Posts by slimboyfat

In Scotland the number of Seventh-Day Adventist congregations and attendance went up during the pandemic. In Carlisle in the north of England I noticed the following sign posted on their church.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

slimboyfat

Bingo. But somehow you have literalized these passages just as the 4th Arian 'heretics' did.

peacefulpete, both sides in the fourth century debate took Wisdom/Word/Son to be a person at the beginning with God, the difference is Arians maintained the distinction that the Son was created and subordinate to God, whereas proto-Trinitarians turned him into a coequal.

The idea that God had an angelic junior in heaven was not an Arian or even a Christian innovation. Jewish scholar Peter Schäfer writes:

Summarizing the range of the [second temple Jewish] texts, it becomes apparent how many of them view the enigmatic godlike or semi-godlike figure alongside God to be an angel. This starts with the angel Michael in Daniel 7, the source of almost all further developments, and climaxes in the Qumran texts …Christianity appropriated these binitarian rudiments and developed them further based on the ideas of the Son of Man and Logos.
Peter Schäfer, Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (2020), pages 87 and 88.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

slimboyfat

Some Christians base their belief in the Trinity on tradition. Others claim they can base it on the Bible alone. Some strands of Christianity, such as orthodox and Coptic churches have never used a Latin text of the Bible.

I don’t think anyone was saying codex Sinaiticus is a doctrinal authority in itself, but the point was that it indicates how the text of Rev 3.14 was understood by early readers.

Aside from that, Sinaiticus is an early witness, and most textual critics also consider it an important witness to the text of the NT.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

slimboyfat

Earnest, some argue that Origen was the first to list the NT canon as we now have it, as early as 250 CE.

https://michaeljkruger.com/what-is-the-earliest-complete-list-of-the-canon-of-the-new-testament/

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

slimboyfat

Okay, Marcionism did linger on for a considerable time, and it was important for the early development of the canon in general. But have you got any evidence it had a direct bearing on codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century? And why would it matter to the question at hand about Rev 3.14 in codex Sinaiticus?

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

slimboyfat

Wow Kaleb Out Of Kindergarten might be more apt name 😳

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

slimboyfat

Good points, Earnest, I agree with you on the unlikelihood of Tischendorf’s account.

If I remember correctly, codex Sinaiticus places the non-canonical books after Revelation.

It’s a bit odd that KalebOutWest says:

“When the Codex was assembled, the Marcionist threat was a problem for Christianity“.

Marcion and Marcionism was a 2nd century phenomenon. Codex Sinaiticus is dated to the 4th century. I don’t think the historical knowledge of our interlocutor matches his rhetorical bluster.

17

I wrote and Published a Book About Being a Teen in an ExJW Family (thanks Lloyd Evans)

by pr0ner in

jw
friends

so as the title suggests i wrote a book why is lloyd to thank?

first let's rewind a little.

when i was a teenager i was a pretty gifted writer and was put in academic and ap classes for english/lit classes.

slimboyfat

There’s nothing wrong with your title. It’s good.👍 I just thought you might be interested to know about Nate’s book on a similar theme and that he was once a poster here too. He had a much more popular book called “Jehovah Unmasked”, which is still in print.

Another teenage JW memoir was

https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Teenage-Jesus-Jerk-DuShane/dp/1593762631/

Which was turned into a movie

https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Teenage-Jesus-Jerk-Stoltz/dp/B07PNK9YRX/

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

slimboyfat

Just on point of fact, contrary to aqwsed12345 above, the latest edition of the BDAG Lexicon says that “first created” is the probable meaning of “beginning” in Rev 3.14. The full entry for the Greek word in that Lexicon can be read on the following blog, the relevant comment coming under the paragraph numbered 3.

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/03/revelation-314-and-bdag-edited-for.html

(Oops, I see Blotty has already quoted this entry. Sorry for overlooking that. However, it makes aqwsed12345’s subsequent inaccurate statement all the more curious.)

Another thing that should be taken into consideration when looking at texts such as Rev 3.14; Col 1.15, John 1:1 and so on is that these passages are clearly drawing on the Jewish Wisdom tradition. In that tradition Wisdom was spoken about as God’s first creation, an archangel, or principal angel beside God. Therefore it’s entirely within the cultural context of the period to understand these passages in the NT along those lines. It’s those who wish to read those passages within a fourth century Trinitarian context that are interpreting them outside of their historical setting.

Elsewhere, of course, the NT also makes a careful distinction between God as the source of creation and Jesus as the one through whom God created. Interpreting this verse to say that Jesus is the source of creation would seem to contradict those other passages. (John 1.3; 1 Cor 8.6; Col 1.16; Heb 1.2)