective genitives than objective, and more objective than plenary. But you haven't shown why we need to switch the definition of arche from "source" or "ruler" to "first in a series" especially since source or ruler can apply to Jesus here as it does to God.

6. Daniel Wallace explains in an SG (subjective genitive) the verbal noun to which the genitive is related is converted into a verbal form and the genitive turns into its subject. For example, “the revelation of Jesus Christ …” in Gal 1:12 becomes “[What/the fact that] Jesus Christ reveals …”

Mr. Wallace has Rev 3:14 listed as one of the examples of an SG. Utilizing this example for Rev 3:14, we get: “[What/the fact that] God-The Father- creates. The immediate context in our passage actually answers the question, “What has The Father created?”--the Amen, Faithful, True witness, The Beginning--Christ!.

As you already know, context helps define meaning, so where we have genitive constructs that threaten to change the semantics of a given verse our first appeal is to authorial usage in the same document, and each time the author uses "arche" in Revelation (Rev 1:8, Rev 21:6 and Rev 22:13) the author clearly intends arche to mean source/origin/ruler rather than "first in a created series". .

7. Conversely, we should not downplay an apparent distinction of a construct which may amplify and/or define its immediate context, as exemplified in point six above.

The immediate and broader context actually defines the Son as both (source/first in series). If the holy spirit wanted to convey Christ was never the “first in a created series”, in Rev 3:14, he would have excluded the usage of the term “arche”—which can mean both [first in series; source/origin]. Instead I believe the hs would have exclusively inspired the term(s) which can only mean “source, origin, ruler, author”—such as “archon, poieo, aitios”.

If we are to distinguish beginning in Rev 21:6 from the beginning in Rev 3:14, we now have two beginning and two ends. Somehow I don't think John was trying to convey that.

8. Not exactly. There are two beginnings and "one" end. I believe the exclusion of "and end" in Rev 3:14 influences the context as a description of who or what Christ is . Versus the other passages which demonstrate what Christ does—“begins and ends” things. In other words, the SG indicates He Himself is/had a “beginning” (Rev 3:14), who in turn causes all things to have a “beginning and end” (Rev 1:8). This nuance coupled with supporting passages tips the scale toward Christ being created.

You appear to switch definitions based on the pronoun used (Jehovah or Jesus) rather than allowing the verse (and its surrounding context) to define the meaning for you..

9. Jehovah and Jesus are not pronouns. They are nouns. Nevertheless, Syntax plays a much bigger role than you may think in establishing the meaning of a word that can actually influence the context. John uses the same term (arche) in a prepositional phrase;

1Jn 2:13 I write to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning (arche). I write to you, young men, Because you have overcome the wicked one. I write to you, little children, Because you have known the Father. ​

Your logic of merging Rev 3:14 with Rev 21:6; 22:16 dictates this passage could also read, "Because you have known Him (Christ) who is "from the beginning and end". Which wouldn't make much sense.

Then the Father is the beginning and end, and Jesus is an imposter when he says he's the beginning and end, or Jesus is the beginning and end and the Father is the imposter, or we have one (ultimate) beginning and another (non-ultimate) beginning which by definition and consistency means we also have one (ultimate) end and another (non-ultimate) end, or they are both the same beginning and end. Which hypothesis sounds more likely, or is there another I'm not seeing?

10. I believe John was attempting to convey both Father and Son are the beginning and end. The Father is the ultimate “beginning and end” as He created the second member of the God family with the ability to “begin and end” all things He created.

I also notice that Young's literal translation states Jesus comings forth "are of old"... the same terms used of Jehovah at Habakkuk 1:12. Again it seems your definition has been colored by the pronoun used...Jehovah or Jesus... thus lending exegesis more doctrinal than grammatical.

11. Jehovah is a distributed title. Both The Father and Son are part of the same “God” [Jehovah] family. Similar to me and my son being part of the “Smith” [fictitious name] family. Notice how Habakuk identifies this Jehovah as “Rock”. The same term used by Paul to identify Christ in the OT (1 Co 10:4).

That fine, as we have plenty of time for discussion, but I can't help but notice we have to insert a little extra..."from the day He was created"...to arrive at your preferred meaning. We'll save this for later.

12. Not much different than mentally inserting the assumption that “yesterday” means eternity in the past to arrive at your preferred meaning, right?

Religion is still one of those "taboo" subjects not to be discussed with strangers, yet here I am with a chock full of others willing to do the same. It's both enthralling and time consuming. I get busy but I'll try to respond as soon as I can. I'm here to share and learn and I appreciate the interaction.

13. The feeling is mutual. I appreciate the engaging and respectful discussion.

 

[Muffled]

Gospel writer John wrote Revelation, and at Revelation 1:5; Revelation 3:14 B John writes Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God.
According to Psalms 90:2 God had No beginning, No start.
So, since Jesus is the beginning of the creation by God, then Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning.

In the KJV Bible the same Greek grammar rule applies at John 1:1 and at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B
The letter ' a ' was inserted at Acts, while the letter ' a ' was not used at John.
Even though John is clear at John 1:18 that ' No man has seen God at any time '. - See also 1 John 4:12 and Exodus 33:20
People saw Jesus and lived, so how could people see their God and still live ?

I believe there are many creation beginnings just as I have many beginnings reading different posts from you. The question is not whether Jesus is a creation but whether the Spirit of God is resident in Him. God's resident spirit identifies Jesus as God. However Jesus represents a new creation that has eternal life and He certainly is the first one.

This is only logical in reference to the body of Jesus but Jesus is both body and Spirit. The spirit of God has always been which is why Jesus can say "before Abraham I am."

Because in truth people do not really see God when they see Jesus. All they see is the body that God is resident in. However seeing God in a body is as close as we will ever get to seeing Him.

 

[Oeste]

1. Notice I said, "In this instance". The point was that Mr Barnes does not believe Rev 3:14 can be used to conclude Christ was the ruler, author, origin or cause of creation.

I think Mr. Barnes was saying Rev 3:14 could not be used to conclude Christ was the origin or cause of creation, nor that he was created, and the more likely usage was ruler.

2. I put together a comprehensive 28 pg study on the doctrine. I did not find any passages in their original languages, grammar, and/or context that testify to Christ’s uncreated status. Although that does not rule out the notion I may have missed a passage or two. I'll be more than happy to discuss any of them.

Interesting! I see we're going to have a lot to discuss

3. John used the term for the Father and Son because both can be classified as “arche”.

Agreed

But only one of the two was the first in series.

But these verses don't tell us the Father created Christ. If they did, we would have conflict between Isaiah 43:10 and Colossians 1:15 & Revelation 3:14.

The Father created Christ (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14; Isa 43:10), which classifies The Father as an “arche”(source, origin of Christ). Subsequently, Christ created everything else (Joh 1:3), also making Christ an “arche”—the source, origin of all things seen and unseen! Essentially making Christ the first created being who created all things.

Are you reading from the NWT? They inserted "other" into their translation in order to arrive at the same conclusion. It changes the very meaning of the verse and is unnecessary.

It would also make Jesus first in a series of Gods when scripture states there is only one.

4. I disagree. No genitive phrase follows Rev 21:6 or Rev 22:16 hence creating a semantical distinction from Rev 3:14, which suggests The Father created the “Beginning” [Christ].

You appear to be stating this as a rule rather than (at best) an observation. I don't see the lack of a genitive phrase as significantly relevant. The "semantical distinction" you see (if we are to construe upon it a change in meaning), may simply mean the author wanted us to interpret arche as "ruler" rather than "source". As such there is no need to delve into a "created" Jesus at all.

Besides, in the LXX, we see arche followed by a genitive expression at Gen 40:20 and Exo 6:25 and I don't see either as "first in a series".

5. Are you implying the Father is incapable of creating an eternal spirit being with the capacity to create the universe and other spirit beings?

I'm stating He does not give His glory to another, which would include the glory of deity. Isaiah 48:11; Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 45:5). To do so would be to inject conflict into scripture for the sake of doctrine and there is no need to do so.

6. Daniel Wallace explains in an SG (subjective genitive) the verbal noun to which the genitive is related is converted into a verbal form and the genitive turns into its subject. For example, “the revelation of Jesus Christ …” in Gal 1:12 becomes “[What/the fact that] Jesus Christ reveals …”

Mr. Wallace has Rev 3:14 listed as one of the examples of an SG. Utilizing this example for Rev 3:14, we get: “[What/the fact that] God-The Father- creates. The immediate context in our passage actually answers the question, “What has The Father created?”--the Amen, Faithful, True witness, The Beginning--Christ!.

How can Christ be the created beginning when Genesis 1:1 tells us in the beginning he created the heavens and the earth? It would be an interjection of more conflict into scripture. As to Wallace, he does list Rev 3:14, but states “the genitive substantive functions semantically as the direct object of the verbal idea implicit in the head noun.” (Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics, page 116).

7. Conversely, we should not downplay an apparent distinction of a construct which may amplify and/or define its immediate context, as exemplified in point six above.

No argument here, but I think "beginning" has to be understood in the active sense.

The immediate and broader context actually defines the Son as both (source/first in series). If the holy spirit wanted to convey Christ was never the “first in a created series”, in Rev 3:14, he would have excluded the usage of the term “arche”—which can mean both [first in series; source/origin]. Instead I believe the hs would have exclusively inspired the term(s) which can only mean “source, origin, ruler, author”—such as “archon, poieo, aitios”.

I use the same line of reasoning with Jehovah Witnesses. For example, if the Holy Spirit wanted us to utter the Name rather than "Kurios" it was certainly within the Spirit's purview to put the Tetragrammaton from thought to paper.

8. Not exactly. There are two beginnings and "one" end. I believe the exclusion of "and end" in Rev 3:14 influences the context as a description of who or what Christ is . Versus the other passages which demonstrate what Christ does—“begins and ends” things. In other words, the SG indicates He Himself is/had a “beginning” (Rev 3:14), who in turn causes all things to have a “beginning and end” (Rev 1:8). This nuance coupled with supporting passages tips the scale toward Christ being created.

How do you explain 'what Christ does'- a creature who "begins and ends" things- in turn beginning himself?

Also, if Jesus has a temporal beginning in a created series, who are the other members of this temporal series who have the capacity to create like Jesus?

9. Jehovah and Jesus are not pronouns. They are nouns.

LOL! Agreed!! That's I get for posting after 1 am. I'm visualizing my elementary school teacher, Mrs. Murphy, sending me to the blackboard to diagram another ?!::!* sentence - a traumatic exercise no child should ever be forced into.

Nevertheless, Syntax plays a much bigger role than you may think in establishing the meaning of a word that can actually influence the context. John uses the same term (arche) in a prepositional phrase;

No argument here. I see originator, source, and created as all linguistically possible for Rev 3:14. But if I'm looking at things temporally, I would be more inclined to think of it as the beginning of creation rather than as the beginning of Christ.

1Jn 2:13 I write to you, fathers, Because you have known Him who is from the beginning (arche). I write to you, young men, Because you have overcome the wicked one. I write to you, little children, Because you have known the Father.

10. I believe John was attempting to convey both Father and Son are the beginning and end. The Father is the ultimate “beginning and end” as He created the second member of the God family with the ability to “begin and end” all things He created.

I disagree. This gives me two distinct Gods where scripture tells us one. (Deu 4:25)

11. Jehovah is a distributed title. Both The Father and Son are part of the same “God” [Jehovah] family. Similar to me and my son being part of the “Smith” [fictitious name] family. Notice how Habakuk identifies this Jehovah as “Rock”. The same term used by Paul to identify Christ in the OT (1 Co 10:4).

Still two separate and distinct Gods so I disagree.

However the parallelism you quoted is strikingly similar to that between Rev 3:16 and Rev 1:5 ("Faithful Witness" and "Ruler"). Reading it as "Faithful Witness" and "Created being" destroys this parallelism.

13. The feeling is mutual. I appreciate the engaging and respectful discussion.

Thanks James2ko, as do I.

Now if only we could package this and market it to the political arena. We could make millions!

 

[james2ko]

I think Mr. Barnes was saying Rev 3:14 could not be used to conclude Christ was the origin or cause of creation, nor that he was created, and the more likely usage was ruler.

1. That's correct. I believe Daniel Wallace's parsing of the end of Rev 3:14 suggesting "God the Father creates [The Beginning, The Amen, Faithful and True Witness]" heavily support the idea in Isa 43:10 and Col 1:15 that Christ was created, more so than His role as the source of the creation. Although that is one of His roles.

Isaiah 43:10 and Colossians 1:15 & Revelation 3:14.

2. We've discussed Rev 3:14. Let's delve into Isa 43:10. The verb "formed"[H3335], in vs 10, is in the nifal stem, perfect tense, third person. The nifal stem gives the verb a nuance of the subject being created. It also gives the verb a passive form making the subject (Christ) the recipient of the action. The perfect tense implies a completed past action. The third person simply means the subject (Christ) is referring to someone other than himself as the producer of the creative action.

Putting the grammatical pieces together we have the subject (EL/Christ) telling us the Father (third person) has (perfect tense--completed action) created (nifal stem/passive) no other "God" like Him (Christ) nor shall He create One like Him in the future. In other words, Christ was the only One created/formed of His kind—a one of a kind subordinate God! Isaiah repeats this distinctiveness of a “one of a kind God” in 44:8; 45:6; 46:9.

This also fits the context as He assured them He is the only "God" who would protect and deliver them from Babylonian captivity.

Are you reading from the NWT? They inserted "other" into their translation in order to arrive at the same conclusion. It changes the very meaning of the verse and is unnecessary

3. No. I'm not. I have never been associated or ever studied with a JW . I agree. The term "other" is an unnecessary addition to the text. But it doesn't change anything. As simple logic, and other scriptures utilizing the phrase (ta panta-all things; often with exclusions-Mat 21:22; Mk 4:11; Php 2:21; 3:8; Col 3:8; 2 Co 4:15), suggests Christ could not create Himself. Rev 3:14 and Isa 43:10 tells us who created Christ-The Father.

It would also make Jesus first in a series of Gods when scripture states there is only one.

4. There is one God family with more than one "God". This is prevalent throughout the Old and NT. Similar to me and my son being part of the "Smith" family. We are both referred to as Mr. Smith. One senior the other junior. Just as both The Father and Jesus are referred to as God--one Senior the other junior (Joh 14:28).

Isaiah 48:11; Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 45:5). To do so would be to inject conflict into scripture for the sake of doctrine and there is no need to do so.You appear to be stating this as a rule rather than (at best) an observation. I don't see the lack of a genitive phrase as significantly relevant. The "semantical distinction" you see (if we are to construe upon it a change in meaning), may simply mean the author wanted us to interpret arche as "ruler" rather than "source". As such there is no need to delve into a "created" Jesus at all.

4a. The issue here is you are choosing one (source, ruler) over the other (created). The scriptures testify they both apply to Christ.

Besides, in the LXX, we see arche followed by a genitive expression at Gen 40:20 and Exo 6:25 and I don't see either as "first in a series".

5. The difference is there is no evidence of a subjective genitive indicating God created anything in those passages, as is the case for Rev 3:14.

I'm stating He does not give His glory to another, which would include the glory of deity.Isaiah 48:11; Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 45:5). To do so would be to inject conflict into scripture for the sake of doctrine and there is no need to do so.

6. The Father gave part of His glory to His son (Joh 17:5, 24) and to us (2 co 3:18). So the passages in Isaiah would actually contradict your point. The Isaian passages must be a reference to Christ withholding His glory to mankind until a future time. Evidenced by the imperfect form of the verb "give" in Isa 42:8.

Genesis 1:1 tells us in the beginning he created the heavens and the earth?

7. Because the Father created Christ prior to "the beginning" . Notice:



It graphically depicts God the Father's solitude existence from eternity in the past up until the point He created The Son. The Father and Son planned and implemented the angelic creation and later the physical creation. Notice how The Father, Christ, and the angels were all in existence---in the beginning--for the creation of the heavens and earth, just as scripture indicates (Job 38:7;Joh 1:1;Gen 1:1).

But many assume "in the beginning" implicates the Father and Christ have co-existed from eternity in the past which is actually a contradiction, for eternity in the past cannot have a "beginning". Logically, "In the beginning" had to occur at some point AFTER eternity in the past.

This creates a gap of "time” (as God would have defined it) between eternity in the past and the creation of the physical universe. It was during this epoch Christ and the angelic hosts were created.

It would be an interjection of more conflict into scripture. As to Wallace, he does list Rev 3:14, but states “the genitive substantive functions semantically as the direct object of the verbal idea implicit in the head noun.” (Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics, page 116).

8. That's due to the fact you are reading the definition of a different genitive construct. Double check your reference. That definition covers the "Objective Genitive". Different fromthe "Subjective Genitive" from the previous section of the chapter.

I use the same line of reasoning with Jehovah Witnesses. For example, if the Holy Spirit wanted us to utter the Name rather than "Kurios" it was certainly within the Spirit's purview to put the Tetragrammaton from thought to paper.

9. That's great. So you understand my reasoning. BTW..I'm not nor was I ever a JW,

How do you explain 'what Christ does'- a creature who "begins and ends" things- in turn beginning himself?

10. You don't. It's illogical to create or "begin" yourself. What is logical is God creating/beginning Christ sometime before the beginning of the universe . The Father and Son planned an implemented the creation of the angels, then the universe, which is the actual "beginning" we read about Joh 1:1 and Gen 1:1 (see chart above)

Also, if Jesus has a temporal beginning in a created series, who are the other members of this temporal series who have the capacity to create like Jesus?

11. The Father through the Son (Gen 1:1-elohim [plural];Joh 1:3) were doing the creating.

No argument here. I see originator, source, and created as all linguistically possible for Rev 3:14. But if I'm looking at things temporally, I would be more inclined to think of it as the beginning of creation rather than as the beginning of Christ.

12. So did I at one point. Tradition sometimes gets the best of us. I am a non-conformist (blame my Levite forefathers for that one ). I must prove all things.

I disagree. This gives me two distinct Gods where scripture tells us one. (Deu 4:25)

13. Not sure how Deu 4:25 proves there is one God. In the LXX of Psa 110:1, David speaks of two "kurios" (term used for YHVH in the LXX ) which Christ in Mat 21:41-45 confirmed one was referring to Him, and the other was none other than the Father.

In the NT:

Luk 18:18-19 Once a religious leader asked Jesus this question: "Good Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?" 19 "Why do you call Me good?" Jesus asked him. "Only God is truly good. (NLT)​

If Jesus refers to a second person as "God", and Jesus elsewhere is also referred to as "God", logic would dictate two separate deities, who are part of the same "God" family. One greater, the other lesser (Joh 14:28).

Still two separate and distinct Gods so I disagree. However the parallelism you quoted is strikingly similar to that between Rev 3:16 and Rev 1:5 ("Faithful Witness" and "Ruler"). Reading it as "Faithful Witness" and "Created being" destroys this parallelism.

14. I'm assuming you mean Rev 3:14 and Rev 1:5. I believe that is bit too linear. Rev 1:5 describes Christ as an archon--not arche-- as does Rev 3:14. Remember "archon" can only mean ruler, "arche" can mean both. The two verses are complementary as I've explained previously, Christ is both--the first created being (arche) created to be a ruler (archon).

Now if only we could package this and market it to the political arena. We could make millions!

15. Or be beheaded by ISIS

 

[Oeste]

I think Mr. Barnes was saying Rev 3:14 could not be used to conclude Christ was the origin or cause of creation, nor that he was created, and the more likely usage was ruler.

1. That's correct. I believe Daniel Wallace's parsing of the end of Rev 3:14 suggesting "God the Father creates [The Beginning, The Amen, Faithful and True Witness]" heavily support the idea in Isa 43:10 and Col 1:15 that Christ was created, more so than His role as the source of the creation. Although that is one of His roles.

I disagree that Isa 43:10 and Col 1:15 "heavily support" the idea of a created Jesus. I find no support for it at all, but more on this later as I see we're moving on to Isa 43:10:

Isaiah 43:10 and Colossians 1:15 & Revelation 3:14.
2. We've discussed Rev 3:14. Let's delve into Isa 43:10. The verb "formed"[H3335], in vs 10, is in the nifal stem, perfect tense, third person. The nifal stem gives the verb a nuance of the subject being created. It also gives the verb a passive form making the subject (Christ) the recipient of the action. The perfect tense implies a completed past action. The third person simply means the subject (Christ) is referring to someone other than himself as the producer of the creative action.

Putting the grammatical pieces together we have the subject (EL/Christ) telling us the Father (third person) has (perfect tense--completed action) created (nifal stem/passive) no other "God" like Him (Christ) nor shall He create One like Him in the future.

I would certainly consider this as one of the more novel and imaginative interpretations of Isiah 43:10 that I've run across, but that's why I'm here, and I appreciate your discussing this with me. I would never have run across it otherwise. After all, topics like this certainly don't come up during half-time, over a beer, or while eating dinner
I like the the verse as found here:

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (EBR 1902)
— Ye, are my witnesses, Declareth Yahweh, And my Servant, whom I have chosen,—That ye may take note—and believe me, And perceive that, I, am He, Before me, was not formed* a GOD, Nor, after me, shall one come into being: (Isaiah 43:10)​

Ye is referring to the Jews (chosen by Yaweh) as witness (by His prediction, intervention and guidance) because they "believe me" (put their faith in Him) and perceive (distinguish) that, I, am He (third person singular, or "same"), Before me, was not formed* a God, nor, after me, shall one come into being.

*formed: יָצַ yatsar - passive Qal- (through the squeezing into shape); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively to determine (that is, form a resolution):— X earthen, fashion, form, frame, make (-r), potter, purpose.​

This is not about forming "...a God", but forming an idol. God is telling Cyrus, the Jews and anyone else with an ear to listen that there was no God (idol) molded or formed before Him, nor shall there be one after.

If you recall from your ancient mythology, many pagans believed their pantheon of gods were "new" gods, having fought and replaced their older gods. This statement attests to God's eternal nature, and to dismiss any notion that there was "a God" prior to Him or that there could possibly be "a God" after Him. This verse does not define Jesus as the beginning of a series of Gods.

In other words, Christ was the only One created/formed of His kind—a one of a kind subordinate God! Isaiah repeats this distinctiveness of a “one of a kind God” in 44:8; 45:6; 46:9.

Then you have conflict once again. To have a created series, as you defnined Rev 3:14, you must have more than one created God. If Christ is "one of a kind God" in 44:8, 45:6, and 46:9, then we cannot possibly translate "arche" as the beginning of a series at Rev 3:14. You can't be "ONE of a kind" one moment and "the beginning of a series" the next. The two are mutually exclusive.

Besides, Christianity is a monotheistic religion. I think you'll have a difficult time to arguing for two distinct Gods within a monotheistic religion.

There is one God family with more than one "God". This is prevalent throughout the Old and NT. Similar to me and my son being part of the "Smith" family. We are both referred to as Mr. Smith. One senior the other junior. Just as both The Father and Jesus are referred to as God--one Senior the other junior (Joh 14:28).

Isaiah 48:11; Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 45:5). To do so would be to inject conflict into scripture for the sake of doctrine and there is no need to do so.mm

The issue here is you are choosing one (source, ruler) over the other (created). The scriptures testify they both apply to Christ.

The issue is which interpretation properly testifies to Christ. Source, ruler, and created can all be translated from "arche" but I don't see them all applying to Christ. As a good Christian colleague whose opinion I value highly put it:

"Arguing for or against the deity of Christ using Rev. 3:14 is totally useless. The construction could be genitive meaning that Christ is the first in a series of created beings. Or, the construction could also be ablative which would then mean Christ was the source of creation and everything that is created radiates out from Him.... Both the form for the genitive and the form for the ablative are visually indistinguishable. So, the verse has no polemic value in the eternal battle between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Neither side can use it."​

Besides, in the LXX, we see arche followed by a genitive expression at Gen 40:20 and Exo 6:25 and I don't see either as "first in a series".

The difference is there is no evidence of a subjective genitive indicating God created anything in those passages, as is the case for Rev 3:14.

We would have to assume that this is what the author actually meant.

I think if an author writes a book where "gay" clearly means "happy" you're going to have a hard time convincing the school board he means "sexual orientation" regardless of how he uses the term in one specific sentence.

I'm stating He does not give His glory to another, which would include the glory of deity.Isaiah 48:11; Isaiah 42:8; Isaiah 45:5). To do so would be to inject conflict into scripture for the sake of doctrine and there is no need to do so.

The Father gave part of His glory to His son (Joh 17:5, 24) and to us (2 co 3:18). So the passages in Isaiah would actually contradict your point.

Not at all. You're explanation doesn't reconcile the two passages. God states he doesn't give His glory to another. Then we see Jesus asking for the glory he had with God. If God doesn't give his glory to another, why is Jesus asking for it? Was this "created Christ" unaware God doesn't hand out His glory to other Gods and third parties?

Also, 2 Co 3:18 doesn't say anything about God giving us His glory, but of the glory of God. We simply reflect His glory through Christ rather than our own carnal nature.

The Isaian passages must be a reference to Christ withholding His glory to mankind until a future time. Evidenced by the imperfect form of the verb "give" in Isa 42:8.

Christ is the Son of God, who led a sinless life. He cured the sick, raised the dead, and died for us on the cross as payment for our sins. On the 3rd day he rose from the dead so that we might have life. This is not a withholding but a revealing of God's glory to mankind through the life and death of Christ.

Because the Father created Christ prior to "the beginning" . Notice:

SEE IMAGE IN PRIOR JAMES2KO POST

It graphically depicts God the Father's solitude existence from eternity in the past up until the point He created The Son.

Thank you! I was prepared to graphically depict how I saw your argument but you have done so perfectly.

However your model depicts Jesus as created, a time when Jesus was not, no time when time was not, and God existing within time rather than time existing within God. I see it violating several scriptures, specifically John 1:3 and Col 1:16.

How do you explain 'what Christ does'- a creature who "begins and ends" things- in turn beginning himself?

You don't. It's illogical to create or "begin" yourself. What is logical is God creating/beginning Christ sometime before the beginning of the universe . The Father and Son planned an implemented the creation of the angels, then the universe, which is the actual "beginning" we read about Joh 1:1 and Gen 1:1 (see chart above)

Also, if Jesus has a temporal beginning in a created series, who are the other members of this temporal series who have the capacity to create like Jesus?

The Father through the Son (Gen 1:1-elohim [plural];Joh 1:3) were doing the creating.

Okay, based on your diagram and response to my questions I believe I see the problem, but to illustrate I'll need to complete a mock up of your diagram, which I'll do on my next post.

 

[Oeste]

 

[savagewind]

Everyone has an essence. Christ is God's essence imo.

 

[james2ko]

I disagree that Isa 43:10 and Col 1:15 "heavily support" the idea of a created Jesus. I find no support for it at all, but more on this later as I see we're moving on to Isa 43:10:

1. I moved on because the SG nuance in Rev 3:14 says it all and it seems you were struggling (looking under the wrong chapter sub-heading in DW book) to find grammatical evidence to counter it. The perhaps unwitting contradictory statement, presented by your colleague in point 7, reaffirms my decision to move on.

I would certainly consider this as one of the more novel and imaginative interpretations of Isiah 43:10 that I've run across, but that's why I'm here, and I appreciate your discussing this with me. I would never have run across it otherwise. After all, topics like this certainly don't come up during half-time, over a beer, or while eating dinner

1a. You may find it novel and imaginitive due to the overwhelming majority of theologians, commentators, and grammarians, bias of a self-existing, co-eternal Godhead.

I like the the verse as found here:

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (EBR 1902)
— Ye, are my witnesses, Declareth Yahweh, And my Servant, whom I have chosen,—That ye may take note—and believe me, And perceive that, I, am He, Before me, was not formed* a GOD, Nor, after me, shall one come into being: (Isaiah 43:10)

Ye is referring to the Jews (chosen by Yaweh) as witness (by His prediction, intervention and guidance) because they "believe me" (put their faith in Him) and perceive (distinguish) that, I, am He (third person singular, or "same"), Before me, was not formed* a God, nor, after me, shall one come into being.

*formed: יָצַ yatsar - passive Qal- (through the squeezing into shape); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively to determine (that is, form a resolution):— X earthen, fashion, form, frame, make (-r), potter, purpose.

2. A passive Qal makes this verb a "niphal", which also carries a "created" nuance:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3335&t=KJV

This is not about forming "...a God", but forming an idol. God is telling Cyrus, the Jews and anyone else with an ear to listen that there was no God (idol) molded or formed before Him, nor shall there be one after.

3. When a reference to "god" in scripture is referred to as an "idol" no translation I'm aware of ever capitalizes the term "god". Yet you capitalized "God" an implicate Him as being a formed idol. That's the paradox of this passage--is it referring to "God" (deity) being created or a god (idol). The translators are at odds as to which G(g)od to use. The grammar and context have convinced me Christ is establishing Himself as a one of a kind created God.

If you recall from your ancient mythology, many pagans believed their pantheon of gods were "new" gods, having fought and replaced their older gods. This statement attests to God's eternal nature, and to dismiss any notion that there was "a God" prior to Him or that there could possibly be "a God" after Him. This verse does not define Jesus as the beginning of a series of Gods.

4. The very reason why God needed to let the Israelites know that He is not like those other gods who replace themselves. He is the only one created of His kind. There never was one created like Him and there will never be another created like Him. Just as the syntax suggest.

Then you have conflict once again. To have a created series, as you defnined Rev 3:14, you must have more than one created God. If Christ is "one of a kind God" in 44:8, 45:6, and 46:9, then we cannot possibly translate "arche" as the beginning of a series at Rev 3:14. You can't be "ONE of a kind" one moment and "the beginning of a series" the next. The two are mutually exclusive.

5. You can actually be both. The created one-of-a-kind God creates all that exists. The first created spirit being was created like no other created spirit being . I believe scripture supports the fact angels (who are created "lesser" God's) are also part of the YHVH/God family. Angels (not suggesting Christ was an angel) are also referred to as YHVH.

Besides, Christianity is a monotheistic religion. I think you'll have a difficult time to arguing for two distinct Gods within a monotheistic religion.

6. Many would beg to differ. Topic for another thread.

The issue is which interpretation properly testifies to Christ. Source, ruler, and created can all be translated from "arche" but I don't see them all applying to Christ. As a good Christian colleague whose opinion I value highly put it:

"Arguing for or against the deity of Christ using Rev. 3:14 is totally useless. The construction could be genitive meaning that Christ is the first in a series of created beings. Or, the construction could also be ablative which would then mean Christ was the source of creation and everything that is created radiates out from Him.... Both the form for the genitive and the form for the ablative are visually indistinguishable. "

7. With all due respect, your colleague outlines the difference between the two, then strangely asserts there is no difference. Since there is no difference, it actually proves my point. When theological bias is removed, both forms can apply to Christ.

So, the verse has no polemic value in the eternal battle between Trinitarianism and Unitarianism. Neither side can use it."

8. What I believe is not adequately defined by either theological position.

 

[james2ko]

We would have to assume that this is what the author actually meant.I think if an author writes a book where "gay" clearly means "happy" you're going to have a hard time convincing the school board he means "sexual orientation" regardless of how he uses the term in one specific sentence.

9. True. But an attentive, diligent reader would scour the "whole" book and get a sense of what the author actually meant by the term.

Not at all. You're explanation doesn't reconcile the two passages. God states he doesn't give His glory to another. Then we see Jesus asking for the glory he had with God. If God doesn't give his glory to another, why is Jesus asking for it? Was this "created Christ" unaware God doesn't hand out His glory to other Gods and third parties?

10. Sure it does. He asked for the glory He "had" [imperfect] with Him before the world was. Christ is asking for a "restoration" of His glory. The implication is, He was given and possessed a certain amount of glory in the past. So God (The Father) does give His glory to another.

Also, 2 Co 3:18 doesn't say anything about God giving us His glory, but of the glory of God. We simply reflect His glory through Christ rather than our own carnal nature.

11. Another valid interpretation.

Christ is the Son of God, who led a sinless life. He cured the sick, raised the dead, and died for us on the cross as payment for our sins. On the 3rd day he rose from the dead so that we might have life. This is not a withholding but a revealing of God's glory to mankind through the life and death of Christ.

12. Withholding for a certain period of time before revealing it. Both terms apply, only separated by time.

Thank you! I was prepared to graphically depict how I saw your argument but you have done so perfectly. However your model depicts Jesus as created, a time when Jesus was not, no time when time was not, and God existing within time rather than time existing within God.

13. There was divine activity before the bodies we use to measure time were created by Christ (universe).

Joh 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world [kosmos]

1Pe 1:20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world [kosmos], but was manifest in these last times for you

1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,

2Ti 1:9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

Tit 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,​

It was during this epoch, Christ was created. After He was created, He and the Father created The beginning of "our" time and space.

I see it violating several scriptures, specifically John 1:3 and Col 1:16.

14. I dont see it violating any.

Problem: Arian models generally depict time as eternal whereas scripture shows time as created (Col 1:16; Joh 1:3). In the beginning (time) "God created the heavens and the earth "(space). A temporal beginning is defined as "The point in time or space at which something starts" Time cannot possibly exist at or prior to Christ's creation if all things are created through Christ. In other words, Christ cannot be the temporal beginning if time already exists, and any temporal beginning cannot "begin" if time doesnt exist.

15. The time and space created in the beginning was for us humans to measure, benefit, utilize, explore, and one day possess.

Conclusion: a created Christ is contrary to scripture. Rev 3:14 cannot mean a temporal beginning for the creation of Christ.

16. Conclusion: There was divine activity prior to "the beginning". The Scriptures listed in point 13 above indicate God operates outside of the temporal time and space He and the Son created. . Rev 3:14 can mean Christ was the first spirit being created by the Father. He was created prior to His involvement of the creation of temporal time. As the graph depicts.

 

[Oeste]

1. I moved on because the SG nuance in Rev 3:14 says it all and it seems you were struggling (looking under the wrong chapter sub-heading in DW book) to find grammatical evidence to counter it. The perhaps unwitting contradictory statement, presented by your colleague in point 7, reaffirms my decision to move on.

1a. You may find it novel and imaginitive due to the overwhelming majority of theologians, commentators, and grammarians, bias of a self-existing, co-eternal Godhead.

I see interpreting Rev 3:14 as the beginning of a created Christ to be logically self-defeating, rather than "bias". I've tried to avoid "appeals to authority" unless that authority is scripture because I believe other appeals would be wasted.

This leads me to another question, since I believe your interpretation places you in conflict with scripture. Do your studies lead you to believe scripture harmonious, occasionally in conflict, or often conflicted? It appears to me that the more one believes scripture in conflict, the more novel certain passages can be interpreted. Certainly this forum is proof of that.

2. A passive Qal makes this verb a "niphal", which also carries a "created" nuance:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3335&t=KJV

Agreed, but I see the creation as man made idols of gods.

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (EBR 1902)
— Ye, are my witnesses, Declareth Yahweh, And my Servant, whom I have chosen,—That ye may take note—and believe me, And perceive that, I, am He, Before me, was not formed* a GOD, Nor, after me, shall one come into being: (Isaiah 43:10)

3. When a reference to "god" in scripture is referred to as an "idol" no translation I'm aware of ever capitalizes the term "god". Yet you capitalized "God" an implicate Him as being a formed idol.

I quoted EBR purposefully. Rotherham's emphasized bible uses "emphatic idiom" and diacritical marks (something you would likely appreciate) based on text from Westcott and Hott (something our Jehovah Witness friends would appreciate).

As to why, I think this passage helps demonstrates there are no Gods or gods but God, and any God or god besides the one true God exists only in the minds of men ( see also 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Timothy 2:5)

That's the paradox of this passage--is it referring to "God" (deity) being created or a god (idol). The translators are at odds as to which G(g)od to use. The grammar and context have convinced me Christ is establishing Himself as a one of a kind created God.

As you have probably surmised, I am Trinitarian. I grew up attending a Trinitarian church but became Arian after accepting a free "bible" study as a teenager. I found the Watchtower to be the only organization where today's "truths" are tomorrow's heresies, and yesterday's heresies proudly proclaimed as today’s “truth”.

At this time, there was a gradual and excited build-up to 1975, which was supposed to mark the end of 6,000 years of human history. I decided to stop studying after being warned about going to college in 1971. I recall attending a meeting in 1976 but instead of hearing the expected purge of false prophets I instead heard a people slowly convincing themselves there had never been a build up to 1975.

But I digress. I don't believe there is any way to actually form "...a God" or any other deity because there is only one God (although you, like the Jehovah Witnesses, believe there are many). I also believe Jesus is God, but not "...a God" nor "...a god" because there are no God or gods but God.
If there were other Gods with big G's or small g's they certainly had a chance to prove themselves at Mt. Carmel, but they were silent.

But at least we can agree that the Father was not formed. It's a small start, but a start nevertheless, and after all this is said and done, may be the only thing we can hang our hat on.

If you recall from your ancient mythology, many pagans believed their pantheon of gods were "new" gods, having fought and replaced their older gods. This statement attests to God's eternal nature, and to dismiss any notion that there was "a God" prior to Him or that there could possibly be "a God" after Him. This verse does not define Jesus as the beginning of a series of Gods.

4. The very reason why God needed to let the Israelites know that He is not like those other gods who replace themselves. He is the only one created of His kind. There never was one created like Him and there will never be another created like Him. Just as the syntax suggest.

Yet you say Jesus is the beginning of a created series. I'm still not understanding how Jesus can be the beginning of a series of Gods if he's the only unique member and there are no Gods besides the Almighty.

Then you have conflict once again. To have a created series, as you defined Rev 3:14, you must have more than one created God. If Christ is "one of a kind God" in 44:8, 45:6, and 46:9, then we cannot possibly translate "arche" as the beginning of a series at Rev 3:14. You can't be "ONE of a kind" one moment and "the beginning of a series" the next. The two are mutually exclusive.

5. You can actually be both. The created one-of-a-kind God creates all that exists. The first created spirit being was created like no other created spirit being.

If Jesus “was created like no other created spirit being”, then he is not part of a series. To be part of a series, I would expect to see other spirit creatures like Jesus created by Yahweh. There would be no "only begotten" but a "second begotten", a "third begotten" and so on.

I believe scripture supports the fact angels (who are created "lesser" God's) are also part of the YHVH/God family. Angels (not suggesting Christ was an angel) are also referred to as YHVH.

IMO, this interpretation conflicts with Corinthians 8:6. You're throwing the Father, Jesus and the angels into the same "God" or "god" series. We can easily go further, taking Psalm 82:6 and throwing mankind into a created god series as Witnesses do.

What do you make of this verse? :

"I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.” Isaiah 45:5​

If Jesus is speaking as a separately distinct God here, then the Father is in trouble, and if the Father is speaking as a separately distinct God here, then Jesus is in trouble. Either way the angels, or other gods in this series are left in the woodshed with nothing to say.

Also, the verse is not qualifying or distinguishing between God or gods with a capital or small “G”. It simply says "no God" which would appear to wipe out the entire "series" of created gods you feel compose the YHVH/God family.

Besides, Christianity is a monotheistic religion. I think you'll have a difficult time to arguing for two distinct Gods within a monotheistic religion.

6. Many would beg to differ. Topic for another thread.

I'm thinking the reverse... many view Christianity as monotheistic and few agree otherwise. There may be many here who agree with you though.

The issue is which interpretation properly testifies to Christ. Source, ruler, and created can all be translated from "arche" but I don't see them all applying to Christ. As a good Christian colleague whose opinion I value highly put it:

"Arguing for or against the deity of Christ using Rev. 3:14 is totally useless. The construction could be genitive meaning that Christ is the first in a series of created beings. Or, the construction could also be ablative which would then mean Christ was the source of creation and everything that is created radiates out from Him.... Both the form for the genitive and the form for the ablative are visually indistinguishable. "

7. With all due respect, your colleague outlines the difference between the two, then strangely asserts there is no difference. Since there is no difference, it actually proves my point. When theological bias is removed, both forms can apply to Christ.

A word like "arche" can have different meanings but that does not necessarily mean they all apply. As stated earlier, "gay" can refer to an individual's mood or sexual orientation, but that doesn't necessarily mean both interpretations apply to that individual.

 

[Oeste]

You're explanation doesn't reconcile the two passages. God states he doesn't give His glory to another. Then we see Jesus asking for the glory he had with God.

[/quote] [/quote]

10. Sure it does. He asked for the glory He "had" [imperfect] with Him before the world was. Christ is asking for a "restoration" of His glory.

That would mean Christ was created with glory that God specifically states he refuses to give anyone. How can that happen?

The implication is, He was given and possessed a certain amount of glory in the past.

How is Christ given glory that God doesn't share? God doesn't say "I no longer share my glory" or "I'm no longer giving it out". He simply says he doesn't give his glory to another.

The implication to me is that if God doesn't share His glory, He's not going to share it even if Jesus demands it back. Your interpretation spells more trouble for Jesus.

So God (The Father) does give His glory to another.

Except Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 43:11 specifically state He doesn't.

Christ is the Son of God, who led a sinless life. He cured the sick, raised the dead, and died for us on the cross as payment for our sins. On the 3rd day he rose from the dead so that we might have life. This is not a withholding but a revealing of God's glory to mankind through the life and death of Christ.

12. Withholding for a certain period of time before revealing it. Both terms apply, only separated by time.

I see this as introducing more conflict into scripture:

"...since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:19-20

"Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves." (John 14: 9-11)

His glory is evident through all creation, the deliverance of the Jews, the works of Christ, and the formation and spread of the church. I don't see a withholding but a revealing without a separation in time.

However your model depicts Jesus as created, a time when Jesus was not, no time when time was not, and God existing within time rather than time existing within God.

13. There was divine activity before the bodies we use to measure time were created by Christ (universe).


Joh 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world [kosmos]

1Pe 1:20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world [kosmos], but was manifest in these last times for you

1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory,

2Ti 1:9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

Tit 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began,

These verses show Jesus existed before time, and since he existed before time, he is first but not the created beginning.

You need time in order to have a temporal beginning. To speak of a temporal beginning where time doesn't exist is meaningless. The only way to speak of "the beginning" where time doesn't exist is to speak of it as origin or source, which is the logical conclusion of the vast majority of theologians and why they chose to interpret Rev 13:4 as they did. IMO, this is not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to logic.

It was during this epoch, Christ was created.

Epoch? How can Christ be created during an epoch? You need time for an epoch, and Jesus came before all things, not during them.

After He was created, He and the Father created The beginning of "our" time and space.

Then our universe (Genesis) is the beginning and Christ cannot be. You cannot have a beginning before time because any beginning requires time. Using your model, you could certainly show Jesus is first or foremost (being the "first created") but your model doesn't show Jesus as "the beginning". Why? Because Jesus is "before all things"...the "visible and invisible"... which of course includes space and time.



This model shows a created Jesus, but the created Jesus is created in time.

Problem: Arian models generally depict time as eternal whereas scripture shows time as created (Col 1:16; Joh 1:3). In the beginning (time) "God created the heavens and the earth "(space). A temporal beginning is defined as "The point in time or space at which something starts" Time cannot possibly exist at or prior to Christ's creation if all things are created through Christ. In other words, Christ cannot be the temporal beginning if time already exists, and any temporal beginning cannot "begin" if time doesn’t exist.

15. The time and space created in the beginning was for us humans to measure, benefit, utilize, explore, and one day possess.

I have no problem with God creating time and space for our benefit. It may benefit angels as well, I really don't know. I do have a problem conceptualizing Christ as beginning in time before he had an opportunity to create time to begin with as shown in the model below:

Conclusion: a created Christ is contrary to scripture. Rev 3:14 cannot mean a temporal beginning for the creation of Christ.

16. Conclusion: There was divine activity prior to "the beginning".

I'll go a bit further and say we can conclude both. Rev 3:14 cannot mean a temporal beginning for the creation of Christ and there was plenty of divine activity prior to "the beginning" since God (Jesus, Father, Holy Spirit) existed before the creation of time.

This model shows time, space, and the created universe existing within God, rather than God existing within His creation. IMO, it reflects the traditional Christian view of our created universe and is logically consistent with scripture.

The Scriptures listed in point 13 above indicate God operates outside of the temporal time and space He and the Son created. . Rev 3:14 can mean Christ was the first spirit being created by the Father. He was created prior to His involvement of the creation of temporal time. As the graph depicts.

Your model indicates "time in some form existed" prior to the creation of Christ. I don't see how this is possible if Christ is "before all things". If a created Christ is the "firstborn of all creation", including the "visible and invisible", then he is before the creation of time, and time can't possibly exist before the creation of Christ. If time already exists, Christ is the "second born" and not the firstborn" of all creation.

On the other hand, if temporally Christ is "the beginning" space and time are required (as your model shows) then Christ is not" before all things".

 

[james2ko]

[/quote]



That would mean Christ was created with glory that God specifically states he refuses to give anyone. How can that happen?



How is Christ given glory that God doesn't share? God doesn't say "I no longer share my glory" or "I'm no longer giving it out". He simply says he doesn't give his glory to another.

The implication to me is that if God doesn't share His glory, He's not going to share it even if Jesus demands it back. Your interpretation spells more trouble for Jesus.



Except Isaiah 42:8 and Isaiah 43:11 specifically state He doesn't.





I see this as introducing more conflict into scripture:

"...since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." Romans 1:19-20

"Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves." (John 14: 9-11)

His glory is evident through all creation, the deliverance of the Jews, the works of Christ, and the formation and spread of the church. I don't see a withholding but a revealing without a separation in time.






These verses show Jesus existed before time, and since he existed before time, he is first but not the created beginning.

You need time in order to have a temporal beginning. To speak of a temporal beginning where time doesn't exist is meaningless. The only way to speak of "the beginning" where time doesn't exist is to speak of it as origin or source, which is the logical conclusion of the vast majority of theologians and why they chose to interpret Rev 13:4 as they did. IMO, this is not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to logic.




Epoch? How can Christ be created during an epoch? You need time for an epoch, and Jesus came before all things, not during them.




Then our universe (Genesis) is the beginning and Christ cannot be. You cannot have a beginning before time because any beginning requires time. Using your model, you could certainly show Jesus is first or foremost (being the "first created") but your model doesn't show Jesus as "the beginning". Why? Because Jesus is "before all things"...the "visible and invisible"... which of course includes space and time.



This model shows a created Jesus, but the created Jesus is created in time.





I have no problem with God creating time and space for our benefit. It may benefit angels as well, I really don't know. I do have a problem conceptualizing Christ as beginning in time before he had an opportunity to create time to begin with as shown in the model below:

View attachment 11701





I'll go a bit further and say we can conclude both. Rev 3:14 cannot mean a temporal beginning for the creation of Christ and there was plenty of divine activity prior to "the beginning" since God (Jesus, Father, Holy Spirit) existed before the creation of time.

View attachment 11699

This model shows time, space, and the created universe existing within God, rather than God existing within His creation. IMO, it reflects the traditional Christian view of our created universe and is logically consistent with scripture.




View attachment 11700

Your model indicates "time in some form existed" prior to the creation of Christ. I don't see how this is possible if Christ is "before all things". If a created Christ is the "firstborn of all creation", including the "visible and invisible", then he is before the creation of time, and time can't possibly exist before the creation of Christ. If time already exists, Christ is the "second born" and not the firstborn" of all creation.

On the other hand, if temporally Christ is "the beginning" space and time are required (as your model shows) then Christ is not" before all things".[/QUOTE]