More evidence of pre-existing beliefs

Hi Justin,

The conclusions you have made from the passages in your last post are excellent examples of how some passages "fit perfectly" with an a priori theological view without "proving" that theological viewpoint true. For example,

(1) JWs believe that the Father alone is God and Jesus is the first of God's creations. Jesus is the most important of all God's creation playing the role a firstborn in a family would assume. Because he is part of creation and the first of God's creations we call him our brother. Because Jesus is God's creation, he is obedient to God.

(2) Evangelicals believe that although Jesus was in the form of God, he humbled himself and became submissive to the Father. By taking on flesh, he became our brother. He didn't just take any brotherly role, he took on the responsibilities expected of a firstborn child.

(3) LDSers believe that Jesus is literally our "Big Brother" the firstborn of Heavenly Father. Just as we have, he took on flesh and as the firstborn had the responsibility of leading his brothers and sisters to salvation. He is not the same person as the Father, but the literaly a son of the Father.

So when JWs, LDSers and Evangelicals read the following verses, all see them "fit perfectly" with their theological viewpoint.

"Jesus replied...the Father is greater than I."
John 14:28

"He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation."
Colossians 1:15

"Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers."
Hebrews 2:11

In none of these verses do we find a clear contradiction between each of the three theological views. More evidence is required to resolve this issue. Now I don't agree with some people who say, "You can make the bible say anything," because that's simply not true. You and I both know (as do JWs) that Jesus had a preexistence. That's an indesputable teaching from the Bible. Below I will show how none of the passages you quoted are contradiction with my theological view and your theological view. To resolve this issue we need some solid road blocks that says "You can come this far, but no farther." One of us (or both) need to run into passages that stop us in our theological tracks. But before I discuss these showstopper passages, here's a review of each passage with a summary of your beliefs and mine.

.........................................
"For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will..."
Ephesians 1:4-5 (See also: Romans 8:29; 1 Peter 1:20)

LDS View
God's "foreknowledge" means that he "literally" knew us in our preexistent state. As a Father, he had plans for us ahead of our incarnation and mortal state.

Evangelical View
God's "foreknowledge" means that God can "literally" know persons, places and things before their actual existence. Because he is Sovereign, he plans out the adoption of those who are to be sons even before they have a chance to choose right from wrong so that salvation depends not on the desires and effort of man but the will of God who chooses us.

.........................................
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
Ecclesiastes 12:7

LDS View
Our spirits began with God in heaven. When we die, our spirits return to heaven where they came from.

Evangelical View
Our spirits were given to us on the earth. When we die, our spirits return to God who gave us our spirits (which is actually closer to what the verse is saying).

.........................................
"...[Jesus is] the firstborn over all creation."
Colossians 1:15

LDS View
Jesus is literally the first of Heavenly Fathers creations and therefore takes on the role of the firstborn. As firstborn, he rules over all the other creation. "Firstborn" means the Jesus was literaly the first to be born among the sons of God. Why would the bible use such as simple and clear term if it didn't mean a literal firstborn?

Evangelical View
Although Jesus is God and had no created beginning, he emptied himself to become a man and as a man humbled himself to obedience under the Father. As God in the flesh his default role as a man would be that of the firstborn. Jesus is like King David, who, although David was the youngest in his family and was not the first to be king, was given the title of "firstborn" (Psalms 89:27). Firstborn is the title of the Messiah's role, not his literal state of existence.

.........................................
"...[Jesus is] the beginning of the Creation of God..."
Revelations 3:14

LDS View
Jesus is the beginning of God's creation. The words in Revelation are clear and speak for themselves. How can you argue against such a clear statement? Again, the bible says what is means and you have to perform theological gymnastics to teach another view.

Evangelical View
The Greek word translated "beginning" in the KJV (not in more modern version) is "arche" (pronounced "ar-kay") and is a title of supremecy. Some words have a semantical scope of meaning and their affected meaning is determined by the context in which they are used. In English the word "ruler" could mean "a stick for measuring" or it could mean "a leader of people." Context will always determine meaning of the word "ruler" just as context should determine the meaning of arche. Arche can mean either "ruler" or "beginning" but context must determine meaning, not a priori reasoning or poorer translations (see KJV vs. the more modern NIV I gave you).*

*Some Revelation 3:14 elaboration
What is often ignored in the discussion of Revelation 3:14 is that arche is often a prefix used in other words to denote that the title holder is the "ruler over" a given group. In Greek the archagos is a leader of a group, the archiereus is the ruling high priest, the archepoimen is the leader of shepards, the archesunagogs is the ruler of the synagogue, the archetektos (from which we get architect) is a leader of those who build, the archetelones is the leader of tax collectors, the archetriklinos is the leader of servants. In fact, the verb for "rule" in Greek is archo. A judge is called an archon and, finally, an arche is a ruler. The entire LDS (and JW) Revelation 3:14 argument is based on older less accurate English translations of the Bible.

Like the word "ruler" in English, arche can have another meaning if context demands it, but there are no such demands on its meaning "beginning" here. In all the verses prior to Revelation 3:14, Jesus is seen as holding authority. In Revelation 1:5, Jesus is called the "ruler over the kings of the earth." The Greek word for ruler here is archon. NIV reads "ruler" KJV reads "prince." In Revelation 1:18, Jesus holds "the keys of death and Hades". Revelation Jesus is "the first and the last" denoting authority. See also the authoritative descriptions of Jesus in Revelation 2:12, 2:18, 2:26 (he has the authority to give authority), 3:7, etc. I do strongly feel that Revelation 3:14 is greatly in favor of being translated "the ruler" though some will persist that he is "the beginning." My point is still valid that both of us see this passage as "fitting perfectly" with our theological view point.

I'm going to move back to John 3 and 8 in my next post.

GT