The Word: Created or Creator?

Jehovah's Witnesses insist Jesus is a created being, the first to be created, the one who created 'all other things.' Of the opening verses of John's gospel they write:

'The “beginning” referred to in this verse cannot mean “the beginning” of God, because God had no beginning. Jehovah God is “from everlasting to everlasting.” (Psalm 90:1, 2) However, the Word, Jesus Christ, did have a beginning. He is “the beginning of the creation by God.”—Revelation 3:14.'

What is 'the beginning' referring to in John 1:1? Did Jesus Christ have a beginning? Is the NWT accurate and reliable when it translates Revelation 3:14, 'the beginning of the creation by God'?

In the beginning was [εἰμί (eimi), Gk. ‘to be’] the Word – Genesis is in mind here, Jehovah’s Witnesses say as much when they teach God made Jesus and Jesus made ‘all other things,’ as Colossians 2 doesn’t say, but does in their NWT. Note, Jesus ‘was’ in the beginning; he didn’t begin to be. John could have said Jesus began to be. He used this phraseology when, in verse 14, he wrote, ‘And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.’ ‘Became’ here is γίνομαι (ginomai) to become, come into existence. But Jesus already was [eimi], in the beginning, denoting absolute pre-existence.

Jesus belongs to the order of eternity, an order to which God alone belongs. Of course, they are right to insist ‘the beginning’ John writes about is not the beginning of God, it is the beginning of creation, and when the beginning began Jesus already was.

The Watch Tower Society recognises this distinction in translating John 1:1, ‘In the beginning was the Word…’ and going on to translate, ‘All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.’ ‘Was’ and ‘came to be’ are different categories, to say Jesus came to be is a category error.

Verse 3 reinforces the idea of Jesus as Creator and life-giver when John writes, ‘All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.’ Again, the Greek here is γίνομαι (ginomai), made, to come into being. Jesus cannot be part of the created order since ‘without him was not anything made that was made.’ He is what is called ‘the efficient principle,’ the beginning of everything, and not himself the first created.

Verse 4 reinforces this by saying of Jesus, ’In him was life…’ All creation is contingent, a crucial point, creation depends on another for life. Jesus has life in himself, is life’s source. This is why he was able to promise the woman at the well ‘a spring of water welling up to eternal life.’ (John 4:14) The source of life was offering his abundant life to a contingent creature.

Note also, Jesus prays in ch.17, ‘And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.’ 17:5 He had glory ‘with God,’ the God who insists he would not share his glory with another (Isaiah 42:8)

This is the challenge Jesus brings, and that Christians from the beginning have had to wrestle with. When asked for his credentials Jesus pointed to what he taught and what he did. Everything pointed to his divinity, from teaching as one with authority, through healing the sick, raising the dead, to conquering the grave.

Thomas declared the challenge met when he said to Jesus, ‘My Lord, and my God!’ John 20:28 Succinct but to the point. Theologians down the ages have dug deeper to get a fuller understanding of what it means that Jesus should be God the Son and not God the Father.

Unitarians conclude ‘He is the Son of God but not God the Son,’ a confession found nowhere in the Bible. In fact, to arrive at this conclusion they must ignore what John tells us in the prologue of his gospel.

Once you take the Unitarian stance you must bend every text and passage of Scripture to make it fit your Unitarianism. You have decide what the Bible says makes no sense to you and so you bend the Bible to your view. Wiser heads have decided to bend their faith to what the Bible says and, like Thomas, declare, ‘My Lord and my God!’

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...

Bridge of Reason

Search This Blog