Earnest is very knowledgable about the transmission of the NT text and is fully aware that other manuscripts preserved the original reading that Jesus is “the beginning of the creation of God”. The point I made, and that Earnest agreed with, is that scholars have pointed out that the scribe of the famous Sinaiticus Codex saw fit to change the text in his copy during the crucial period in 4th century when Jesus was being elevated to the Trinity. As Juan Hernández says, the text was apparently viewed as a “problem” in that crucial period.
slimboyfat
JoinedPosts by slimboyfat
-
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat inin an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
-
-
-
50
My guess for August WatchTower: GB claims we're in beginning stages of Great Tribulation due to World governments turning on JW's
by WingCommander inthe september watchtower has already been released and is being discussed over on reddit.
some highlights: .
1. more hitting the flock on total reliance and obedience to god's representatives on earth today, the f&ds (the governing body, of course).
-
-
slimboyfat
July and August = Julius and Augustus Caesar
-
50
My guess for August WatchTower: GB claims we're in beginning stages of Great Tribulation due to World governments turning on JW's
by WingCommander inthe september watchtower has already been released and is being discussed over on reddit.
some highlights: .
1. more hitting the flock on total reliance and obedience to god's representatives on earth today, the f&ds (the governing body, of course).
-
-
slimboyfat
They’ve obviously eliminated the month of August because it has pagan associations. (Don’t tell them about January through June)
Or in order to give pioneers one less month they need to report. From now on there will only be 11 months of the year, calendars to be adjusted accordingly.
The name of the months will be renamed with the following easy-to-remember names: Mark, Sam, Jeff, Geoff, Steve, Dave, Ken, Gage, and Gerrit - scraping the barrel toward the end there. That’s only 9 names, so expect a couple more months to drop off in the coming period.
-
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat inin an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
-
-
slimboyfat
… and Micah that says the messiah has an ancient origin, and John 6 that says Jesus lives because of the Father. At least six different places that talk about Jesus being created/having a beginning. Seems like quite a lot to me. How many verses do we have saying that the angels were created? I don’t know any but I’d be interested to find out.
The teaching that God created everything through Jesus is broadly attested in a different parts of the NT from John 1 to 1 Cor 8 to Col 1 to Heb 1.
John 1.3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
John 1.10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
1 Cor 8.6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things cameand for whom we live; and there is but one Lord,Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Col 1.16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
Heb 1.2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.
These texts show that God is the source of creation and Jesus was the one through whom God created. Jesus is distinct from God and is obedient to him in creation as in everything.
-
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat inin an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
-
-
slimboyfat
I am not a Greek scholar and I can’t prove that Rev 3:14 means that Jesus is God’s first creation. But I think it is reasonable to point out the high quality of academic support for understanding this verse to mean that Jesus is God’s first creation.
Top lexicographers responsible for the Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker Greek lexicon say that “first created” is the probable meaning of the word arche in this verse. They are aware of the range of possible meanings and they select this as the most likely. They also cite an example from the Septuagint where the creature behemoth is described using the same phrase.
Plus, in terms of the academic study of the apocalyptic genre, scholars hardly come more senior in the field than John Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins. They are professors are Yale and Adela Yarbro Collins is past president of the Society of Biblical Literature. They have published some of the most respected and widely cited academic publications on the topic of apocalyptic literature. What is their take on the identity of Jesus in the book of Revelation? They write:
In the light of the evidence that the author of Revelation portrays Jesus as the heavenly messiah who is also the principle angel of God, these sayings are best interpreted as associating Jesus with personified wisdom as God’s first creature … In Revelation the evidence suggests that he is God’s first creature, namely, the principle angel.
John J. Collins and Adela Yarbro Collins (2007). King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, page 203.
Just because senior scholars in the field happen to support the JW understanding of this particular point obviously doesn’t prove they are correct. At the same time it does seem reasonable to note that the JW reading has impressive academic support here and is at least a legitimate and reasonable way of understanding the text.
-
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat inin an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
-
-
slimboyfat
Strange that when considering the context of Rev 3:14 the video makes no mention of Rev 3:12 where Jesus refers to God as “my God”.
Or Rev 1:1 where it states that God gave Jesus the revelation to share with John, demonstrating there are some things God knows that Jesus only knows after God shares it with him.
Or Rev 1:5 that states that Jesus was dead and is alive again. God cannot die.
There are so many verses that talk about Jesus having a beginning - Rev 3:14 is just one of them. Micah 5:2 says Jesus’ “origin” is from ancient times. Col 1:15 says he is “the firstborn of all creation”. In Prov 8:22, a phrase that early Christians universally applied to Jesus says that, “Jehovah produced me, the beginning of his way” (or “created me” in the Greek that the early Christians used). In John 6:57 Jesus stated plainly, “I live because of the Father”. God doesn’t live because of anyone else, he is self-existent.
That’s a whole bunch of verses that seem to say Jesus was created. Or put it another way, if we are not supposed to understand that Jesus was created by God, then that’s a whole lot of verses that need to be explained away. It’s almost as if it’s important for us to realise that Jesus is God’s creation and distinct from God.
Beyond that there is the fact that Jesus and God are spoken about habitually as two separate beings throughout. Jesus is distinct and subordinate to God, which self evidently makes him part of creation, even if there weren’t all the verses saying precisely that.
We understand that angels are obviously part of creation even though scripture doesn’t describe them being created. There are far more references to Jesus as a creation than there are to angels being created. Do you know of any?
Yet when it comes to a single verse (Rev 22:3) where the pronoun could be ambiguous if you read it as a singular pronoun applied to two different beings this is offered as some kind of proof. If that one pronoun in one verse is proof that Jesus and God are not separate, then what about the hundreds of times that plural pronouns are used? Are they not proof of the opposite? Isn’t the simplest way to read Rev 22:3 to see the single pronoun as a reference to God alone? Nothing says it has to be read as a mysterious and isolated hint in the text about a Trinity doctrine that hadn’t even been dreamt up yet and wouldn’t be formulated for another 300 years.
-
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat inin an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
-
-
slimboyfat
In an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that Revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the Trinity doctrine. This was claimed as evidence that the description of Jesus as “the beginning of the creation of God” in the verse was not understood to mean that Jesus was God’s first creation. The scholarly Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament & Other Early Christian Literature 3e (2001) by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the Greek phrase.
But is there really no evidence that the implications of the verse was appreciated during the 4th century? Interestingly, the original scribe of the famous 4th century Codex Sinaiticus removed the description of Jesus as “the beginning of the creation of God” and replaced it with a description of Jesus as the beginning of the church of God. Scholar Juan Hernández Jr. makes these observations about the text of Codex Sinaiticus:
The first Christological reading to surface is in Revelation 3:14. The title of the risen Christ, 'the beginning of the creation of God', is altered to the 'beginning of the church of God'. The change eliminates the possibility of placing Jesus within the created order and is conspicuous against the backdrop of the fourth century, defined as it was by its pitched theological battles over the precise nature of the Son. In fact, it is remarkable how close the Apocalypse's original title comes to Arius's own musings about the Son. In the Thalia fragments, one of the few primary sources believed to preserve Arius's authentic words, we encounter the following assertion: 'The one without beginning established the Son as the beginning of all creatures', The 'Arian' statement is nearly indistinguishable from the Apocalypse's original title.The eradication of such language in Codex Sinaiticus appears to indicate that the wording was a problem. The title of Revelation 3:14 was thus harmonized to the title of Colossians 1:18, where Jesus is 'the head of the church'.
Remarkably, two centuries later Oecumenius would use Revelation 3:14 to weigh in on the Arian controversy of his day. Oecumenius's text of Revelation 3:14 is identical to the 'earliest attainable text', and he displays no knowledge of the singular reading in Codex Sinaiticus. Yet, Oecumenius also reads Revelation 3:14 in light of Colossians 1:18 as he attempts to refute the idea that the Son was created. The singular reading of Codex Sinaiticus may therefore represent the earliest use of the Apocalypse (on record) to thwart an 'Arian' threat by reading it in light of Colossians.
Access the full article can be found online by searching for:
Hernández Jr, J. (2015). Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?. Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript, 107-26.
-
5
CHATGPT and the Withdrawing of the Aug 2024 watchtower
by wannaexit inthese days i seem to talk more to chatgpt than my husband .
for fun, today i asked: why was the aug. 2024 watchtower deleted?
the august 2024 issue of the "watchtower" magazine was withdrawn due to internal controversies and significant content concerns.
-
-
slimboyfat
That’s impressive as a summary of discussion around what’s going on but whether it reflects what’s actually going on is another matter.
-
33
Are the halls of the Kingdom filling up, are they the same as before the pandemic or are they emptying?
by LaFrancia ini open a new topic, to find out how it's going in your area.
from what i see as a southern european in my constituency the situation is patchy.. the congregation where i am now has 30% old people on zoom but also young couples with almost all their cameras off.
no increase but a slight decrease in the total number of publishers.. circuit assemblies: before covid you couldn't find a free seat if you arrived 10 minutes before the start.
-
-
slimboyfat
In our local congregation there are around 50 in the hall and 15 or so online. This compares with usual attendances of around 50 to 60 before the pandemic. Is that down or up? It’s pretty much the same.
Last year’s summer convention in Glasgow had between 7000 and 8000 in attendance. This is similar to figures stretching back as far as I can remember. On that measure attendance has been pretty flat for around 30 years. I don’t see any major moves, up or down.
One thing that has changed is there are more foreign language congregations however, especially Polish in Scotland. So overall the number of active JWs is probably slightly up when you take that into consideration.
By contrast most other churches are declining rapidly, including the Catholic Church which also benefitted from an influx of polish Catholics in the early 2000s.
-
32
Yesterday's Public Talk: '' Reject Worldly Fantasies, Pursue Kingdom Realities''
by RULES & REGULATIONS inmy brother ( an elder ) calls me every time he's assigned a public talk.
he believes listening to zoom meetings is a great start, to eventually attending in-person meetings.
the talk is titled : '' reject worldly fantasies, pursue kingdom realities.
-
-
slimboyfat
Hold on to the real life!