Jesus as Creator?

[Elijah John]

Some consider Jesus to be the Creator. This seems to an extreme example of Jesus worship, and goes against even conventional Trinitarian doctrine, which holds that the Father is Creator, the Son is Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier.

For debate,

1) When you see a beautiful sunset, a mountain or ocean scene, do you stop with awe and wonderment, and tell yourself "Wow, a first-century Palestinian Jew created all this"?

2) Even in the Gospels, is there any recorded instance where Jesus created anything "ex nihilo"? Out of nothing?

3) Does Paul call Jesus "Creator" or come close to calling Jesus "Creator"? If so, where does he get this notion?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 5 by tam]

John 1:3 is more accurately translated:

Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.


"Through" Him.

Some translations use 'by', but most translations use the word "through".

Are "through" and "by" the only translations possible of the Greek?

What do you understand they actually mean in this context?

[JehovahsWitness]

from (material)
through (instrumental)
by/in (modal)
for (purpose).

If someone is "instrumental" or an "agent" they are obviously being used by someone else to achieve a given purpose.

Definition of INSTRUMENTAL

1 a : serving as a crucial means, agent, or tool
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/instrumental

If Jesus was the "instrument"/the "tool" who was handling him? Are you suggesting the hammer swings the hammer? Has everyone suddenly forgotten what an "agent" is?

JW










FURTHER READING

"through": DIA not HUPO (Greek)
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... -emil.html


RELATED POSTS

What did Paul mean when he refered to Jesus as the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15)?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 218#867218

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]

If we equate "Word" with "Jesus" then yes, John makes the claim that Jesus was the agent of Creation.

Should we be equating them?

Should we be capitalizing "Word/Logos" and translating it as "he"?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 12 by JehovahsWitness]

What did Paul mean when he refered to Jesus as the "firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15)?

It is the first of the many aspects Paul outlines that demonstrate Jesus' preeminence or superiority over all things.

[JehovahsWitness]

Are "through" and "by" the only translations possible of the Greek?

"Through (dia) him God made all things" John 1:3 (GNT)
""all things were created by (dia) him, and for him:" Col 1:16b (KJV)

DIA: The Greek word employed both in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16(c) above is "dia" (διά). According to STRONG'S #1223 DIA is {quote} "a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act". Strong's offers a variety of prepositions as English equivalents, such as: by, for (cause), in, of, by reason of etc. Most translations opt (in the above passages) for "through" or "by" both of which communicate the notion of intermediate agency as per the root meaning of the word*.

See various translations
http://biblehub.com/john/1-3.htm
http://biblehub.com/colossians/1-16.htm

"[Dia: διά ] may be used as a "marker of instrumentality or circumstance whereby something is accomplished or effected, by, via, through ... [it] can also be a "marker of pers. agency, through, by" - A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) page 225

Theologian, Emil BRUNNER suggests that if Paul had wanted to identify Jesus as the Creator in Col 1:15-17, he would have employed the Greek word hUPO (by) used metaphorically in scripture to denote an action "under the power of", in this case, the initiator (compare Matthew 1:22; Matthew 2:15), stating: "...the world, it is true, was created THROUGH--DIA--the Son, but not BY--hUPO--the Son [...] The fact that between the Creator and the Creation there stands the Mediator of creation means that the world is an act of the freedom of God, that it does not proceed from the Logos." - "The Christian Doctrine of God." (Volume I), Emil BRUNNER, p. 308

[*]NOTE: In English "by" can be somewhat ambiguous as it can be used as a preposition of agent ("the book was written by Shakespearee") orof instrument/devise to indicate the means by which something is achieved . Since in English "by" serving in this capacity is usually used for machines or transport (she came by car") many English translators opt for the less ambigious "through" to properly reflect the Greek root meaning.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 8 by Overcomer]

Jesus himself is NOT a created being. (John 1:1 says he WAS in the beginning, past tense meaning he existed prior to creation; in John 8:56-58, Jesus states of himself that he has always existed).

You're conflating Jesus who "became flesh" i.e. born into "sinful flesh" with who he was prior to his incarnation. Sinful flesh did NOT create the world. Jesus did NOT state he himself always existed. He proclaimed the necessity to "deny yourself", not to suggest that the self always existed.

It is not accurate to say that the word always existed because that is to place the word eternally into the past. The word always exists. The Word is synonymous with existence, but all human beings, including Jesus; are finite, and have finite lives. You are making a similar mistake that others do in assuming that Jesus is synonymous with the mechanism of creation. The process by which everything comes into being cannot be conflated with what comes into being. Jesus was fully human and as such is most definitely created.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 15 by JehovahsWitness]


Checkpoint wrote:

Are "through" and "by" the only translations possible of the Greek?

Part of your answer was this quote:

DIA: The Greek word employed both in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16(c) above is "dia" (διά). According to STRONG'S #1223 DIA is {quote} "a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act". Strong's offers a variety of prepositions as English equivalents, such as: by, for (cause), in, of, by reason of etc.

Most translations opt (in the above passages) for "through" or "by" both of which communicate the notion of intermediate agency as per the root meaning of the word.

I was not asking what "most translations opt", but whether any other translations are "possible of the Greek".

Would it be correct to conclude your answer to my question is "no"?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 15 by JehovahsWitness]


Checkpoint wrote:

Are "through" and "by" the only translations possible of the Greek?

Part of your answer was this quote:

DIA: The Greek word employed both in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16(c) above is "dia" (διά). According to STRONG'S #1223 DIA is {quote} "a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act". Strong's offers a variety of prepositions as English equivalents, such as: by, for (cause), in, of, by reason of etc.

Most translations opt (in the above passages) for "through" or "by" both of which communicate the notion of intermediate agency as per the root meaning of the word.

I was not asking what "most translations opt", but whether any other translations are "possible of the Greek".

Would it be correct to conclude your answer to my question is "no"?

That would be incorrect.

I would draw your attention to the part marked in blue and encourage you, if you would like to know all the possible options for "dia" I would encourage you to use the internet and google STRONGS 1223 (see above)

Regarding the research I have done, you are most welcome.


JW

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 15 by JehovahsWitness]


Checkpoint wrote:

Are "through" and "by" the only translations possible of the Greek?

Part of your answer was this quote:

DIA: The Greek word employed both in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16(c) above is "dia" (διά). According to STRONG'S #1223 DIA is {quote} "a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act". Strong's offers a variety of prepositions as English equivalents, such as: by, for (cause), in, of, by reason of etc.

Most translations opt (in the above passages) for "through" or "by" both of which communicate the notion of intermediate agency as per the root meaning of the word.

I was not asking what "most translations opt", but whether any other translations are "possible of the Greek".

Would it be correct to conclude your answer to my question is "no"?

That would be incorrect.

I would draw your attention to the part marked in blue and encourage you, if you would like to know all the possible options for "dia" I would encourage you to use the internet and google STRONGS 1223 (see above)

Regarding the research I have done, you are most welcome.


JW

Thank you JW.

I was already aware of that link.

Why do translators ignore the various alternatives that are possible, do you think?

[JehovahsWitness]

Why do translators ignore the various alternatives that are possible, do you think?

I have no evidence that they have.

A good translator will examine all options that respect the meaning in the original language and if there are several options for the target language (as there often are) will make an educated choice as to which best conveys that meaning. I can but assume that rather than "ignore" the various other options, they have examined them carefully and made a choice to reject them in favor of their final choice.

As readers all we can do is say if we agree with those choices or not. Personally since I neither read or write Greek or Hebrew my research simply compares what various experts have said on those translational choices.

JW


FURTHER READING: Principles of Bible Translation
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001070201