God begets God?

[Johann]

I’ve gone on record @Johann. Believing the New Testament isn’t optional. Not believing the New Testament is a salvation issue.

Yes.

Are you willing to go on record? Are you willing to say: “Not believing the New Testament isn’t a salvation issue”? If that’s really what you believe then what is preventing you from saying so?

No. Believing in the NT IS a salvation issue.

”You cannot believe the New Testament and deny the full deity of Jesus Christ.” - Johann

Agree.

“There is a God besides the Messiah’s God”?

No, but one God-three persons equally God. Echad and not yachid.

Shaliaḥ refers to the idea that an agent (shaliaḥ) acts on behalf of the one who sends them, with the authority of the sender. A key principle is "the agent is like the one who sent him" (shaliaḥ shel adam kemoto).

In practice, this applies in legal, religious, or communal matters where the actions of the agent are legally binding on the sender, provided they remain within the scope of their authority.

2. Does Shaliaḥ Confirm Jesus’ Preexistence?
Jewish Perspective: The concept of shaliaḥ applies to human agents acting on behalf of God or others, not as preexistent beings but as empowered representatives.

Figures like Moses or the prophets are often viewed as shaliaḥ—fully human, chosen by God, and entrusted with a mission.

Christian Perspective: Christian theology extends the principle of shaliaḥ to view Jesus as the ultimate agent of God, but with a unique twist: He is not merely a representative; He is God incarnate (John 1:1, 14).

Passages like John 14:9-10 ("Whoever has seen me has seen the Father") and John 6:38 ("I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me") reflect Jesus acting with full authority as God’s agent, while also pointing to His divine origin and preexistence.

Joh 14:9 Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach says to Philippos, So long a time with you I am and you have not had da'as of me, Philippos? The one having seen me has seen [Elohim] HaAv [Col. 1:15; YESHAYAH 9:5(6); Prov 30:4] How do you say, Show us HaAv?
Joh 14:10 Do you not have emunah (faith) that Ani Hu in HaAv and HaAv is in me? The dvarim which I speak to you I do not speak on my own, but HaAv dwelling in me does His pe'ulot.

Joh 6:38 For I have come down from Shomayim not that I may do my ratzon, but the ratzon of the One having sent me.
Joh 6:39 Now this is the ratzon of the One Who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all which He has given me, but I will raise him up on the Yom HaAcharon (Last Day). [Isa 27:3; Jer 23:4]

3. Key Distinctions Between Shaliaḥ and Jesus’ Preexistence:
Human vs. Divine Agency: Traditional shaliaḥ is strictly human, reflecting the sender but never claiming equivalence with God.

Christian doctrine, however, views Jesus as preexistent (John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am") and uniquely divine.

Mission and Identity: A shaliaḥ is distinct from the sender, but Jesus identifies Himself as one with the Father (John 10:30), which goes beyond the concept of shaliaḥ.


The shaliaḥ principle in Jewish law illustrates the concept of agency and representation but does not affirm Jesus' preexistence. However, Christian theology sees Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of this concept, embodying God’s mission and authority in a way that exceeds the traditional boundaries of shaliaḥ.

For Christians, Jesus’ preexistence is supported by New Testament texts like John 1:1-3 and Philippians 2:6-7, not by the Jewish law of agency itself.

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]
Joh 1:2 Bereshis (in the Beginning) this Dvar Hashem was with Hashem [Prov 8:30].
Joh 1:3 All things through him came to be, and without him came to be not one thing which came into being. [Ps 33:6,9; Prov 30:4]
Joh 1:4 In him was Chayyim (Life) and the Chayyim (Life) was the Ohr (Light) of Bnei Adam. [TEHILLIM 36:10 (9)]
Joh 1:5 And the Ohr shines in the choshech [TEHILLIM 18:28], and the choshech did not grasp it. [YESHAYAH 9:1]

The shaliah law of agency not applicable to Messiah.

I’ve answered your questions, @Matthias, but I cannot accept the shaliaḥ Law of Agency as you present it. You need to explain your perspective further or provide resources so I can better understand where you’re coming from.

J.

 

[Matthias]

Yes.

No. Believing in the NT IS a salvation issue.

Agree.

No, but one God-three persons equally God. Echad and not yachid.

Shaliaḥ refers to the idea that an agent (shaliaḥ) acts on behalf of the one who sends them, with the authority of the sender. A key principle is "the agent is like the one who sent him" (shaliaḥ shel adam kemoto).

In practice, this applies in legal, religious, or communal matters where the actions of the agent are legally binding on the sender, provided they remain within the scope of their authority.

2. Does Shaliaḥ Confirm Jesus’ Preexistence?
Jewish Perspective: The concept of shaliaḥ applies to human agents acting on behalf of God or others, not as preexistent beings but as empowered representatives.

Figures like Moses or the prophets are often viewed as shaliaḥ—fully human, chosen by God, and entrusted with a mission.

Christian Perspective: Christian theology extends the principle of shaliaḥ to view Jesus as the ultimate agent of God, but with a unique twist: He is not merely a representative; He is God incarnate (John 1:1, 14).

Passages like John 14:9-10 ("Whoever has seen me has seen the Father") and John 6:38 ("I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me") reflect Jesus acting with full authority as God’s agent, while also pointing to His divine origin and preexistence.

Joh 14:9 Rebbe, Melech HaMoshiach says to Philippos, So long a time with you I am and you have not had da'as of me, Philippos? The one having seen me has seen [Elohim] HaAv [Col. 1:15; YESHAYAH 9:5(6); Prov 30:4] How do you say, Show us HaAv?
Joh 14:10 Do you not have emunah (faith) that Ani Hu in HaAv and HaAv is in me? The dvarim which I speak to you I do not speak on my own, but HaAv dwelling in me does His pe'ulot.

Joh 6:38 For I have come down from Shomayim not that I may do my ratzon, but the ratzon of the One having sent me.
Joh 6:39 Now this is the ratzon of the One Who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all which He has given me, but I will raise him up on the Yom HaAcharon (Last Day). [Isa 27:3; Jer 23:4]

3. Key Distinctions Between Shaliaḥ and Jesus’ Preexistence:
Human vs. Divine Agency: Traditional shaliaḥ is strictly human, reflecting the sender but never claiming equivalence with God.

Christian doctrine, however, views Jesus as preexistent (John 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am") and uniquely divine.

Mission and Identity: A shaliaḥ is distinct from the sender, but Jesus identifies Himself as one with the Father (John 10:30), which goes beyond the concept of shaliaḥ.

:
The shaliaḥ principle in Jewish law illustrates the concept of agency and representation but does not affirm Jesus' preexistence. However, Christian theology sees Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of this concept, embodying God’s mission and authority in a way that exceeds the traditional boundaries of shaliaḥ.

For Christians, Jesus’ preexistence is supported by New Testament texts like John 1:1-3 and Philippians 2:6-7, not by the Jewish law of agency itself.

I’ve answered your questions, @Matthias, but I cannot accept the shaliaḥ Law of Agency as you present it. You need to explain your perspective further or provide resources so I can better understand where you’re coming from.

J.

Too much to respond to.

The law of agency doesn’t confirm literal preexistence of scripture (no passage of scripture does); it confirms Jesus’ notional preexistence (as all passages of scripture bearing on the question do.)

It’s impossible to square trinitarianism with Jewish monotheism. (Take a bow, Gregory of Nyssa.)

Jesus is a Jewish monotheist. That’s a historical fact. And it tips the scale, as far as I’m concerned, in favor of Jewish monotheism.

Trinitarianism destroys Jewish monotheism. That’s also a fact.

For those, like yourself, who are persuaded by men like Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, my advice is to follow your conscience. Just remember that there are people like me who aren’t persuaded by them and we must also follow our conscience, which will not allow us to label Jewish monotheism - the Messiah’s Jewish dogma - heresy, nor to destroy it.

The Messiah will settle the matter for those who destroy his Jewish dogma and for those who do not. Let’s leave that in his hands.

 

[Johann]

Too much to respond to.

The law of agency doesn’t confirm literal preexistence of scripture (no passage of scripture does); it confirms Jesus’ notional preexistence (as all passages of scripture bearing on the question do.)

It’s impossible to square trinitarianism with Jewish monotheism. (Take a bow, Gregory of Nyssa.)

Jesus is a Jewish monotheist. That’s a historical fact. And it tips the scale, as far as I’m concerned, in favor of Jewish monotheism.

Trinitarianism destroys Jewish monotheism. That’s also a fact.

For those, like yourself, who are persuaded by men like Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, my advice is to follow your conscience. Just remember that there are people like me who aren’t persuaded by them and we must also follow our conscience, which will not allow us to label Jewish monotheism - the Messiah’s Jewish dogma - heresy, nor to destroy it.

The Messiah will settle the matter for those who destroy his Jewish dogma and for those who do not. Let’s leave that in his hands.

No problem.

The law of agency doesn’t confirm the literal preexistence of Jesus, since it’s really about representation and authority, not someone’s existence before time. But when we look at Scripture, there are clear passages that do affirm Jesus’ literal preexistence.
For example, in John 1:1-3, it says, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' This shows that Jesus wasn’t just an idea in God’s mind-He was there, active from the very beginning.

Another example is Colossians 1:16-17, which tells us that 'all things were created through Him and for Him' and that 'He is before all things.'
These verses go way beyond the idea of notional preexistence; they point to Jesus’ eternal, active role in creation itself. So, while the law of agency is an interesting concept, it doesn’t really address the question of preexistence the way these passages do.

Shalom.

J.

 

[Johann]

No one has ever murdered God. No one will ever murder God. God cannot be murdered. God is inherently immortal.

It’s astonishing to me that this needs to be said to Christians.

The MAN Christ Jesus died on the Cross.

J.

 

[Johann]

Thanks.

***

@Johann, does this persuade you that “God begets God and then God is murdered by Jewish monotheists?”

Already answered.

J.

 

[Matthias]

No problem.

The law of agency doesn’t confirm the literal preexistence of Jesus, since it’s really about representation and authority, not someone’s existence before time. But when we look at Scripture, there are clear passages that do affirm Jesus’ literal preexistence.
For example, in John 1:1-3, it says, 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' This shows that Jesus wasn’t just an idea in God’s mind-He was there, active from the very beginning.

We’ve been through this before. John 1:1-3 shows that Jesus was not there.

Another example is Colossians 1:16-17, which tells us that 'all things were created through Him and for Him' and that 'He is before all things.'

All things were created by his God through him (not by him, but rather with him in mind) and for him. He is before all things, God excepted, in the new creation.

These verses go way beyond the idea of notional preexistence; they point to Jesus’ eternal, active role in creation itself.

They don’t. They point to his God’s active role in the Genesis creation, his God’s active role in the new creation and his role in the new creation.

To arrive at your position we have to destroy Jesus’ Jewish dogma. You’re able to do that with a clear conscience. I’m not.

So, while the law of agency is an interesting concept, it doesn’t really address the question of preexistence the way these passages do.

It isn’t an interesting concept to me. It addresses the issue of existence and preexistence the way that the passages do. It preserves the Messiah’s Jewish dogma.

Shalom.

J.

Do you still affirm that what I believe is not a salvation issue?

 

[Matthias]

Already answered.

J.

So his example doesn’t change anything in your mind. I didn’t think that it would. Now I know, but - more importantly, he knows - that it didn’t.

 

[Matthias]

The MAN Christ Jesus died on the Cross.

J.

That’s right. God didn’t die on the cross; the man Messiah Jesus, a human person, did.

There has never been a time when God was not alive. There never will be a time when God is not alive. The suggestion that Jewish monotheists murdered God is unfounded.

The Messiah is a different story. He was living, he ceased living, he began living again three days later.

 

[Matthias]

John 1:1-3. How many persons do you see? (A flashback to days teaching young children.)

Trinitarians, only two.

Jewish monotheists, only one.

 

[Johann]

We’ve been through this before. John 1:1-3 shows that Jesus was not there.

Wrong.

All things were created by his God through him (not by him, but rather with him in mind) and for him. He is before all things, God excepted, in the new creation.

Wrong again-Jesus was not a "concept" in the mind of YHWH.

Verse 1:
Ἐν (prep.) – "In" (a preposition indicating location or time).

ἀρχῇ (noun, dative singular) – "beginning" (in the dative case, indicating the time or sphere in which the action occurs).

ἦν (verb, imperfect active indicative, 3rd person singular) – "was" (continuous existence in the past).

ὁ λόγος (noun, nominative singular, definite article) – "the Word" (nominative case identifies the subject of the sentence).
πρὸς (prep.) – "with" (indicating relationship or direction toward).

τὸν θεόν (noun, accusative singular, definite article) – "the God" (specific reference to the one true God).

θεὸς (noun, nominative singular, anarthrous) – "God" (emphasizing quality or essence rather than identity).
Verse 2:

Οὗτος (pronoun, demonstrative, nominative singular) – "This one" (referring back to ὁ λόγος, "the Word").

ἐν ἀρχῇ – "in the beginning" (repeated from verse 1, emphasizing timeless existence).

πρὸς τὸν θεόν – "with God" (repeated to reinforce relationship and distinction).

Verse 3:
Πάντα (adjective, nominative plural neuter) – "All things" (subject of the verb; comprehensive scope).
δι’ (prep. + genitive) – "through" (indicates agency or means).

αὐτοῦ (pronoun, genitive singular) – "Him" (the Word as the agent of creation).

ἐγένετο (verb, aorist middle indicative, 3rd person singular) – "came into being" (action completed in the past, creation ex nihilo).
χωρὶς (prep. + genitive) – "without" (indicating absence or exclusion).
οὐδὲ (conjunction) – "not even" (emphasizing total dependence).
ἕν (numeral, neuter singular) – "one" (not even one thing came into existence apart from Him).

Syntactical Analysis
Verse 1: Timeless Preexistence of the Word
The phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος (In the beginning was the Word) is a verbless clause where the imperfect verb ἦν implies continuous action in the past. The Word (ὁ λόγος) existed before creation began.

The prepositional phrase πρὸς τὸν θεόν (with God) indicates relationship, intimacy, and distinctiveness between the Word and God.

The third clause, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (and the Word was God), uses an anarthrous predicate nominative (θεὸς without the article), which emphasizes the Word's divine nature.

Verse 2: Reiteration of Relationship
Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν ("This one was in the beginning with God") reaffirms that the Word was not a created being but eternally coexistent with God.

Verse 3: The Word as Creator
The subject Πάντα ("All things") is universal, leaving nothing outside the Word's creative agency.

The verb ἐγένετο ("came into being") contrasts with ἦν in verse 1. While the Word was (eternal existence), all creation came into being (had a beginning).

The phrase δι’ αὐτοῦ ("through Him") emphasizes the Word as the instrumental agent of creation, and χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ("without Him") denies the possibility of creation existing apart from the Word.

They don’t. They point to his God’s active role in the Genesis creation, his God’s active role in the new creation and his role in the new creation.

To arrive at your position we have to destroy Jesus’ Jewish dogma. You’re able to do that with a clear conscience. I’m not.

Jesus was not a "thought" in the mind of YHWH-I can say this with a clear conscience.

It isn’t an interesting concept to me. It addresses the issue of existence and preexistence the way that the passages do. It preserves the Messiah’s Jewish dogma.

I go by what stands written-preserving the Jewish Messiah and Deity. Not notional preexistence.

J.

 

[Matthias]

Wrong.

Wrong again-Jesus was not a "concept" in the mind of YHWH.

Verse 1:
Ἐν (prep.) – "In" (a preposition indicating location or time).

ἀρχῇ (noun, dative singular) – "beginning" (in the dative case, indicating the time or sphere in which the action occurs).

ἦν (verb, imperfect active indicative, 3rd person singular) – "was" (continuous existence in the past).

ὁ λόγος (noun, nominative singular, definite article) – "the Word" (nominative case identifies the subject of the sentence).
πρὸς (prep.) – "with" (indicating relationship or direction toward).

τὸν θεόν (noun, accusative singular, definite article) – "the God" (specific reference to the one true God).

θεὸς (noun, nominative singular, anarthrous) – "God" (emphasizing quality or essence rather than identity).
Verse 2:

Οὗτος (pronoun, demonstrative, nominative singular) – "This one" (referring back to ὁ λόγος, "the Word").

ἐν ἀρχῇ – "in the beginning" (repeated from verse 1, emphasizing timeless existence).

πρὸς τὸν θεόν – "with God" (repeated to reinforce relationship and distinction).

Verse 3:
Πάντα (adjective, nominative plural neuter) – "All things" (subject of the verb; comprehensive scope).
δι’ (prep. + genitive) – "through" (indicates agency or means).

αὐτοῦ (pronoun, genitive singular) – "Him" (the Word as the agent of creation).

ἐγένετο (verb, aorist middle indicative, 3rd person singular) – "came into being" (action completed in the past, creation ex nihilo).
χωρὶς (prep. + genitive) – "without" (indicating absence or exclusion).
οὐδὲ (conjunction) – "not even" (emphasizing total dependence).
ἕν (numeral, neuter singular) – "one" (not even one thing came into existence apart from Him).

Syntactical Analysis
Verse 1: Timeless Preexistence of the Word
The phrase Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος (In the beginning was the Word) is a verbless clause where the imperfect verb ἦν implies continuous action in the past. The Word (ὁ λόγος) existed before creation began.

The prepositional phrase πρὸς τὸν θεόν (with God) indicates relationship, intimacy, and distinctiveness between the Word and God.

The third clause, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (and the Word was God), uses an anarthrous predicate nominative (θεὸς without the article), which emphasizes the Word's divine nature.

Verse 2: Reiteration of Relationship
Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν ("This one was in the beginning with God") reaffirms that the Word was not a created being but eternally coexistent with God.

Verse 3: The Word as Creator
The subject Πάντα ("All things") is universal, leaving nothing outside the Word's creative agency.

The verb ἐγένετο ("came into being") contrasts with ἦν in verse 1. While the Word was (eternal existence), all creation came into being (had a beginning).

The phrase δι’ αὐτοῦ ("through Him") emphasizes the Word as the instrumental agent of creation, and χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ("without Him") denies the possibility of creation existing apart from the Word.

Jesus was not a "thought" in the mind of YHWH-I can say this with a clear conscience.

I go by what stands written-preserving the Jewish Messiah and Deity.

J.

You believe and have said that I am wrong. I believe and have said that Jesus is right.

 

[Johann]

You believe and have said that I am wrong. I believe and have said that Jesus is right.

It’s astonishing that you believe the Messiah was merely a "concept" or "plan" in the mind of YHWH, especially when the Scriptures clearly refute that claim, as they demonstrate that Jesus was indeed present and active from the beginning.

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]
Joh 1:2 Bereshis (in the Beginning) this Dvar Hashem was with Hashem [Prov 8:30].
Joh 1:3 All things through him came to be, and without him came to be not one thing which came into being. [Ps 33:6,9; Prov 30:4]
Joh 1:4 In him was Chayyim (Life) and the Chayyim (Life) was the Ohr (Light) of Bnei Adam. [TEHILLIM 36:10 (9)]
Joh 1:5 And the Ohr shines in the choshech [TEHILLIM 18:28], and the choshech did not grasp it. [YESHAYAH 9:1]

J.

 

[Matthias]

It’s astonishing that you believe the Messiah was merely a "concept" or "plan" in the mind of YHWH, especially when the Scriptures clearly refute that claim, as they demonstrate that Jesus was indeed present and active from the beginning.

The scriptures, written by Jewish monotheists, do not refute Jewish monotheism, Jewish dogma, nor the Jewish law of agency.

Everything preexisted in the mind of God before God brought it into existence.

Bereshis (in the Beginning) was the Dvar Hashem [YESHAYAH 55:11; BERESHIS 1:1], and the Dvar Hashem was agav (along with) Hashem [MISHLE 8:30; 30:4], and the Dvar Hashem was nothing less, by nature, than Elohim! [Psa 56:11(10); Yn 17:5; Rev. 19:13]
Joh 1:2 Bereshis (in the Beginning) this Dvar Hashem was with Hashem [Prov 8:30].
Joh 1:3 All things through him came to be, and without him came to be not one thing which came into being. [Ps 33:6,9; Prov 30:4]
Joh 1:4 In him was Chayyim (Life) and the Chayyim (Life) was the Ohr (Light) of Bnei Adam. [TEHILLIM 36:10 (9)]
Joh 1:5 And the Ohr shines in the choshech [TEHILLIM 18:28], and the choshech did not grasp it. [YESHAYAH 9:1]

J.

See any English translation of John 1:1-3 published prior to 1611. Then let’s talk. Until you‘re willing to do that we’re just killing time.

How serious are you about meeting me where I am?

 

[Johann]

The scriptures, written by Jewish monotheists, do not refute Jewish monotheism, Jewish dogma, nor the Jewish law of agency.

Everything preexisted in the mind of God before God brought it into existence.



See any English translation of John 1:1-3 published prior to 1611. Then let’s talk. Until you‘re willing to do that we’re just killing time.

How serious are you about meeting me where I am?

I know where you are going, and all things created by "it"--and I'm very serious of meeting you where you are @Matthias.

Neuter in the New Testament Context (John 1:1-3):

In John 1:1-3, the term λόγος (logos), often translated as "Word," is grammatically neuter.

The neuter gender of λόγος is significant because, in Greek, neuter nouns often refer to things that are more abstract or conceptual. However, in the context of the prologue of John, even though λόγος is neuter, it is personified, meaning it refers to a divine, personal entity-specifically, Jesus Christ, as shown in John 1:14 (“The Word became flesh”).

Greek: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος – "In the beginning was the Word"

Here, λόγος (Word) is neuter in gender, but it is treated as a personal subject throughout the passage. Even though Greek grammar uses the neuter form, theologically, λόγος is understood to refer to a person (the second person of the Trinity, Christ), who is later revealed in verse 14 as "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

Adjectives:

Adjectives in Greek must agree in gender, number, and case with the noun they modify. A neuter adjective will match a neuter noun.
Example: μέγα λόγος (mega logos) would mean "great word," with μέγα being the neuter form of "great," agreeing with λόγος (which, in this case, would be understood as neuter).

The neuter gender in Greek does not imply that the noun or concept is without personality or existence, but rather is a grammatical categorization. In the case of λόγος in John 1:1-3, the neuter gender does not detract from the theological significance of the "Word" being a person, as later confirmed in verse 14.

The Greek language uses the neuter here, but the passage conveys a personal, active being-the preexistent Christ.

J.

 

[APAK]

Wrong.

Wrong again-Jesus was not a "concept" in the mind of YHWH.


J.

...Creation... was made with Christ in mind as the plan, the critical concept and idea and purpose for existing in the future for mankind's' future salvation. His creation was critical to God's plan and his chosen method for human salvation.

 

[Johann]

.Creation... was made with Christ in mind as the plan, the critical concept and idea and purpose for existing in the future for mankind's' future salvation. His creation was critical to God's plan and his chosen method for human salvation.

I agree with you that creation was made with Christ in mind. The Bible makes it clear that Christ is central to God’s plan from the very beginning. For example, in John 1:3, it says, "All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." So, Christ wasn’t just part of the plan for salvation, He was actively involved in creating everything in the first place.

In Colossians 1:16-17, it says, "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through Him and for Him." This shows that not only did Christ create everything, but everything was created for Him-which means creation has its ultimate purpose in Him.

I also agree that Christ’s role in salvation was planned before the foundation of the world. Ephesians 1:4-5 tells us that God chose us in Christ before the world was even made. And even back in Genesis 3:15, we already see hints of God's plan to send a Savior through the seed of the woman-this is pointing to Christ, who would defeat Satan.

So, when you say that creation was critical to God's plan for salvation, you're absolutely right. Christ’s coming, His death, and His resurrection were all part of God's plan from the start. Revelation 13:8 even refers to Jesus as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, showing that His sacrificial role was already part of God’s purpose before creation began.

It’s amazing to think about how everything, from creation to salvation, points to Christ. God created the world with a purpose, and that purpose was to bring about redemption through Jesus. So, in a way, creation was always leading to Him and His saving work for humanity.

Thanks for your contribution @APAK.

J.

 

[Behold]

...Creation... was made with Christ in mind as the plan,

What you wrote has that "taint" of Predestinated To be a Calvinist on it.

Try it this way..

God's Foreknowledge, knew that Adam's apple bite, was going to be the fall of us all.
So, because God SAW THAT,, as His Foreknowledge.. He knew that the only way back from that situation, that allowed Man to be permanently restored into the Spiritual Union with God, that 1st Adam lost for us all... was to offer Himself as "God wrapped in Human Flesh" on The Cross., as the 2nd Adam.

And the BIBLE.......REVEALS this to us.........it shows us, what happened and what is going to happen next.

So, all of this, is REVELATION............that the Calvinist, redefines falsely, as "predestined"...

But it wasn't predestined., it was only fore-known by God, and the BIBLE reveals this Foreknowledge... as REVELATION.

 

[TLHKAJ]

God cannot be murdered.

John 10:17-19
[17]Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
[18]No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
[19]There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.

 

[TLHKAJ]

To frame the event as “murder by Jewish monotheists” is both theologically and historically misleading.

The New Testament emphasizes that Jesus’ death was part of God’s redemptive plan for humanity and that all humanity shares responsibility for sin (Acts 2:23, Romans 3:23), which necessitated the sacrifice. Blame cannot be narrowly assigned to one group.

4. Voluntary Sacrifice, Not Victimhood:
Jesus Himself stated, "No one takes it [My life] from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord" (John 10:18). This highlights that His death was a voluntary act of divine love and grace, not a passive victimization.
The crucifixion is central to Christian theology because it demonstrates God’s justice and mercy, reconciling sinners to Himself through Christ’s atoning sacrifice (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).
5. Conclusion:

The statement distorts Christian theology by ignoring the voluntary and redemptive nature of Christ’s sacrifice, mischaracterizing the Trinity, and oversimplifying the historical and theological context of the crucifixion. A proper understanding reveals the depth and coherence of these doctrines, rooted in God’s eternal plan of salvation and the mystery of the Incarnation.

Just seeing your post after I shared the same scripture reference. I guess I should read all the posts. lol

Great post, as always! Bless you!

 

[Johann]

Just seeing your post after I shared the same scripture reference. I guess I should dead all the posts. lol

Great post, as always! Bless you!

Lol!

Shalom to you and family.

Keep the faith.

Johann.