podcast 157 – Listener Questions 2

Rom 11:36 and ‘di’- Refuting Rob Bowman!

Extract from my Essays:

By – Andrew Graham, September 19, 2013

Cause and Effect?

In Rev 3:14 and Prov 8:22 LXX we see the term “arche” followed by the genitive expression “of” i.e. “of God”, this always denotes the beginning or start of an action; Trinitarians have tried to avoid the natural conclusion of such an action and that is, the object of the act or action had a start, a beginning…in our case, the son of God represents the object and the action is brought about by another; it is a matter of Cause and Effect, an ‘effect’ cannot, exist or bring itself about, or into existence, it needs a cause; the cause in this case is the God of Jesus Christ, the Father, who is the Efficient Cause, the Original Cause, the Final Cause, who is Eternal; as a result of an Original Action something was brought about, into existence and that was “the Word”; he was never (as Trinitarians claim) eternal along with the Father, as that would mean that the son is also an Original Cause, Efficient Cause, also the Final Cause, but the bible clearly shows that there is only one Original Cause…the Father, as the bible clearly shows that the son was brought into existence by the Original Cause… as Jesus himself said in the gospel of John “I live because of the Father”, in other words the term “because” is a synonym for “reason” i.e. the Father, the Efficient Cause… is the “reason” (or the ‘be-cause’) for the son’s existence, the Father made this “effect” (the son) the instrument of his divine will and brought about a second action, but this time the Father did not bring this second action about himself directly, as at the first, he empowered his son to bring about the second action, “all things were through the son”, the son is not a co-creator, but merely the instrument of the Original Cause in order that again, the divine will should be executed…!

This maybe difficult for some to grasp, but the biblical facts are undeniable, the son is the Effect because of the Cause, when “di” is applied to the son it is in an instrumental way, the son, it could be said, is the ‘instrumental cause’ not the Final, or Efficient Cause and this is what Trinitarians miss, by and large!

In Rom 11:36 (see also, Heb 2:10, where “di” is used of God) we read;

“For from him and through him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.” NIV

Notice that the preposition “di” (through) is used of the Father, just as it is used of the Son, this could be argued by Trinitarians that it shows that both the Father and the Son are both Creators, therefore, making the Son God along with the Father, but this would be a serious mistake; below is the original Greek of Rom 11:36:

“??? ?? ????? ??? ??’ ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????.”
“?? (ek) = from/out of and “??” (di) = through?

The terms (ek) and (di)?

The term (di) is used of both Father and Son, but only (ek) is used of the Father, but when (di) is used of the Son it has its normal meaning of “through” and carries no Causal sense, but the sense of ‘Agency, Instrumentality’ and also carries a passive connotation, whereas, when (di) I used of the Father, it does not carry its normal sense, as when applied to the Son, but becomes more of (what I would call a ‘heightened or emphatic) ‘di’ in that it now takes on a Causal connotation and takes on the sense of “hupo” an intensive (di) making it Active, rather than Passive i.e. the Father is the [Origin, Original Source] Active, Final Causality and the Son, ‘through’ whom the Final Cause, *causes* to become i.e. the Son is the medium, mediator, agent, instrument, through whom the Father executes His will and purposes!

Repeatedly, Trinitarians either ignore or are totally oblivious to the above, they cannot have it both ways and it is seen continuously in the quality of their answers, replies; Trinitarians rattle of scriptures, as if there is no tomorrow, but with little understanding or consideration for what the original Greek I saying, and because of this ignorance, bias and limitation, they take it for granted, that when “di” is applied to both Father and Son, such a term carries the same weight for both, but they are sadly mistaken and not only that, if the Son was a co-Creator along with the Father and “di” was applied to the Son in the exact same way as to the Father, then why is there not a single place in the original Greek, where “ek” (from, out of) is used of the Son, just as it is used of the Father and in the insistence of the Trinitarians, they have much explaining to do!

The son is the ‘instrumental cause’ NOT the Final or Efficient Cause, as such denotes Origin, Original Source, where as agency or instrumentality does not, thus the difference when “di” is applied to Father and Son!

Julius R. Mantey and H. E. Dana

Extract from their, “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament”

“…although “dia” is occasionally used to express agency, it does not approximate the full strength of “hupo”. This distinction throws light on Jesus’ relation to the creation, implying that Jesus was not the absolute independent creator, but rather the intermediate agent in creation…John 1:3; Heb 1:2…The Passive With Intermediate Agent. When the agent is the medium through which the original cause has effected the action expressed by the passive verb, the regular construction is “dia” with the genitive…All things were made through him. John 1:3 Here God the Father is thought of as the original cause of creation, and the “logos” as the intermediate agent.”

Here, these Trinitarian scholars of repute are diametrically opposed to Bowman, even though they themselves are Trinitarians! The son is not a co-creator as Bowman claims; clearly, Bowman hasn’t got a leg to stand on!

Also, another nail in the Bowman Trinity coffin are the words of Origen, and like Mantey and Dana, show Bowman up for his theological bias and agenda!!

Origen in his “Commentary of John” Book 2 chapter 6, page 328, says regarding – Father and Son:

“…the apostle Paul says in the epistle to the Hebrews:, whom he made the heir of all things,
“At the end of the days he spoke to us in his son, whom he made the heir of all things, ‘through whom’ also he made the ages,” showing us that God made the ages through his son, the “through whom” belonging, when the ages were being made to the Only-begotten. Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, ‘through’ [dia] the Logos, then they were not made ‘by’ [hupo] the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than he. And who else could this be but the Father?””

No wonder Trinitarians do not want to quote this bit of Origen!

NB

The preposition “di” is a contraction, a reduction from “dia” and the “a” is dropped from “dia” when “dia” precedes a word with starting with a vowel and other grammatical concerns, but the “a” in “dia” is kept in place, not dropped, when it precedes an Name, such as Apollos, Andrew… there is no contraction!

The Trinitarian Paradox of John 6:57?

Just a small point here, Jesus says in John 6:57, “I exist because of the Father”, this creates a paradox for the Trinitarian! How so, the Trinitarian may ask?

When Jesus spoke those words, recorded by John, he was then, as a man, but, not only a man, but, supposedly, “the God/man” and as such, had a unified nature of the human and the divine, the divine, supposedly being eternal; here Jesus is speaking with a unified nature and as one person with one single centre of consciousness, more than such would then constitute more than one person, so, how can Jesus, as a person with one unified nature, the “hypostasis” say that his existence is because of another person, when the divine nature is merged with the human, the two being indistinguishable and cannot be separated, so, both have to be treated as one nature, so what befalls one, of necessity has to befall the other, lest the natures be separated, and thus separating the human from the divine, disintegrating into two separate persons with each having a single centre of consciousness!

Also, when on earth, as a man with a unified nature, which nature prayed to God, as Jesus most certainly prayed to God, but, is it possible to separate the unified nature?

When Jesus prayed to God, by default and of necessity, because of he unified nature doctrine of Trinitarians, the divine nature…prayed also to God, but, seeing as the divine nature is already existing as God (and there can be only one God) it ends up with the ridiculous and contradictory situation, where, God prayed to himself on behalf of himself!

Dale,

Thanks for taking time to answer listener questions. Not only does it help to clarify concerns some might have, but it also helps to create a sense of community; and a sense of community is always helpful when you’re a member of a minority perspective; especially when the majority considers that perspective Hell bound.