Did Jesus Have a Beginning? Was He Created?

66 comments to Did Jesus Have a Beginning? Was He Created?

• Joseph X.

  September 29, 2026 at 10:40 pm · Reply

  Your argument depends less upon any single text explicitly saying that the Son was created than upon making several different texts supply missing premises for one another. Colossians 1:15 is made to supply membership in creation; Colossians 1:16 is then restricted to “all other things”; Revelation 3:14 is made to define Christ as the first item in the created series; Proverbs 8:22 is then brought in to supply the otherwise absent verb “create”; and the distinction between creation “from” the Father and “through” the Son is finally treated as though it were itself a Creator–creature distinction. That construction can be made internally coherent, but internal coherence is not the same thing as exegesis. The decisive question is whether the individual texts actually state the premises you need, rather than merely becoming compatible with them after the created-Son conclusion has already been assumed.

  You begin with Colossians 1:15 and the statement that Christ is “the image of the invisible God.” Certainly εἰκών means “image,” and Trinitarian theology does not identify the Son with the Father as though Father and Son were the same person. But you move too quickly from “image” to “representative,” as though εἰκών therefore implied a merely creaturely copy. Nothing in the semantics of εἰκών establishes that conclusion. In the very sentence in which Paul calls Christ the image of the invisible God, he proceeds to place the entire created order in a comprehensive causal relation to him. Thus the issue cannot be decided by an English analogy with a picture or icon. Hebrews 1:3 strengthens the same conceptual pattern by describing the Son as the ἀπαύγασμα of God’s glory and the χαρακτήρ of his ὑπόστασις, while simultaneously attributing the sustaining of τὰ πάντα to him. “Image” therefore distinguishes the Son personally from the Father while presenting him as the perfect manifestation of the invisible God; it does not classify him as a creature.

  There is also a simple textual mistake when you say that Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus “the firstborn of God.” It does not. The Greek is πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, “firstborn of/in relation to all creation.” The semantic relation between πρωτότοκος and πάσης κτίσεως is precisely what is disputed. You cannot paraphrase the phrase as though Paul had written “God’s firstborn creature” and then reason from the paraphrase.

  You are right that πρωτότοκος can denote temporal priority. You are also right that it should not simply be emptied of its primogeniture background and replaced by the dictionary gloss “supreme.” The problem is your stronger claim that when πρωτότοκος is followed by a genitive the referent must be a constituent member of the class denoted by that genitive. Greek does not possess such an automatic rule. Even within literal firstborn constructions, the semantic relation of the genitive is not always partitive. “The firstborn of Pharaoh” does not mean that Pharaoh is a class containing his firstborn as one of its members; it expresses a kinship relation. Consequently, examples such as “firstborn of Pharaoh,” “firstborn of cattle,” and “firstborn of the dead” cannot be collapsed into one invariant syntactical algorithm.

  This is why Psalm 89:27 remains relevant even though David is himself a king. The point is not that David belongs to no conceivable category related to those over whom he is exalted. The point is that πρωτότοκος demonstrably carries the juridical and hierarchical associations of primogeniture apart from literal chronological first birth. God says that he will “make” David firstborn and immediately associates that status with his being exalted among the kings of the earth. David was not Jesse’s first son, was not Israel’s first king, and certainly was not the chronologically first king on earth. The title therefore cannot be reduced to “the one who was literally born first.” Murray Harris accordingly notes both temporal priority and preeminent rank within the semantic potential of πρωτότοκος, with Psalm 89 providing the obvious biblical control.

  That observation does not magically prove that πάσης κτίσεως in Colossians 1:15 is a genitive of subordination. It does something more modest but essential: it destroys your claim that the lexical semantics of πρωτότοκος alone force a first-created interpretation. Once that alleged lexical necessity disappears, the genitive must be interpreted from the construction and its context. Daniel Wallace classifies it as subordination; other interpreters have preferred comparative, relational, or even partitive analyses. A Trinitarian need not pretend that a partitive analysis is grammatically unimaginable. The point is that it is not grammatically entailed, and the immediate discourse strongly resists the ontological conclusion you draw from it.

  Your appeal to Colossians 1:18 does not settle verse 15 because the syntax is different. Verse 18 calls Christ πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, explicitly “firstborn from among the dead.” The preposition ἐκ establishes his emergence from the realm of the dead, which is entirely appropriate because Christ genuinely died and rose. Verse 15 does not say πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῆς κτίσεως, “firstborn from among creation.” It has the bare genitive πάσης κτίσεως. You may argue that a bare genitive can be partitive, and that is true; what you may not do is pretend that verse 18 reproduces the syntax of verse 15 and therefore automatically determines it.

  Verse 18 also explains why it is misleading to claim that “firstborn from the dead” proves that πρωτότοκος must always mean chronological firstness rather than status. In the resurrection clause, temporal priority and supremacy work together. Christ inaugurates resurrection life that is no longer subject to death, and Paul immediately gives the rhetorical purpose: ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων, so that he might hold first place in everything. The NET notes likewise acknowledge chronological priority in verse 18 while treating verse 15 differently because its surrounding syntax is different. Parallelism does not require semantic identity in every component. Paul can present Christ as supreme with respect to original creation for one stated reason and supreme with respect to resurrection for another.

  Your discussion of πρωτόκτιστος does not alter that. A careful Trinitarian argument should not claim that because a Greek adjective meaning “first-created” eventually existed, Paul would necessarily have used it if he believed Christ to be a creature. Authors are not obligated to use whatever later lexicographers might regard as the maximally explicit adjective. The important observation is narrower: Paul did not write πρωτόκτιστος. He wrote πρωτότοκος. Consequently, “first-created” is already an interpretation of his word rather than its lexical equivalent.

  Clement of Alexandria does not establish that the two terms were simply synonymous in Pauline Greek. Clement is writing more than a century after Paul, and his terminology is notoriously fluid in precisely this area. In one passage he can speak of Wisdom in language rendered “first of God’s creation,” but elsewhere he sharply distinguishes the First-begotten Son, through whom all things were made, from angelic beings that “had a beginning.” In the sixth book of the Stromata, Clement calls the Son the “First-begotten,” cites John 1:3 of him, and describes him as the teacher of created beings. Moreover, Clementian material uses “first-created” terminology for celestial beings subordinate to the Son. Whatever reconstruction you adopt of Clement’s still-developing Logos theology, his late-second- and early-third-century terminological habits cannot establish that Paul’s πρωτότοκος in the first century meant “first-created.”

  The decisive difficulty with your interpretation of Colossians begins in verse 16. Paul does not simply say that some subsequent creatures came into existence through Christ. He begins with ὅτι, “because,” thereby explaining why Christ is πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως: ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα. The τὰ πάντα are then expansively defined as what is in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, including thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities. Paul repeats τὰ πάντα and says that the whole was created δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτόν, through him and for him. The text actually says “all things”; the present New World Translation itself acknowledges that the literal Greek is “all things” and defends “all other things” as an interpretive expansion derived from its reading of verse 15.

  It is therefore not sufficient to answer that πᾶς can sometimes be contextually restricted. Of course it can. No competent Trinitarian should deny ordinary pragmatic restriction. The question is what produces the restriction in a particular sentence. Luke 13:2 can be rendered “all the other Galileans” because Jesus explicitly begins with “these Galileans” and compares them with πάντας τοὺς Γαλιλαίους; their membership in the class “Galileans” is already stated. Luke 21:29 has “the fig tree and all the trees”; since a fig tree is obviously a tree, English may naturally say “all the other trees” to make the relationship idiomatic. The Greek itself nevertheless reads πάντα τὰ δένδρα. Philippians 2:21 has οἱ πάντες, “they all/everyone,” in a discourse where Timothy has already been singled out as the exception; notably, the NIV you invoke does not actually translate it “all the others” but “everyone.” These passages demonstrate contextual restriction. They do not establish a lexical meaning of πᾶς equivalent to “all other.”

  First Corinthians 15:27 actually works against your use of it. Paul says that “all things” have been subjected under Christ and then explicitly states the exception: it is evident that the one who subjected all things to Christ is excepted. The exclusion is recoverable because Paul himself supplies it. Colossians 1:16 supplies no analogous exclusion of Christ from τὰ πάντα. Your exclusion becomes necessary only after you have already interpreted πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως as “the first creature.” You then insert “other” into verse 16 on the basis of that interpretation and subsequently cite “all other things” as evidence that Christ belongs to creation. That is circular if the translated addition is allowed to become proof of the premise that generated it.

  John 1:3 makes the problem even sharper because John reinforces the universal positively and negatively: πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, and without him οὐδὲ ἕν came into being. The distinction is between the Logos who already “was” in the beginning and the comprehensive category of things that “came into being” through him. The negative clause is particularly important: not even one thing belonging to the category of what came into being came into being apart from him. Standard Johannine commentary accordingly recognizes the contrast between the being of the Logos and the coming-into-being of creation. If the Logos himself belongs to the class of things that came into being, then John’s formulation again requires an unstated exception precisely where he adds a negative universal in order to exclude exceptions.

  Your distinction between Jesus as the “agent of creation” and God as “the Creator himself” also asks more of the preposition διά than Greek permits. διά with the genitive can certainly express mediation or agency. What it cannot do is establish that the mediating agent is therefore ontologically a creature. Hebrews 2:10 speaks of God himself as the one δι’ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα, the one “for whom” and “through whom” all things exist. The context refers to God, not Christ. Commentators explicitly recognize δι’ οὗ there as describing God’s creative agency. Romans 11:36 similarly says of God, ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα: all things are from him, through him, and to him. Thus “through whom” is not a grammatical marker meaning “created instrument rather than Creator.”

  This observation is directly relevant to 1 Corinthians 8:6. Paul does distinguish the Father as ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα and the Lord Jesus Christ as δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα. Trinitarian theology has never needed to erase that distinction. The Father is characteristically confessed as source, the Son as the one through whom the Father creates. But the grammatical distinction between ἐκ and διά is a distinction of relational mode, not a declaration that the second referent belongs to the class of creatures. Hebrews 2:10 alone is enough to prevent that inference, since διά is there used of God’s own relationship to all things.

  Indeed, your appeal to “agency” underestimates what Colossians says. Paul does not merely write δι’ αὐτοῦ. Creation occurs ἐν αὐτῷ, through him, and εἰς αὐτόν, toward or for him. The Son is therefore presented not merely as an intermediate tool standing between God and creation but as the sphere or determinative locus, mediating cause, and telos of the created totality. That combination is extraordinary if Paul’s intention is simply to identify the highest creature.

  Hebrews 1 creates the same difficulty for your model. You insert into Hebrews 1:3 the qualification that the Son sustains all things “now in these last days, now after he was raised to the glory on high.” But that qualification is yours, not the syntax of Hebrews. The Greek describes the Son with the present participles ὢν and φέρων: being the radiance of God’s glory and sustaining or carrying all things by his powerful word. The aorist participle ποιησάμενος then refers to his completed purification of sins, followed by the main verb ἐκάθισεν, “he sat down.” The natural grammatical contrast is therefore between characteristic or ongoing predicates of the Son and the completed redemptive act preceding his enthronement. A focused study of Hebrews 1:3 likewise notes that φέρων is present and depicts continuing preservation of the universe rather than an activity that began only at the resurrection.

  Hebrews then goes considerably beyond calling the Son an intermediary. In Hebrews 1:10–12 the author takes Psalm 102:25–27, where the Psalm addresses YHWH as the one who founded the earth and made the heavens, and places that language in his catena concerning the Son: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands.” The created heavens and earth perish; the Son remains. The usual reading of the catena has therefore recognized that language originally predicated of God’s creative work is being applied to the Son. There are modern proposals challenging whether verses 10–12 should be taken as directly addressed to the Son, so this point should not be presented as though no scholarly disagreement exists. But the conventional syntactical reading of Hebrews 1 remains formidable evidence against reducing “through whom he made the worlds” to “God created the Son and then employed that creature.”

  Nor does Hebrews 1:4 mean that the Son only began to possess his cosmic status after resurrection. The statement that he “became superior to the angels” belongs to Hebrews’ incarnational and enthronement argument. It describes the exalted status of the incarnate Son relative to angels; it does not say that prior to resurrection he was ontologically an angel or another created spirit. The chapter has already said that the worlds were made through him, that he bears God’s glory and exact imprint, and that he sustains all things. It then distinguishes him sharply from angels by asking, “To which of the angels did he ever say, ‘You are my Son’?” and commands the angels to worship him. Scholarship on Hebrews’ angelology consistently recognizes the deliberate differentiation between the Son and the angelic order.

  Your use of Colossians 1:18 and πρωτεύω does not restore the first-creature interpretation. Yes, πρωτεύω means to be first or hold first place. That is precisely why Paul’s concluding clause is important: his double “firstborn” presentation culminates in universal primacy. But you cannot simply substitute “be chronologically created first” for πρωτεύω. In verse 18 Christ’s resurrection priority contributes to his eschatological supremacy; in verses 15–17 his relation to creation is explained differently, by the fact that all things were created in, through, and for him and that he is πρὸ πάντων. The literary parallel is between two spheres of Christ’s primacy, not between two identical acts in which God first creates Christ and later recreates him.

  Revelation 3:14 deserves the same degree of precision. You are correct about one important point that Trinitarian apologetics sometimes handles too casually: ἀρχή can, in suitable contexts, denote the beginning or initial member of something, and the phrase ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ has been judged by BDAG to permit a “first-created” construal at the level of lexical possibility or probability. Michael Svigel’s published study specifically notes the striking change between editions of Bauer’s lexicon on this point. A sound Trinitarian response therefore should not claim that the Greek word ἀρχή could never carry such a meaning.

  But lexical possibility is not semantic entailment. The same lexicon also recognizes senses such as first cause and ruler/authority, and the NET translators explicitly state that “beginning,” “ruler,” and “originator” are linguistically possible in Revelation 3:14 while preferring the causal/originative sense contextually. The proposition “Christ is the first creature God made” requires a very specific combination of decisions: ἀρχή must mean first constituent, κτίσις must denote the class containing Christ, τῆς κτίσεως must be construed partitively, and τοῦ θεοῦ must then be expanded as “created by God.” The Greek morphology does not independently encode that complete proposition.

  Your argument that John always uses singular ἀρχή temporally does not solve the problem because it compares unlike constructions. Phrases such as ἐν ἀρχῇ, “in the beginning,” or ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, “from the beginning,” are temporal prepositional phrases. Revelation 3:14 is an articular personal predicate followed by a genitive: Christ is ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως. A lexeme’s meaning in temporal prepositional phrases does not predetermine its semantic relation when used as a title of a person.

  Revelation itself makes the mistake especially obvious. In Revelation 21:6 God declares, ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End.” There ἡ ἀρχή is a singular personal predicate, and it manifestly does not mean “the first being God created.” So the categorical assertion that John’s singular ἀρχή always means “first in time” in a creaturely series is untenable. It can denote comprehensive primacy when predicated personally.

  The context of Revelation 3 is also more informative than you allow. The message ends with Christ speaking of his throne and his sitting with the Father on the Father’s throne in 3:21. Immediately before 3:14, Revelation 3:12 has referred to the New Jerusalem descending from God. G. K. Beale has therefore argued that Isaiah 65:16–17 supplies an important background to the entire title sequence “the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ἀρχή of God’s creation”: Isaiah moves from the God of truth/Amen to the promised new heavens and new earth. Whether or not one regards Beale’s proposal as decisive, it demonstrates that “first creature of the primordial cosmos” is not the only contextually grounded interpretation.

  The wider Apocalypse makes a creature-Christ reading still more difficult. Revelation 5:13 depicts πᾶν κτίσμα, “every creature,” in heaven, on earth, under the earth, and in the sea directing blessing, honor, glory, and dominion jointly to the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb. The Lamb stands on the receiving side of the exhaustive creaturely doxology rather than simply as one worshiper within it. Richard Bauckham’s study of creation’s praise in Revelation emphasizes the comprehensive character of the worship rendered by creation. That does not by itself supply a fourth-century definition of consubstantiality, but it certainly raises a serious contextual problem for interpreting Revelation 3:14 as an uncomplicated statement that the Lamb is merely the earliest creature.

  Your Proverbs 8 argument contains another mixture of legitimate observations and unwarranted deductions. It is entirely legitimate to recognize important conceptual connections between Christ and biblical Wisdom. First Corinthians 1:24 calls Christ “the power of God and the wisdom of God”; Colossians uses themes associated with Wisdom traditions; early Christian writers frequently read Proverbs 8 christologically. None of that is controversial. What does not follow is that Proverbs 8 becomes an exhaustive pre-incarnate biography of the Son in which every predicate of the literary persona “Wisdom” can be transferred univocally into an ontological proposition about Christ.

  Modern scholarship ordinarily recognizes Proverbs 1–9 as containing sustained personification of Woman Wisdom. She cries in public, invites disciples, speaks of her relation to creation, builds a house, prepares food and wine, and is dramatically contrasted with Woman Folly. Peer-reviewed studies continue to analyze the figure precisely as personified Woman Wisdom functioning within the rhetoric of Proverbs 1–9. That does not prevent Christians from recognizing a typological or revelatory fulfillment of Wisdom themes in Christ. It does prevent you from assuming without argument that because Christ is called God’s Wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1:24, every poetic predication made by Lady Wisdom must be a literal proposition concerning the Son’s mode of origin.

  Your appeal to Luke 11:49 does not remove that difficulty. The relationship between Luke’s “the Wisdom of God said” and Matthew 23:34, where Jesus says “I send,” is genuinely significant. Some scholars take Matthew as deliberately presenting Jesus in the role of personified divine Wisdom. Other commentators have understood Luke’s phrase differently, as a reference to divine Wisdom, divine providence, or an inherited saying. But even the strongest christological reading proves only that Jesus can embody or personally enact the role of divine Wisdom. It does not establish the additional hermeneutical premise that Proverbs 8:22 is a literal account of God creating the prehuman Son.

  Your arguments from Proverbs 8:17 and 8:20 likewise show conceptual correspondence, not identity of every predicate. Christ loves those who seek him; Wisdom invites seekers. Christ embodies righteousness; Wisdom leads in righteousness. Such correspondences help explain why Christian tradition found Wisdom Christology natural. They do not turn the literary figure into a stenographic transcript of the Son’s ontological biography.

  The argument from Wisdom’s grammatical gender is indeed weak, and you are right to reject it. Hebrew חָכְמָה is grammatically feminine; that fact cannot by itself tell us whether later Christian writers may apply Wisdom imagery to Christ. But the serious objection has never depended upon grammatical gender. It depends upon genre and personification. The fact that Lady Wisdom behaves as a woman is part of a literary portrayal whose corresponding figure, Lady Folly, also speaks and acts personally. You therefore answer a weak objection while leaving the real literary issue untouched.

  Your subsequent identification of Woman Folly with “the Antichrist” illustrates the problem particularly well. Proverbs 9 contrasts personified Wisdom with personified Folly. Revelation 17 depicts Babylon symbolically as a woman. Nothing in either text establishes the equation “Woman Folly = Antichrist.” The association is produced by thematic imagination rather than textual identification. Once you recognize that symbolic female figures can embody theological realities without being literal ontological persons, you have conceded precisely the hermeneutical distinction required for Proverbs 8.

  The lexical controversy over קנה in Proverbs 8:22 is real, and a responsible Trinitarian argument should not pretend otherwise. The NET Bible argues for “created” or “established,” notes the LXX ἔκτισέν με, and cites Whybray and Irwin in support. Other translators and lexicographers prefer “possessed,” “acquired,” or “brought forth.” Recent scholarship likewise continues to discuss creation, acquisition, generation, and establishment as possible nuances rather than treating the question as closed. Consequently, nothing is gained by pretending that קנה unquestionably means “possessed.”

  But even if you grant the rendering “YHWH created me,” the christological conclusion still does not follow automatically. The Hebrew text would then say that personified Wisdom is created within the poem. You still have to demonstrate that this literary Wisdom is numerically and exhaustively identical with the preexistent Son in such a way that the predicate “created” transfers literally from persona to hypostasis. That is the missing premise. The Septuagint’s ἔκτισεν establishes how its translator understood the verb in Proverbs; it does not establish that Revelation 3:14 or Colossians 1:15 says that God created Christ.

  Your appeal to verses 24–25 and “I was brought forth” does not convert generation language into creation language either. The Hebrew חוֹלָלְתִּי employs birth imagery. The NET note itself says that the verb means being begotten or given birth to and immediately adds that the usage is not literal but continues the personification. This matters because “begotten” and “created” are not lexical synonyms. Indeed, the entire Nicene distinction later turned on precisely that point: generation and creation are different relations. You may reject the Nicene metaphysics, but you cannot refute it by saying that a word depicting birth automatically means creation. If anything, the birth imagery makes it especially illegitimate simply to replace the poem’s language with “God manufactured a first creature.”

  Your treatment of Proverbs 8:30 is also much too confident. אָמוֹן is famously difficult. “Master craftsman” is a defensible translation, but “child,” “nursling,” “ward,” and related senses have also been defended, and modern scholarship continues to debate the word. The NET note surveys this uncertainty and explicitly identifies competing interpretations. Consequently, the claims that Wisdom “was brought up,” “was trained,” and thereby functioned as God’s created apprentice go beyond what the Hebrew securely says. Even if “master craftsman” is chosen, it describes Wisdom’s literary participation in creation; it still does not establish the ontological creaturehood of Christ.

  Your citation of Jewish versions such as the Targum proves even less. If a Jewish interpreter regarded personified Wisdom as created, that tells us something important about Jewish interpretation of Proverbs. It does not tell us that the interpreter regarded Wisdom as Jesus of Nazareth, much less that the New Testament authors did. You cannot combine a Jewish identification of Wisdom as a created entity with a Christian identification of Christ as Wisdom and assume that the resulting syllogism represents either tradition’s actual exegesis.

  The same caution is necessary when you invoke the Fathers. You are broadly correct that Proverbs 8 became immensely important in early Christian Christology and that writers on opposing sides of later controversies applied Wisdom language to Christ. But agreement on a christological application is not agreement on an Arian ontology. Justin Martyr, for example, can quote Proverbs 8 while describing the Son as an offspring begotten by the Father before all created things. Athanasius accepted the Septuagint’s ἔκτισέν με as the text before him but argued at length that its application to Christ did not mean that the Son’s divine nature was a creature; his exegesis relates the language to the economy, incarnation, and Christ’s appointment as beginning for the works. You may find that exegesis unpersuasive, but historically it disproves the claim that accepting the Christological relevance of Proverbs 8 automatically entailed accepting the Arian conclusion.

  Origen is particularly unsuitable as a straightforward witness for your position. The passage you quote from his Commentary on John is genuine: Origen connects Christ as Wisdom with Proverbs 8:22 and repeats the Septuagintal “God created me.” Yet in that very discussion he also identifies Christ as the Word through whom all things were made. More importantly, Origen is a major early witness to the idea that the Son’s generation is eternal: ancient-Christian scholarship notes his insistence that there was no time when the Son was not. Whatever difficulties and subordinationist tendencies exist in Origen’s theology, quoting his use of ἔκτισεν while omitting his doctrine of the Son’s eternal generation creates a seriously distorted historical impression.

  Clement is similarly complicated. Some Clementine passages certainly contain terminology that later Nicene theology would avoid, including πρωτόκτιστος language associated with Wisdom. That should simply be acknowledged. But Clement also distinguishes the First-begotten Son, through whom all things are made, from created angelic beings that have a beginning. Early pre-Nicene terminology was not yet governed by the technical precision produced by the fourth-century controversy. It is therefore historically improper to take one fluid second-century expression, treat πρωτόκτιστος and πρωτότοκος as universally interchangeable, and then use Clement to establish what Paul must have meant a century earlier.

  Your statement that “all factions” at Nicaea used Proverbs 8 is therefore historically interesting but exegetically indecisive. Precisely because both Arians and pro-Nicenes appealed to the same text, patristic reception shows that the dispute was not over whether Wisdom imagery mattered to Christology but over how it should be understood. Modern scholarship on the Nicene controversy explicitly recognizes that Proverbs 8:22 was contested territory appropriated differently by rival christological systems. The existence of christological interpretation cannot be converted into evidence specifically for the Arian interpretation.

  The same answer applies to your quotation of Edmund Fortman. Even if one accepts the claim that Pauline Christology applies Jewish Wisdom traditions to the Son, it does not follow that Paul thereby attributes every sentence spoken by Lady Wisdom in Proverbs 8 directly and literally to Christ. New Testament authors can appropriate Wisdom motifs and identify Christ as the definitive manifestation of divine Wisdom without turning the entire poetic personification into an ontological transcript.

  Your statement that no Scripture says that the Son existed eternally must also be framed more carefully. It is true that no New Testament verse uses the later conciliar formula “eternally begotten, not made” as such. Nicene theology is a synthesis of biblical predicates, not a quotation from one proof text. But it does not follow that Scripture presents the Son as a being who once did not exist.

  John’s prologue is especially difficult for that proposal. When the creation begins, the Word already ἦν, “was.” Everything that ἐγένετο, “came into being,” came into being through him, and John strengthens the assertion by saying that without him not even one thing belonging to the category of what came into being came into being. The natural discourse contrast is therefore not between “the first thing that came into being” and “later things that came into being,” but between the Logos who already was and the totality that came to be through him.

  John 17:5 adds Christ’s claim to have possessed glory with the Father before the world existed. That text by itself proves preexistence rather than the full metaphysics of eternity, but it fits the same pattern. Hebrews 1:10–12 places the Son in relation to the perishable heavens and earth as the one who founded them and who himself remains unchanged when they perish. Revelation calls the risen Christ “the First and the Last,” language resonant with Isaiah’s divine self-designations. None of these texts mechanically produces the Nicene Creed, but together they make the assertion “the Son was once nonexistent and was then created” considerably more difficult than your conclusion suggests.

  Micah 5:2 should not be exaggerated in the opposite direction. The verse is not a simple lexical proof of the Son’s eternal preexistence. The phrases מִקֶּדֶם and מִימֵי עוֹלָם can denote remote antiquity, and the latter elsewhere refers to ancient historical periods. The NET note accordingly takes the language as capable of referring to the ruler’s ancient origins or activities and sees an allusion to Davidic antiquity. A responsible Trinitarian therefore need not claim that the word עוֹלָם by itself means metaphysical eternity in Micah 5:2.

  But your alternative explanation also goes beyond the text when you say that Micah merely speaks of God’s planned works or the planned sacrifice of his Son. The grammatical subject is the coming ruler, and the suffix in מוֹצָאֹתָיו is “his”: it is his origins, goings forth, or activities that are said to be from ancient days. Nothing in the verse says “God planned his sacrificial work from eternity.” Thus Micah 5:2 may be insufficient as an isolated proof of eternal generation, but it does not say what your paraphrase says either.

  Your final synthesis—that Jesus was Jehovah’s first creative act and afterward assisted in making “all other things”—therefore remains an inference produced by combining disputed readings. Colossians never predicates κτίζω of Christ as its object; it predicates the creation of τὰ πάντα in, through, and for him. John does not say that the Logos first came into being and then everything else came through him; it says that everything that came into being did so through him and that not one thing that came into being did so apart from him. Hebrews does not merely call him an instrument; it speaks of creation through him, ongoing cosmic preservation by his word, angelic worship of him, and—on the standard reading of the catena—applies the Creator language of Psalm 102 to him. Revelation 3:14 does not say “the first creature God created”; it uses a polysemous title whose interpretation must be decided within a book that also calls Christ “the First and the Last,” gives him the divine throne, and places the Lamb alongside God as recipient of the doxology of every creature.

  Even your closing affirmation that this supposedly created being is “worthy of our adoration and worship” exposes a serious tension in the proposed ontology. Hebrews 1 commands all God’s angels to worship the Firstborn, while Revelation repeatedly prohibits worship of glorious heavenly creatures and directs worship to God; yet Revelation 5 places the Lamb with the enthroned God as the common recipient of the praise of every creature. The issue is not merely whether Christ has been granted extraordinary honor. Revelation deliberately distinguishes the worshiping creation from the Lamb who receives its worship. That literary positioning is extremely difficult to reconcile with the claim that the Lamb is simply the first and greatest member of that created company.

  The resulting Trinitarian case does not require denying every concession you make. πρωτότοκος can carry temporal priority. A partitive construal of Colossians 1:15 can be proposed grammatically. πᾶς can be contextually restricted. διά can denote mediation. ἀρχή can, in some contexts, mean an initial member. Proverbs 8:22 can legitimately be translated “created” on one defensible reading of קנה, and the Septuagint unquestionably uses ἔκτισεν. Early Christians unquestionably applied Wisdom traditions to Christ. Micah 5:2 does not by itself prove eternal preexistence. Those concessions make the argument more accurate, not less Trinitarian.

  What fails is the repeated conversion of possibility into necessity. From “πρωτότοκος can be chronological” you move to “Christ must be the first creature.” From “a genitive can be partitive” you move to “πάσης κτίσεως must include Christ.” From “πᾶς can be pragmatically restricted” you move to an unwritten “other” precisely where that restriction is the point at issue. From “creation occurs through Christ” you infer that Christ cannot himself belong to the Creator side of the relation, even though the New Testament uses διά of God. From “ἀρχή can denote a first member” you turn Revelation 3:14 into the proposition “God created Christ first,” which the Greek never states. From “Christ is God’s Wisdom” you infer that every predicate of poetic Lady Wisdom must describe Christ’s ontology literally. From the Septuagint’s ἔκτισεν you import the predicate “created” into Revelation and Colossians, where it is conspicuously absent.

  Once those inferential additions are removed, the texts do not present a first creature through whom God subsequently made everything else. They present the Son as personally distinct from the Father yet standing in a unique relation to the whole created order: all things come into being through him; all things are created in him, through him, and for him; he is before all things; all things cohere in him; he sustains all things by his powerful word; angels worship him; and the entire creaturely cosmos directs its doxology to God and the Lamb. That is precisely why the early Church eventually formulated the Creator–creature distinction as “begotten, not made.” The Nicene language is later than the New Testament, but the exegetical problem it resolves is already present in these texts: Scripture gives the Son relational distinction from the Father without ever placing him among the beings whose created existence it predicates.

  • Peter K. (admin)

    September 30, 2026 at 8:55 am · Reply

    Dear Joseph,
    Thank you for your detailed and articulate theological paper examining the non-Trinitarian view of Christ. Your paper presents a sophisticated defense of Nicene Christology by attempting to show that non-Trinitarian arguments rely on combining distinct passages to create a “created-Son” conclusion. You contend that non-Trinitarian exegesis turns mere “grammatical possibilities into logical necessities”.
    Upon a thorough, systematic examination of the Scriptures, Greek syntax, the mathematical demands of Divine Justice, and early Church history, it becomes clear that Trinitarian theology itself converts mere grammatical possibilities into forced necessities while stepping outside the explicit statements of Scripture. Below is an in-depth scriptural, lexical, and historical response to the specific arguments you raised.
    ________________________________________
    1. Colossians 1:15–18 and the Syntax of Prototokos (“Firstborn”)
    In your paper, you argue that eikon (“image”) in Colossians 1:15 denotes a manifestation rather than a creaturely copy, and you cite Daniel Wallace’s classification of prototokos pasis ktiseos (“firstborn of all creation”) as a genitive of subordination rather than a partitive genitive. You assert that the lexical semantics of prototokos alone cannot force a “first-created” interpretation.
    While a genitive of subordination is grammatically possible in isolation, the natural and standard construction in Greek when prototokos (“firstborn”) is followed by a genitive of a collective noun (pasis ktiseos — “of all creation”) is a partitive genitive, identifying the subject as the initial or chief member of that group.
    Furthermore, your attempt to isolate Colossians 1:15 from other Johannine writings obscures Paul’s meaning. In Revelation 3:14, the resurrected, glorified Lord explicitly identifies himself as “the beginning (he arche) of the creation of God” (he arche tes ktiseos tou theou). Throughout the Apostle John’s writings, the singular noun arche in such constructions consistently denotes the initial point or first product of a series [240, 241, 296, 315–316]. Thus, Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 stand in perfect harmony: Christ is the “Firstborn” because he was the first direct creation brought forth by Jehovah God.
    You also attempt to separate verse 15 from verse 18 (prototokos ek ton nekron — “firstborn from among the dead”) on syntactic grounds. However, verse 18 demonstrates that prototokos combines both temporal priority and preeminence (proteuo). Christ was literally the first person raised from the dead to spirit immortality, which established his preeminence over the resurrected Church. In the exact same way, his status as the “Firstborn of all creation” in verse 15 reflects both his temporal priority as the first created spirit being and his preeminence over all subsequent creation.
    ________________________________________
    2. Agency vs. Source: 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:16–17
    Regarding Colossians 1:16–17, you criticize non-Trinitarians for reading “all [other] things were created through him,” comparing it unfavorably to 1 Corinthians 15:27 where Paul explicitly excepts God from being subjected to Christ. You argue that using the preposition dia (“through”) of Christ does not place him on the creaturely side of existence, noting that dia is used of God in Hebrews 2:10 and Romans 11:36.
    However, universal terms like “all” (pas/panta) in Greek, as in English, are regularly restricted by their immediate context without requiring a explicit grammatical disclaimer. In Colossians 1:16, inserting “other” simply clarifies what the context logic demands: if all things were created through Christ, the Logos himself is logically excluded from the category of things brought into being through his own instrumentality.
    More importantly, your treatment of prepositions overlooks the definitive monotheistic framework established in 1 Corinthians 8:6:
    “To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom (ex) are all things… and one Lord Jesus Christ, by/through whom (di’) are all things”.
    Notice that the Apostle Paul does not formulate a Nicene statement claiming “there is one God in three persons”. Instead, Paul explicitly restricts the identity of the One God to the Father alone. He distinguishes the Father as the ultimate Source (ex) and the Son as the executive Agent (dia). Jehovah God directly created the Logos alone as His “Only Begotten” (monogenes); thereafter, Jehovah created all subsequent things through His Son as His Prime Minister and Spokesman.
    ________________________________________
    3. Revelation 3:14, John 1:1, and Monogenes Theos
    In your analysis of Revelation 3:14 (“the beginning of the creation of God”), you acknowledge that BDAG and modern lexicons allow arche to be construed as “first-created” at the level of lexical probability. However, you argue that Revelation 21:6 (“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End”) proves that arche can denote comprehensive divine primacy rather than a temporal creation.
    This comparison fails because it conflates two distinct subjects. In Revelation 21:6, Jehovah God speaks as the uncreated, eternal Source who has no beginning or end (Psalm 90:2). In Revelation 3:14, Jesus speaks specifically as “the beginning of the creation of God” (he arche tes ktiseos tou theou). In John’s writings, singular arche used temporally never denotes self-existence, but rather the initial point of a series or creation [240, 241, 296, 315–316].
    This distinction is fully confirmed in John’s Gospel. In the original Greek text of John 1:1–2, John uses the definite article when referring to the Father (ton theon — “THE God”), but omits the article when describing the pre-human Logos (theos — “a god” or divine being).
    Furthermore, in John 1:18, the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus, Vatican 1209, NASB) read:
    “No man hath seen God (theon) at any time; the only begotten god (monogenes theos), who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him”.
    John explicitly contrasts the invisible, unbegotten God (Ho Theos) with the “only begotten god” (Monogenes Theos). By definition, an entity that is begotten by a Father possesses a origin of life derived from that Father, making co-eternity a logical and linguistic impossibility. As Jesus himself testified: “I proceeded forth and came from God” (John 8:42) and “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28).
    ________________________________________
    4. Proverbs 8:22 (Ektisen) and the Universal Ante-Nicene Witness
    You argue that even if Proverbs 8:22 is rendered “YHWH created me” (LXX ektisen), poetic Wisdom cannot be literally transferred to the ontology of the pre-existent Son. You further claim that early Church Fathers applied Proverbs 8:22 to Christ without holding a “created-Son ontology”.
    The linguistic facts and historical records tell a very different story [88, 90, 301–310]. Centuries before the Christian era, the Jewish translators of the Septuagint rendered Proverbs 8:22 into Greek as Kyrios ektisen me (“The Lord created me as the beginning of His ways”).
    When we examine the earliest Ante-Nicene Church Fathers prior to the 4th-century Council of Nicaea, they unanimously applied Proverbs 8:22 to the pre-human Logos and explicitly taught that the Son had a beginning of existence derived from the Father [131, 301–310]:
    • Justin Martyr (A.D. 135): “God begat before all creatures a Beginning who was a certain rational power proceeding from Himself… begotten before all creatures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch. 61). He added: “We follow the only unbegotten God through His Son” (First Apology, Ch. 14).
    • Tatian (A.D. 161): “The Lord of the Universe… was alone… And by His simple will the Logos springs forth… the first-begotten work of the Father” (To the Greeks, Ch. 5).
    • Melito of Sardis (A.D. 165): “There is that which really exists and it is called God… this being is in no sense made… but has existed from eternity” (Apology 1), whereas Christ was “begotten before the light” (Apology 4).
    • Tertullian (A.D. 200): “The Father, however, has no beginning, as proceeding from none; nor can He be seen since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have order or rank” (Against Praxeas, Ch. 5).
    • Novatian (A.D. 240): “God the Father and Creator of all things, who only knows no beginning… he owes his existence to the Father… God the Father is God of all, and the source also of His son himself whom He begot” (Commentary on the Trinity, Ch. 31).
    • Arnobius (A.D. 300): “We Christians are nothing else than worshippers of the Supreme King and Head… You are illimitable, unbegotten, immortal…” (Against the Heathen, Book 1, Ch. 31).
    Your paper quotes Origen’s use of ektisen while attempting to offset it with his philosophical speculation on “eternal generation”. Yet in his Commentary on John (Book 2, Ch. 2), Origen explicitly distinguished between the Father as Ho Theos (“THE God”) and the Son as Theos without the article, writing that all beings beyond the Father are made divine by participation in the Father’s divinity. As historical scholars freely acknowledge, the concept of a triune, co-equal Godhead was completely unknown to the 1st- and 2nd-century Apostolic Church, emerging only gradually in the 3rd and 4th centuries under the heavy influence of Greek Hellenistic philosophy.
    ________________________________________
    5. The Unanswerable Mathematical Barrier: The Law of the Ransom (Antilutron)
    Perhaps the most fatal oversight in Trinitarian theology—and one completely unaddressed in your paper—is the exact scriptural mathematics of the Ransom (Antilutron) [126–130, 187, 286].
    In 1 Timothy 2:5–6, the Apostle Paul writes:
    “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom (antilutron) for all”.
    In the original Greek New Testament, antilutron does not mean an infinite payment or an ambiguous sacrifice. It literally signifies “a corresponding price”—an exact substitutionary equivalent.
    Consider the exact demands of Divine Justice under God’s Law:
    1. Father Adam was a perfect human being who sinned, forfeiting perfect human life and paradise for himself and his unborn race.
    2. Divine Justice required an exact corresponding price to redeem what was lost—a perfect human life, neither more nor less.
    3. If Jesus were Supreme Almighty God incarnate, his sacrifice would not be a corresponding price; it would be an infinite mismatch that violates the exact equivalency of Divine Justice [128–130].
    4. Conversely, if Trinitarian theology claims that only Jesus’ human nature died while his divine nature could not die (since God is immortal, 1 Tim 6:16), then only a human body was sacrificed. As the Trinitarian commentator Dr. Adam Clarke admitted, if only the human nature died, Trinitarians are left with merely a finite human death for their Savior.
    Scripture nowhere teaches that the Logos “entered a human body” while retaining a dual nature. John 1:14 states that “the Word was made flesh”—he surrendered his pre-human spirit glory and changed his nature to become a sinless, perfect man, the “Second Adam”. Because God cannot die (James 1:13, Habakkuk 1:12), the fact that Jesus truly died on Calvary proves beyond all doubt that he was not Almighty God.
    ________________________________________
    6. The Missing Third Person: Where is “God the Holy Spirit”?
    A structural flaw in your defense of the “Trinity” is that your paper focuses entirely on two subjects—the Father and the Son [66–97]. A Trinity, by definition, requires three co-equal, co-eternal persons in one Godhead. By failing to provide scriptural proof for the distinct personhood or deity of the Holy Spirit, your argument fails at the threshold.
    Throughout Scripture, the Holy Spirit is consistently revealed not as a third person, but as the holy power, mind, influence, and energy emanating from God the Father and exercised through His Son.
    Notice how the Scriptures describe the Holy Spirit:
    • Believers are told to be “filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18) and God promises to “pour out my spirit upon all flesh” (Joel 2:28). One cannot “pour out” or be “filled with” a literal third person.
    • In John 8:17–18, Jesus cited the Law’s requirement for two witnesses and offered two: Himself and the Father. He omitted the Holy Spirit entirely because the Holy Spirit is not a third person.
    • Nowhere in the New Testament is prayer ever addressed to the Holy Spirit, nor is the Holy Spirit ever depicted sitting on a throne alongside the Father and the Lamb in heavenly visions (e.g., Revelation 5, 7, 21–22).
    ________________________________________
    7. Hebrews 1 and True Scriptural Worship
    Finally, you cite Hebrews 1:3 (“express image of his person”), 1:6 (“let all the angels of God worship him”), and 1:10–12 (applying Psalm 102 to the Son) to argue that the Son belongs on the Creator side of existence.
    However, Hebrews 1 explicitly places the Son in a subordinate relationship to the Father:
    • In Hebrews 1:2, God “appointed” the Son heir of all things—one does not inherit what he already inherently possesses as Supreme God.
    • In Hebrews 1:4, the Son “became so much better than the angels” after his earthly obedience—he was not inherently co-equal from eternity in that exalted office.
    • In Hebrews 1:8–9, the Father addresses the Son: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever… therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows”. Here, two Gods are named: the Supreme God (Jehovah), who does the anointing, and the exalted Son (Jesus), who receives the anointing. The greater always anoints the lesser.
    When Hebrews 1:6 commands angels to give obeisance (proskuneo) to the Firstborn, it reflects the Father’s decree to honor the Son even as they honor the Father (John 5:23). Honoring the Father’s appointed King does not convert the Son into the Father.
    ________________________________________
    Conclusion
    When weighed in the balance of Scripture, reason, language, and early history, Trinitarianism relies on reading 4th-century church creeds back into the 1st-century Bible.
    As the Apostles taught, the true “doctrine of Christ” (2 John 9) presents a wonderfully harmonious Divine Plan:
    1. One Almighty God, Jehovah, the Father, who alone is from everlasting to everlasting, the uncreated Source of all creation.
    2. One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Logos, the Firstborn of all creation, who humbled himself to become a perfect man, paid the exact corresponding Ransom price (Antilutron) for Adam’s race, and is now highly exalted to spirit immortality at the right hand of God.
    3. The Holy Spirit, the divine power, mind, and holy influence of God operating in the universe and in the hearts of consecrated believers.
    By abiding strictly in the true “doctrine of Christ,” believers are freed from the “incomprehensible” jargon of human creeds and brought into direct, loving fellowship with both the Father and His Son.
    In Christian love,
    Peter K. (Admin, BeyondWatchtower.com)

• traveler

  September 26, 2017 at 5:19 pm · Reply

  Well I agree with Jesus being the only begotten son or created son, obviously a beginning. We should respect the role our brother has played but there is only One teacher that is good and only one Savior, Yahweh and only one God that should be worshipped.

  (Acts 13:23) . . .From the offspring of this [man] according to his promise God has brought to Israel a savior, Jesus. . .

  (1 Timothy 2:3-5) . . .This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus. . .

  (Isaiah 43:11) . . .I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no Savior. . .

  Isaiah sets it straight, Yahweh is the only one who can resurrect or cause to be resurrected. Jesus is given power over the dead and is savior of his people but in the lower case sense.

  While I’m here, the “theory of the trinity” has been mentioned. I do not believe any sense can ever be made of this theory from outside the Bible, which as we know is historic fact.
  But it also seems strange that believing in the “God of truth”, Yahweh, you still continue to use the English representation of a mispronunciation “Jehovah”. It is explained in an in-depth dictionary and in the “Insight on the Scriptures” that the mispronunciation comes from the Catholic church through what has become known as “church Latin”. Church Latin is a mix of misunderstood pronunciations of Latin words by the English speaking members of the church and Latin pronuciations. The letter “j” in Latin has an English “y” sound, but an English “J” sound is given to it in “Church” Latin. Even in the cd disc the Watch Tower puts out, the sound icon over “Jah” states correctly “Yah”. We’re sure you’ve heard JW’s explain Hallelujah as praise Jah as a shortened form of Jehovah. They are always surprised by the organization’s real present truth and misunderstanding.

  The question to consider is: “why keep a representation of a mispronunciation of a transliterated word and use it to identify the God of truth?”

  The sounds we know of the name of the “God of truth” were deemed so important that they were transliterated into Hebrew, Greek and English as well as Latin, words coined to safeguard the sounds.

  1. Hebrew, YHWH pronounced Yahweh
  2. Greek, YHWH pronounced Yahweh
  3. English, YHWH, pronounced as the English word Yahweh
  4. Latin, JHVH pronounced Yahweh

  It seems ironic that the Watchtower would decide to use a mispronunciation for God’s name while attempting to “teach the truth to the world”.

  • Chuck

    September 26, 2017 at 9:17 pm · Reply

    Just a note:
    You state… “1. Hebrew, YHWH pronounced Yahweh”
    There is no letter W in Hebrew. It is YHVH. Pronounced as a “hard” V as in van.

    • just stay sweet and good

      September 28, 2017 at 10:21 am · Reply

      Here is some good information concerning the way to say Gods name in english

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLMPZrFom3Q&feature=share

      • Chuck

        September 28, 2017 at 12:50 pm · Reply

        Thank you so much for sharing this video. I started studying Biblical Hebrew about 10 years ago and came to the conclusion that God’s name was pronounced Yehovah just as explained within the video! Thank you!
        -chuck

• Wild Olive

  January 8, 2015 at 5:11 am · Reply

  @Daz,well said,I also enjoyed those comments.
  I toyed with the trinity for a while when my awakening happened,I had a good open minded look at it ,some of the things that I came up with might be worth a mention.
  It got down to 3 items.
  First nowhere in the Bible are they actually described together,in a few places we are given visions into heaven,it’s always The Father and The Lamb,or God and The Son of Man.No description of all three as an entity together in the same visions.
  Secondly the socalled personality of the Holy Spirit.The Greek language has the characteristic of personalising what is not a person,I have quite a few Greek friends and I’ve got used to how they do this,as most of them speak a mixture of Greek and English ( sort of)until this is grasped by the non wog Anglo Saxon,it is really confusing,and if a translator wants to he can manipulate this when translating from Greek to English.
  Thirdly and what I consider the most important,the Trinity just can’t fit in to the ransom arrangement,Jesus had to die to offer an authentic sacrifice,someone had to resssurect him,and he had to be created as a man,he then became a mediator between God and man not between man and himself.
  You could probably add a few more to that list

  • Peter K. (admin)

    January 8, 2015 at 6:30 am · Reply

    Wild Olive – Thanks. Can you give me your opinion? Why do you think that so many people who leave the JW Organization are able to go back to denominational Churches and accept the Trinity or many even becoming aetheists?

    • Wild Olive

      January 9, 2015 at 3:22 am · Reply

      This is only an opinion based on my own experience.
      When the realisation that I had been bluffed and baffled by the GB theology,it made me hate anything to do with God or the Bible,I thought if I can’t trust them then who can I trust?that sounds lame I know ,but that is the effect decades of “truth”indoctrination does to a person.So it’s while in this state of hatred/denial,that something else will take up the vacuum ,for me a direct experience with the Holy Spirit brought me to Christ,not back into the organization,Isa65:1 was fulfilled in me,however if this doesn’t happen to a person,or they don’t recognize it then the slide into atheism is an easy one.
      On the other hand the born again experience can be so overwhelming that the only religions that seem to be able to “handle it” fall into the evangelical/Pentecostal category,and along with that goes the trinity,so accepting it becomes easier.
      Just an opinion.

      • Lincoln

        July 5, 2017 at 8:23 am · Reply

        Dear Wild Olive, YOu write:

        “On the other hand the born again experience can be so overwhelming that the only religions that seem to be able to “handle it” fall into the evangelical/Pentecostal category,and along with that goes the trinity,so accepting it becomes easier”.
        quote end.

        I would like to comment this issue. Let me say; we don’t know who God is, but we understand (we say) that God is “Spirit” which we have from the NT, the Greek Scriptures.

        To me “Spirit” is very overwhelming and without any limits until we put limits onto it.

        On the other hand, we say “in heaven”, but where is “heaven”? God “lives” in heaven, but where does God actually live? I don’t know. Therefore I like to comment on the Godhead; God the Father.

        • ZionsHerald

          July 5, 2017 at 7:51 pm · Reply

          Lincoln,

          We can only go by how the Scriptures describe our Heavenly Father. It is from the Scriptures that we know that our Lord is all powerful, yet at the same time there are things he cannot or will not do.

          1. HE CANNOT LIE.
          “That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us” (Hebrews 6:18).

          2. HE CANNOT CHANGE.
          “For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed” (Malachi 3:6).

          3. HE CANNOT BREAK A PROMISE.
          “My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips” (Psalm 89:34).

          4. HIS INTENT AND POWER CANNOT BE STOPPED.
          “And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” (Daniel 4:35).

          5. HIS WORD CANNOT BE BROKEN.
          “… the Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35)

          6. GOD’S LAW CANNOT BE ANNULLED.
          “…all His commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness” (Psalm 111:7–8).

          7. GOD CANNOT STAND SIN.
          “But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear” (Isaiah 59:1–2).

          8. GOD CANNOT BE PLEASED WITHOUT FAITH.
          “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6).

          I believe it’s a good thing that He sets limits for himself for who could trust a God that lied, that didn’t keep His promises, or changed on a whim? These descriptions of God’s ‘limitations’ are faith strengthening for me.

          • Lincoln

            July 6, 2017 at 12:35 am · Reply

            Thank you ZionsHerald for comments. Yes, we believe that (the words from the Holy Book of the Jews). This is the “way” we understand God. Maybe you like to comment on what I wrote?
            __________________________________________________________________________________

            Let me say this; we don’t know who God is, but we understand (we say) that God is “Spirit” which we have from the NT, the Greek Scriptures.

            To me “Spirit” is very overwhelming and without any limits until we put limits onto it.

            On the other hand, we say “in heaven”, but where is “heaven”? God “lives” in heaven, but where does God actually live? I don’t know. Therefore I like to comment on the Godhead; God the Father.

            I would like to comments this myself all along.

            • Lincoln

              July 6, 2017 at 12:58 pm · Reply

              My further comments on ZionsHerald

              – 8. GOD CANNOT BE PLEASED WITHOUT FAITH.
              “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6).quote end.

              I like to comment Hebrew chapter 11 as you quote from:

              8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the >promised landnumerouscountless as the sand on the seashoreheavenly< one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.
              Quote end.

              So, we better understand the situation in the Middle East today and the Jews Israel and their faith in their God JHVH.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEYmomUuveU

              But, they are not Jehovah`s Witnesses neither Bible Students, so what happens? The answer is Jesus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoXw-d59_fQ

              And for the sons of Ismael: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db_p1mDhusc

          • greg (Bible Student)

            July 6, 2017 at 8:57 am · Reply

            I very much enjoyed your response. To me it is a very thorough reply, and also very appreciation-stimulating. Thank you!

            -greg

            • greg (Bible Student)

              July 6, 2017 at 9:01 am · Reply

              Ooops! I meant to clearly address my thanks to ZionsHerald.

              🙂

              -greg

            • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

              July 6, 2017 at 9:57 am · Reply

              Dear Greg, I received your email and am devastated to hear about your mother. I will let you tell your experience here in your way and words before I comment further. May God Bless and Keep YOU during these very, very, trying times for you and your family. I will pray for you to hold up. My heart hurts for you for it takes me back to this same experience. Let everyone know whats happening if you can type now.

              • greg (Bible Student)

                July 6, 2017 at 8:13 pm · Reply

                Thanks, Jacqueline.

                I really appreciate your love and your prayers. Wow! I cannot put into words how good that feels.

                I’m working on a comment now. I’ll post it just as soon as I am able. It’s a difficult thing to put into words, even harder to put into Christ-like words, harder yet to transform it into something that’s hopefully encouraging to others, and even harder still when I’m currently in the middle of it all. I’m not functioning at my best right now, so I’m going to take my time to choose my words carefully, prayerfully.

                I would also like to thank you for the brief update on Henry. I’m relieved to hear there is some measure of relief for him, and even some more possible.

                Yay! \o/

                -greg

                • Lee Anthony (Brandon)

                  July 6, 2017 at 8:31 pm · Reply

                  Greg,
                  I saw the post, I dont know any details but I will keep you and your family in prayer as the Lord certainly knows.
                  Brandon

                  • greg (Bible Student)

                    July 8, 2017 at 2:36 pm

                    Brandon,

                    Thanks. And I know it, too. 🙂

                    I will post something more soon.

                    You remain in my prayers, also.

                    -greg

            • Lincoln

              July 6, 2017 at 12:32 pm · Reply

              Dear Greg, you wrote:

              ”I meant to clearly address my thanks to ZionsHerald”.
              __________________________________________________

              I understand you and ZionsHerald too, but I was talking about something different in my question.

              Let me say this; we don’t know who God is, but we understand (we say) that God is “Spirit” which we have from the NT, the Greek Scriptures.
              To me “Spirit” is very overwhelming and without any limits until we put limits onto it.
              On the other hand, we say “in heaven”, but where is “heaven”? God “lives” in heaven, but where does God actually live? I don’t know. Therefore I like to comment on the Godhead; God the Father.
              I would like to comments this myself all along.
              ____________________________________________________________

              I was talking about the identification of God JHVH, because of Charles Taze Russell teachings. He wrote:

              ”Jehovah resides on a star called Alcyone in the Pleiades star cluster located in the constellation”.

              http://www.logosapologia.org/the-watchtower-meets-the-pleiadeans/

              So, how do we understand ”the identification” of God? We are humans, but who is God?

              • Anon CJ.

                July 6, 2017 at 5:09 pm · Reply

                Actually I did a search for the word Alcyone in the Third volume of the Studies in the Scriptures. The three occurrences do not in any way say he lives on this star. The website you referenced says that Russell believed this but no where does it say this. You are happy to check for yourself. I also see you hunting the Six Screena site. Please realize that nothing you say to us will shake our faith. Not blindly like the Jaws but we know what we believe to be the truth. Frivolous arguments like the Pleadies mainly come from Rutherford.

                • Lincoln

                  July 7, 2017 at 6:19 am · Reply

                  Dear AnonCJ,

                  Thank you for your comments. You write:

                  “Please realize that nothing you say to us will shake our faith. Not blindly like the Jaws but we know what we believe to be the truth. Frivolous arguments like the Pleiades mainly come from Rutherford”.
                  quote end.

                  Yes, I am sure much overlap to J.F.Rutherford. Allow me to comment this.

                  I hope I will say something you might like and could strengthen your faith in God. You say something about; “not blindly like the Jaws but we know what we believe to be the truth”. Are you saying that ” (I think you mean) the Jews (Jaws) are believing in “blindly” ness? At the same time you state that; “what you believe (we believe) to be the truth”? Well, mostly I think everyone has this conviction “to believing what is “the truth”.

                  To me, I am trying to find out “the nature of God JHVH” that is “who is he”? We are humans, but who is God JHVH?

                  Therefore I quoted Charles Taze Russell; Thy Kingdom Come, on page 321,

                  Our solar system of planets is also found to be revolving together around some other great center; and far beyond the farthest limits of our system, by the aid of the telescope, other suns and systems are discerned, all presumably revolving with ours around some common center, — the group Pleiades.

                  And the reasonable suggestion has been made that that center may be the heaven of heavens, the highest heaven, the >throne of GodThroughout the Scriptures the North seems to be closely associated with Jehovah’s government of the earth<. quote end
                  __________________________________

                  I really could give many more like this about Charles Taze Russell speculations, even the Great Pyramid Giza as calculating all his teachings about Jesus parousia and kingdom in heaven and all the years, 1799, 1884, 1878, 1914; I am just trying to find out how you wiev the Godhead JHVH; who is God.

                  I have this answer myself to my own question: John 4:24 – "God is spirit ……….. "

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXNCNGQvvT0

                  • Anon CJ.

                    July 8, 2017 at 6:45 am

                    Lincoln,
                    Do you mean how you “view” God not how I “wiev” God since you want to correct peoples mistakes.

                    Firstly, I can tell this research doesn’t come for inquiring through the volumes themselves but internet searches for anti-Russell material. The quote you provided at the end of your comment was not from Thy Kingdom Come it was from a reprint
                    “May 15, 1895” under “Biblical Astronomy”.

                    However, it was a reasonable suggestion. Russell knew he didn’t reside on a star. Or a cluster of starts.

                    “I really could give many more like this about Charles Taze Russell speculations, even the Great Pyramid Giza as calculating all his teachings about Jesus parousia and kingdom in heaven and all the years, 1799, 1884, 1878, 1914; I am just trying to find out how you view the Godhead JHVH; who is God.”

                    Russell did not derive these dates by the Great Pyramid.

                    He believed these dates before he studied the Great Pyramid. He never got dates from them. He used the pyramid to back up his claims.

                    It’s so easy to google the negative about everything. We don’t accept everything that it said from Russell. He is not inspired. If you actually read his material you’d find he included differing points of view on matters and wanted to be subjective. Many of his ideas were common in the day. He wrote an article about the “negro” becoming white again. He eve stated that black peoples make the best servants. These were popular ideas in his day. You have to look at where he’s coming from. In fact many of the articles written were not by Russell himself.

                    We can endlessly google info about him. But my suggestion is for you to read the volumes and stop googling garbage about him. We can see that it’s not even in the source they say it is but his words are not gospel. Much of space had not been explored in his day so some “SUGGESTED” (as it says) that it was “REASONABLE” that it was the residence of his throne. And if you do a history search it was common in his day. So learn the context in which things are stated.

                    “Please note that the idea of the center of the universe extending from the Pleiades, and the connection with Job 38:31, did not orignate from Russell, but he notes this as related by Weiss, who, in turn, relates that the idea that the center of the universe was in the Pleiades came from a German astronomer by the name of J. H. Maedler. Earlier in Thy Kingdom Come, on page 321, Russell had stated that “Pleiades is a symbol of God and the center of the universe.”

                    “One, however, should not take the knowledge of astronomy available today, and look back at what Russell wrote so as to condemn Brother Russell in light of later astronomical studies. Many astronomers have come forth with a lot of different theories, some of which have been proven to be erroneous. Russell, of course, denied many times that what he wrote was infallible, yet many seem to seek to condemn him as though he did claim infallibility. Likewise, we do not hold that Brother Russell was any kind of infallible authority on such matters, and thus whether he was right or wrong in his conclusions are actually irrelevant.”

                    http://ctr-rlbible.com/?p=3483

                  • Lincoln

                    July 8, 2017 at 12:42 pm

                    Dear Anon CJ.

                    Thank you for your comments and your thoughts. I am merely trying to find out who God is. We are humans and who is God.

                    Somehow we come to talk about what Charles Taze Russell wrote and thought and now talking about that I just think about if it is possible to find out. Do you recognize the dates:
                    1799, 1884, 1878, 1914; but nothing happened what he predicted.

                    Further you write (I take some headlines):

                    “He used the pyramid to back up his claims”. – Ok.

                    “Negative” – I don`t want to be negative, but just to find out.

                    “he included differing points of view on matters and wanted to be subjective”– Ok, ”he wanted to be subjective” (you write), but I want to be objektive.

                    “negro” becoming white again. He eve stated that black peoples make the best servants”. – Ok, I did not know that. Shame on him and everyone else.

                    “read the volumes” – I am sorry, but I don’t want to spend my life studying ”his volumes”, why should I do that in the light you put it here:
                    “his words are not gospel” – as I said; then why should I study it when I have ”the Gospel”?

                    “condemn Brother Russell” – I certainly do not condemn Charles Taze Russell.

                    “Russell, of course, denied many times that what he wrote was infallible” – Ok, if you say so.

                    “we do not hold that Brother Russell was any kind of infallible authority on such matters, and thus whether he was right or wrong in his conclusions are actually irrelevant.” – No, I understand you say you do not.

                    So, as I said: the nature of God: “God is Spirit”.

                  • Anon CJ.

                    July 8, 2017 at 4:36 pm

                    “Do you recognize the dates:
                    1799, 1884, 1878, 1914; but nothing happened what he predicted.”

                    These are not End-of-the-world dates. How can Russell predict in 1870’s what would happen in 1799? You’re question does not stand in harmony with the History. If you actually studied the volumes (which you said you won’t waste your time doing so you’re just doing to sit in ignorance about what this date means) 1799 was when the authority of the pope over the nations was broken as was shown by the 1260 years from its inception in 539AD. Also, I think you mean 1881 not 1884. This was when he believed the general call was to end to Christendom. Not prediction made. 1878? When the sleeping saints would be resurrected to heaven? So when it says they would be caught up to heaven during his presence (coming) this is not to be seen by the world. So this is not false is we believe that Christ has been gathering his bride from those who have passed on since 1881. 1874? Russell accepted this view after he date had already passed from Nelson Barbour 1914. The date is correct by the expectations were wrong. After the Gentile times ended in 1914 the Balfour Declaration came about in 1917 allowing Israel to return to their homeland. So none of these dates are failures. But if you read the volumes then you’d know this.

                    ““read the volumes” – I am sorry, but I don’t want to spend my life studying ”his volumes”, why should I do that in the light you put it here:“his words are not gospel” – as I said; then why should I study it when I have ”the Gospel”?”

                    – This basically shows that you’re not on here to find out who God is but are here to argue. His words aren’t Gospel. That’s right. But even in the Bible they had people explaining what things meant. And it’s of different than accepting what “Pastoe says”. But that you just said shows you’re not looking for God but are looking to refute us. Which you’re doing a poor job doing. Googling arguments that we’ve already been through. You’ve googled your arguments with out-of-context quotes but never went to the source.

                    “Russell, of course, denied many times that what he wrote was infallible” – Ok, if you say so.”

                    Yes I say so. Here’s what he said about it.
                    “Neither must you lean upon the DAWN and the TOWER as infallible teachers. If it was proper for the early Christians to prove what they received from the apostles, who were and who claimed to be inspired, how much more important it is that you fully satisfy yourself that these teachings keep closely within their outline instructions and those of our Lord;–since their author claims no inspiration, but merely the guidance of the Lord, as one used of him in feeding his flock.
                    ***

                    Indeed, time and again I have seen that the teachings of those who make utterances of their own, but in the name of Christ, by claimed inspiration, or special revelations, or boasted wisdom (which is the real spirit of popery), and without proof from the Scripture, are received by many. And I am confident that the DAWN and TOWER would have many more friends and believers if they followed this (popery’s) course;–for as some one has said, “People prefer to be humbugged.” But such a course I dare not follow; I must be true to the Lord and declare his Word, and let him take charge of the consequences. -1893; letter written by Pastor Russell, published in “The Watch Tower”, June, 1893 pg. 168

                    So please. Take your “I’m-looking-for-God” somewhere else. You’re not looking for him. You’re looking to try to refute us. Like when atheists comes with their questions about God when it’s a question intended to refute. Sorry. Your tricks don’t work here.

                  • Lincoln

                    July 9, 2017 at 6:27 am

                    Anon CJ.
                    July 8, 2017 at 4:36 pm

                    Dear AnonCJ

                    sorry for your letter to me and the things you say. But, we live in a world where we have “free speech” and so does you. The things you say is not what I intend, but I …… Sorry, I have no intention of what you accuse me for.

                    So, what can I say to you? God bless you.

                  • Anon CJ.

                    July 9, 2017 at 8:28 am

                    Yes and I used my free speech toward you to call out your “I’m searching for God” scheme. You aren’t in here to search for God. You’re in here to refute us and as what you said we have free speech. Well there was mine. That’s like an atheist going in to a church to debate and say “I’m just trying to find God”

                  • Anon CJ.

                    July 10, 2017 at 5:03 am

                    Thank you for your words. It’s one thing to want to dialogue about God but another to take what we believe and try to refute us. Trying to google quotes and use them against us is a whole other matter. Russell never claimed to be inspired. Sure he said some wrong things. Has every teacher or pastor in the past had it correct? Of course not. Dialogues are one thing. Trying to refute our religion is another.

              • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                July 6, 2017 at 8:02 pm · Reply

                Hi Lincoln this is Jacqueline. I think Greg is referring to something different than what you are speaking about. He and I are talking by email and he is having a difficult personal experience now.
                Often there are many conversations going on at one time. I think he is speaking to Zions herald and the part you quoted, I actually copied and pasted it from his comment rather than him having 2. I will go and post it just as presented and maybe it will make sense.

                • Lincoln

                  July 7, 2017 at 6:41 am · Reply

                  Dear Jacqueline, thank you for your comment. I really appreciate the comments from the brothers (and sisters, mostly brothers).

                  It is so interesting for me to read the comments. It is like ”old times” I have read about.

                  I know, we cannot bring that time back, but glad to speak to all of you. So, Jacqueline this is for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF3SYLaYFG4

                  Through It All.

                  You are forever in my life
                  You see me through the seasons
                  Cover me with Your hand
                  And lead me in Your righteousness
                  And I look to You
                  And I wait on You

                  I’ll sing to You, Lord, a hymn of love
                  For Your Faithfulness to me
                  And I’m carried in everlasting arms
                  You’ll never let me go through it all
                  You are forever in my life
                  You see me through the seasons
                  Cover me with Your hand
                  And lead me in Your righteousness
                  And I, I look to You, oh
                  And I wait on You

                  I’ll sing to You, Lord, a hymn of love
                  For Your Faithfulness to me
                  And I’m carried in everlasting arms
                  You’ll never let me go, I will sing

                  • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                    July 8, 2017 at 9:02 pm

                    Dear Lincoln, Jesus understands that we need to know God! So he said: They own everything together. Listen and follow him in the Gospels and you will get to know who God is. especially read the last quoted text of John 17: 20 below.
                    John 14:9New International Version (NIV)

                    9 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’?
                    Dr. Stanley is an older TV minister here in the United States and he said something the other day that stuck with me. He said God loves for us to talk to him and we should do it always. I do it and it helps me to get to know so much. I connect with him. Listen to John 12: – 18 and get to know God. Jesus makes a mighty prayer to God His Father and ours. He is like God, he is faithful to his father and imitates him. Listen to the book of John 20 times especially 14:-17 until you know the words by HEART and it WILL hit you. That the Father was connected to him as he says to his apostles: so he reflected the image of what type of person God was while in the flesh after the Holy Spirit descended at his baptism.
                    12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.” Jesus has been appointed or put over all of God’s belongings.
                    He told them that he had to go away for them to receive the Spirit and they would also have an access that they never had before, “IN HIS NAME”

                    23 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. Very truly I tell you, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
                    25 “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 26 In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27 No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28 I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”
                    John 17:
                    20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
                    Take Care

                  • Lincoln

                    July 9, 2017 at 6:01 am

                    Dear Jacqueline,

                    Thank you very much your encouragements. I agree to the words you quote from the Apostle John.

                    ”Listen to the book of John 20 times especially 14:-17 until you know the words by HEART and it WILL hit you. ”That the Father was connected to him as he says to his apostles: so he reflected the image of what type of person God was while in the flesh after the Holy Spirit descended at his baptism.”

                    12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”
                    “IN HIS NAME”
                    John 17:

                    20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. ”
                    quote end.

                    So Jacqueline; within the ”realm” of Jesus words we try to understand God and his ”togetherness” with Jesus. The question remains; was God within Jesus as God at the same time we know Jesus was Human?

                    The Christian world believes that. Yes, Jesus was a human, but was conceived by the Holy Spirit. So, this human person Jesus was something more than a human which he also proved along his life.

                    So, when we pray to Jesus and speak to Jesus (and the Holy Spirit as well) we pray and speak to JHVH, the Holy God of the Jews/ Israel.

                    In the Christian world and faith there is no other options. It looks like to me that within the whole world, the name Jesus is what is changing people’s hearts.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuuZMg6NVeA

                    Every praise is to our God.
                    Every word of worship with one accord
                    Every praise every praise is to our God.
                    Sing hallelujah to our God
                    Glory hallelujah is due our God
                    Every praise every praise is to our God.
                    Every praise is to our God.
                    Every word of worship with one accord
                    Every praise every praise is to our God.
                    Sing hallelujah to our God
                    Glory hallelujah is due our God
                    Every praise every praise is to our God.
                    God my Savior
                    God my Healer
                    God my Deliverer
                    Yes He is, yes He is
                    God my Savior
                    God my Healer
                    God my Deliverer
                    Yes He is, yes He is
                    God my Savior
                    God my Healer
                    God my Deliverer
                    Yes He is, yes He is, yes He is, yes He is
                    Yes He is, yes He is, yes He is, yes He is

                  • Lincoln

                    July 10, 2017 at 1:20 am

                    Dear Anon CJ.

                    No, I am not (I will quote you) “searching for God” scheme. You aren’t in here to search for God”.
                    Quote end.

                    That is quite true.

                    And, NO I am not here to (I will quoste you) ”You’re in here to refute us” and it is not like ”That’s like an atheist going in to a church to debate and say “I’m just trying to find God”. quote end.

                    Why is it not so? Because I have found God. I really have found God and I am happy for that. Why am I here?

                    Well, after many years with Jehovah`s Witnesses I met you Biblestudents both in history and here. I have heard about you all my life, as followers of Charles Taze Russell teachings, but I now understand that he did not teach anything about ”the end of world in 1914” and that the ”thousand years should begin in 1914” (Paradise on earth) or the other dates I gave you.

                    So, I am a little confused. I am glad you could help me to realise Charlse Taze Russell did not.

                    When I say ”I found God”, I ment I have found Jesus. I have no dates as when the end of the world will be and about a Kingdom in Heaven. I do not have a messeage to you that you are wrong because I trust in the free will.

                    I am not to judge anyone, but I believe in sharing the Gospel and we should all respect each other. Therefore I do respect you very much and it was my hope we could share our faith in Jesus together.

                    This is very difficult to say. Do I believe in God? Yes, I do, but do I have to prove it?

                    What does it mean to ”believe in God”?

                    Here, ZionsHerald was giving information on the qualities we give God, which we take from the Bible, the Holy Book of the Jews and the God of the Jews.

                    Somehow we have decided to do the same, believe in the Holy Book of the Jews and accept the God of the Jews.

                    So, what does it mean to believe in the Jewish God JHVH as a Christian? Is it possible?

                    When we read the history of the Jews and the beginning, Abraham, Isac and Jacob we also comes to Moses and the Israelites and the 10 commandments.

                    Parts of the history of the Jews (Israelites) we don`t accept as something we should do since we live in a different time and culture. We have done such as our behaviour of other races and peopole in different parts of the world and today we regret it. (I hope).

                    But we are not Jews, but have taken the Holy Book of the Jews and the God of the Jews as our God and what does it mean? Are the Jews ok? Are we ok? Should there be a distinction even among ourselves? Is the other person who calls himself a Christian as good as we are?

                    Am I, a born again Christian just as good as The Biblestudents and how about Jehovah`s Witnesses or the Catholic Church? Even if we have different views on many things, who is right and wrong?

                    Who does God love and who does God not love? Does God love his people, the Chosen People, the Jews?

                    Could it be that we all are welcome with God? That God loves all people (as my wife says) and wants us to live together in peace and harmony even with some differences?

                    What would happen if we decided to do? Accepting each other and started to live in peace and harmony? How could it be possible?

                    I think (thinking about the qualities ZionsHerald pointet out about God) if we were to cultivating those qualities all over in all the different denominations and churches, we could go a long way.

                    So, even if I don`t belong to the Biblestudents or Jehovah`s Witnesses or not member of the Chatolic Church (as one of my daughters) then I am just as much God’s child and God loves me just as much? Did Jesus give life to me, even so?

                    Why did Charles Taze Russell start the Biblestudents movement? Why did J.F.Rutherford brand Jehovah`s Witnesses? Promising ”everlasting life on earth? Was it the time, the Great Depression that gave a vacuum for this new religion?

                    Why did Ellen G. White start the Adventist movement? How about Joseph Smith? How about all the others? How about William J. Seymour and the Azusa Street Revival? How about Martin Luther King?

                    What happened to the Azusa Street Revival? What has happened afterwards?

                    Well, this movement has gone on ever since. It is interesting that this happened at the same time as Charles Tazse Russell gave his contribution.

                    It began with a meeting on April 9, 1906, and continued until roughly 1915. The revival was characterized by ecstatic spiritual experiences accompanied by claims of physical healing miracles, dramatic worship services, speaking in tongues, and inter-racial mingling. The participants were criticized by the secular media and Christian theologians for behaviors considered to be outrageous and unorthodox, especially at the time. Today, the revival is considered by historians to be the primary catalyst for the spread of Pentecostalism in the 20th century. Quote end.

                    So, Anon CJ. There is a hunger and a thirst for Jesus, but very few workers available. I don’t know who is going to study with these millions who are so hungry for God, our God, the Jews God JHVH now in this new revelation of Jesus. So, in the meantime there is only one possible hope: prayer. Ask the Holy Spirit to comfort these millions all over the world reached by the Evangelists who God has given possible mission. Hope and joy in the midst of poverty and death.
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBtBHZtdU78

                    Anon CJ, I bless you.

                  • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

                    July 10, 2017 at 8:22 am

                    Lincoln I agree there is not a religious group on the earth today with all truth. God has blessed many people and aided them to carry his word to the masses. He loves them as he loves me. (John 3:16) I study the Bible and learn something new each time. Holy Spirit helps me. I associate with a group of fellow Christians and study the Bible in freedom. I can ask questions and we all try to dig and get a satisfying answer.
                    Within this association some are more adherent to Br. Russell’s writings some are not. I respect his contribution as i believe God leaps mankind knowledge by providing or spurring men. Electricity, phone, discovery of bacteria and thus vaccines etc. All of these people doing this are God’s children . Jesus calls him Our Father.
                    That is why I listen to many voices. Here I learn from comments like yours and others.
                    I don’t attack other religions, even letting witnesses be a witness if they want. It is no worse to me than any other organization like some you mentioned. Some people like a lot of restrictions, thinking this makes them holier than anybody else.
                    Often some leave the witnesses but retain the strict order of all believe exactly. Normally when that is the case only one or a few are thinking. There are however certain core beliefs in the Bible that are clear. I can still converse for discussion with most religions. I find it difficult however to converse or discuss with witnesses and therefore I refrain from doing so. I only speak with a witness on spiritual matters if they approach me and even then i say little and just listen. All religious persons are welcome here as long as we respect each other and are not trying to take advantage of any on here with pleads for money or hook ups with companions.
                    Those are just a few of the small guide lines for this site.
                    BTW: I found another of you comments in pending and I will go release it now. I think the program sees a phrase or word in your links and kicks I to be looked at first before posting. Take care of yourself and guard your relationship with your wife and daughter. So glad to see you allow them to have their beliefs. Jesus will finish putting his administration together soon and then start educating all of mankind so we can truly call him Father and mankind are proven loyal sons.

                  • Lincoln

                    July 10, 2017 at 9:13 am

                    Dear Jacqueline,

                    Thanks for your fine comments on mine. Thank you very much. I agree with you. In this way we can really communicate across the streets.

                    God bless you.

  • Daz

    January 8, 2015 at 6:45 am · Reply

    Hi there Wild Olive, thankyou kindly, I am glad you enjoyed my comments, hope they helped swell. I also enjoyed reading your reply & your experience with your Greek friends use of dialogue, very interesting, also your take on how you researched the trinity.
    Thankyou for sharing with us.

    Warm & loving regards,
    Daz

  • Jeff

    January 8, 2015 at 11:30 am · Reply

    I find some of the arguments used in support of the doctrine lacking in their respective contexts.

    An example.

    In Isaiah 9:6-7 Jesus is called the Mighty God, so therefore he must be God. However, Jesus is also called the Everlasting Father in the same context. So there you have it. No strict Trinitarian will ever agree that Jesus is the Father. They would identify Jesus as Father-like instead. Then why not make him god-like in the same context?

• Daz

  September 25, 2014 at 8:00 am · Reply

  I found this interesting, it really proves the importance & origins of Jesus when you read the meaning of the word “Begotten”: begot or (Archaic) begat; begotten or begot; begetting.
  1.
  (especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
  2.
  to cause; to produce.

  • Jacqueline

    September 25, 2014 at 12:16 pm · Reply

    Hi Daz, yes in the Bible when beget or begotten is used it is different to me from like Adam being created. It is like a birth. Even in the animal kingdom we see different types of birthing methods so I know Jehovah’s producing of his son was different from like us. This is my belief and opinion.

    • Daz

      September 25, 2014 at 2:14 pm · Reply

      Hi Jacqueline I hope you are keeping well, yes I have also come to that conclusion & belief, Jesus came forth from his father (begotten), he has not been created separately like the other angels but he is a part of the Father just as woman is a part of man, the rib of Adam was taken & so forth woman was formed, she was not created from nothing but from part of a man, I believe it is it a similar concept regarding our lord Jesus. It all makes sense to me now, especially when Jesus said that he & his father are one, just as when a married couple become one. If only trinitarians would see this then they would understand Jesus Christ & his place & origins & would see that he is not the father & the father is not him but just as Jesus said “The father is in me & I am in the father”. EVERYTHING was created through him. I get it now, Jesus is the same as Jehovah because he came from Jehovah just as my son came from me BUT Jehovah the Father is the head & has all authority, this shows that Jesus is in subjection to his Father.

      Warm & loving regards,
      Daz

      • Jacqueline

        September 25, 2014 at 9:18 pm · Reply

        I agree.

      • Peter K. (admin)

        September 26, 2014 at 9:56 am · Reply

        Daz – Good comments. It is amazing the complexity of details that some Trinitarian defenders will present to passionately defend this doctrinal view. If one hunts around the Bible enough and manipulates Greek and Hebrew grammar enough, he/she can come up with supposed evidence to support just about anything idea. This is why it is so important to each person to pray to Jehovah for guidance (Luke 11:13; John 16:13), make an honest and thorough study of each topic and seek total harmonization of the topic from Genesis to Revelation. This is why our study never ends. We are always learning and adding to hopefully an established scriptural foundation.

        On Trinity, another related topics impacted and contradicted is that Jesus was fully a man on earth (1 Tim 2:5) and as such could provide the Ransom price (“Anti-Lutron” A perfect man Jesus in place of a perfect man Adam). The Trinity views Jesus as a combination of both God and man at the same time when he was with his disciples on earth.

        • Daz

          September 26, 2014 at 10:27 am · Reply

          Hi Peter, thankyou kindly for replying to my post. I agree with you regarding trinitarians, myself personally I just can’t see the logic in what they believe, I never have. What I have recently discovered regarding the origin of Jesus has made parts of the puzzle manifest & fit togther for me. The references I found & examples which I posted up really harmonize with one another. Certain wording & phrasing are obviously apparant in the bible for our benefit as it gives us the real meaning of what Jehovah’s & Jesus’ words are saying to the full, this is why it should not be changed, added or taken away. I am just amazed by the revelations I am experiencing, it’s so awesome!

          Warm & loving regards,
          Daz

      • Reidys

        January 16, 2016 at 6:40 am · Reply

        I have never before seen things in that way. But your words made me think. Greetings! I am sorry for my english. It is not my mother language

        • Jacqueline (Bible Student)

          January 16, 2016 at 9:44 am · Reply

          Reid’s hello and thanks for commenting. How did you find the site? Tell me are you a witness? They also believe Christ was created. But some religions don’t because they believe he is just another aspect or face of God.
          What do you think about the armageddon articles? I was totally impressed when I learned about it not being judgment day for individuals but instead on the system structures and different forms of government.
          I always felt if God would get rid of corrupt government most at armageddon would welcome a full one world rule so ALL humans could benefit. I never saw the reason to kill little families and all because they never listened to the governingbody rulers of the witnesses.

• yuyi mukela

  August 2, 2012 at 1:01 pm · Reply

  Jesus is God him self. He is the son of God

  • Peter K. (admin)

    August 3, 2012 at 11:31 am · Reply

    Yuyi – How can Jesus be God if he is God’s son? Do you have a scripture in mind?

  • Dundee

    September 26, 2014 at 6:26 pm · Reply

    Yuyi,
    I have a son. My son is not me. He is his own entity. However he is a mirror reflection of me indeed.