Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345

@Blotty
Lexicons and dictionaries, while valuable tools, are not infallible and often reflect the prevailing interpretations and scholarly debates of their times. The BDAG lexicon, for instance, offers multiple meanings for ἀρχή, including "beginning," "origin," and "first cause." The choice of meaning in any given passage must be determined by context, not merely by dictionary entries.
In Revelation 3:14, the context is critical. The verse describes Jesus as "the ἀρχή of God's creation." Given the consistent portrayal of Jesus as the agent of creation in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2-3, interpreting ἀρχή as "origin" or "first cause" aligns with the broader scriptural testimony that Jesus is the active agent through whom God created everything.
Barnes' Notes is just one commentary and reflects one interpretation. There are numerous other reputable commentaries and scholars who interpret ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "source" rather than "commencement."
The preposition ἐκ (ek) denotes origin or source, and its use with reference to the Father emphasizes the Father as the ultimate source of all creation. However, this does not negate the role of the Son as the agent of creation. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2 all emphasize that all things were made through (διὰ) the Son.The consistent New Testament portrayal is that the Father is the source (ἐκ), and the Son is the means or agent (διὰ) through whom creation came into being. This cooperative relationship underscores the distinct roles within the Godhead, not a hierarchy of being created.I note: according to the Trinitarian theology, the source of the Son is also the Father, you should not ignore this.
While κτίζω and ποιέω can be used interchangeably in some contexts (especially in the LXX translation of the OT wisdom literature) to denote the act of bringing something into existence, there is a nuanced theological distinction when applied to the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Nicene Creed, reflecting early Church consensus, explicitly distinguishes between "begotten" (γεννηθέντα) and "made" (ποιηθέντα). The term "begotten" underscores the unique, eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, emphasizing that the Son shares the same divine nature as the Father and was not created or made in the same way as the rest of creation. Scripturally, Jesus is never described as having been created (κτίζω) or made (ποιέω) but consistently described as the begotten (μονογενής) Son of God (John 3:16, John 1:18). This indicates a unique generation from the Father, not an act of creation.
Your argument rests on a selective interpretation of lexicon entries and an assumption that traditional theological distinctions between "begotten" and "created" are invalid. However, the broader context of Scripture, the nuanced understanding of Greek terms, and the theological consensus of the early Church Fathers all support the interpretation that Jesus, the Son of God, is not a created being but the eternally begotten, divine agent through whom all things were made. This aligns with the consistent biblical testimony of His divine nature and eternal existence.
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345
The Greek dictionary in my hand says:
ἀρχή, ής, ή (ἄρχω) beginning of something; start. - 1. Concrete, local, and temporal meaning. σκεύος... τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαΐς καθιέμενον "a sheet... which was let down to earth by its four corners" Acts 10:11; 11:5. - Generally, but not exclusively, the temporal meaning comes to the fore, see Heb 5:12; 6:1; 7:3; ἀ. τῶν σημείων John 2:11; cf. Mt 24:8; Mk 13:8; ἀ. also refers to the beginning of a book Mark 1:1. - The temporal meaning is dominant in connections with prepositions: ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς "from the beginning" John 15:27; 1 John 2:7, 24; 3:11; 2 John 5, 6; Acts 26:4. In the same sense, ἐξ ἀρχῆς Luke 1:2; John 6:64; 16:4. ἐν ἀρχῇ as a nearly exact translation of the Hebrew bereshit in Genesis 1:1 is used provocatively in John 1:1: it is clear that this has nothing to do with the Greek philosophical concept of ἀρχή (cf. Latin principium), and does not intend to declare that fundamentally or in principle everything happened as described in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1; cf. also Acts 11:15; Philippians 4:15; similarly, Mt 19:4, 8; John 8:44; 1 John 1:1; 3:8; 2 Thess 2:13. - Substantivized prepositional phrase ἀπ' ἀρχῆς "who was from the beginning" 1 John 2:13. - This thought appears with further elaboration in ἀπ' ἀρχῆς κτίσεως "since the beginning of creation" (perhaps: "since creation, the beginning") Mark 10:6; 13:19; 2 Peter 3:4; ἀπ' ἀρχῆς τοῦ κόσμου Matthew 24:21. - κατ' ἀρχάς "in the beginning, at the very start" Hebrews 1:10 (Psalm 102:16): this - in line with the nature of Hebrews - implies much more of a "principle" element. - The original meaning shows a personal shift in Colossians 1:18 (cf. Acts 1:8 TR). - 2. In an abstract sense: principium = principle; the ultimate cause and (theoretical) explanation of the existence of the world; in this sense, only Revelation 3:14 (ἡ ἀ. τῆς κτίσεως) is relevant, but even here, the meaning of ἀπαρχή is more likely. - 3. As another aspect of "primacy": in the sense of rule, dominion, power, it is used partly for earthly, partly for heavenly "angelic" authorities, the word appears in Luke 20:20; plural in Luke 12:11; Titus 3:1. Transferred to the angelic realm, but with the basic meaning being earthly-concrete Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16; 2:10, 15. - 4. In a very abstract sense, sphere of influence, in the New Testament only in Jude 6: "angels... who did not keep their own position". - 5. A very special case in John 8:25 this sentence: τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν; uncertain punctuation (depending on it being a question or statement), but also uncertain is the meaning of τὴν ἀρχὴν at the beginning of the sentence. If we want to develop in the direction of the least linguistic resistance, the solution is roughly this: "Why do I speak to you at all?" This gives an acceptable meaning in the context but doesn't touch on the essence even remotely. The most correct, therefore, is to consider τὴν ἀρχὴν as an object accusative, then the translation is approximately: "Why should I speak to you about the beginning?" (a question with an unreal indicative statement; cf. 1:1). The continuation shows that in the Johannine sense, ἀρχή can mean "beginning" in a certain sense, but certainly not the "first step". Many things still need to be clarified before that.
To address the argument presented by the Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding the interpretation of Revelation 3:14 and related passages, it is important to delve into the linguistic, cultural, and theological contexts of the terms used, as well as the broader scriptural narrative.
Detailed Rebuttal
1. Linguistic Considerations: The Meaning of "ἀρχή" (archē)
The BDAG Lexicon does mention that "first created" is a linguistically (!!!) "probable" meaning for "ἀρχή" in Revelation 3:14. However, it also notes other meanings such as "origin" or "ruler," which are equally plausible given the broader biblical context. The term "ἀρχή" is multi-faceted and can be interpreted based on the context in which it is used. In the case of Revelation 3:14, understanding "ἀρχή" as "origin" or "source" aligns more consistently with the overall depiction of Christ in the New Testament.
2. Cultural Context: Jewish Wisdom Tradition
The argument that the New Testament passages draw on the Jewish Wisdom tradition, where Wisdom is seen as God’s first creation or a principal angel, requires careful examination. While Jewish literature does personify Wisdom, attributing divine characteristics and a role in creation, the New Testament distinctly presents Jesus not merely as personified Wisdom but as the incarnate Word (Logos) of God, which goes beyond the Jewish Wisdom literature.
- John 1:1-3: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." This passage clearly distinguishes the Word (Logos) as eternally existent and directly involved in creation, not as a created being.
- Colossians 1:15-17: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him." The term "firstborn" (πρωτότοκος, prototokos) here signifies preeminence and authority, not creation. It emphasizes that all creation is through and for Christ, underscoring His supremacy over creation.
- Hebrews 1:2-3: "In these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word."
These passages collectively affirm that Jesus, as the Logos, is eternal and integral to creation, not a part of it.
3. Theological Consistency: Jesus as Creator
Interpreting "ἀρχή" as "first created" in Revelation 3:14 would indeed contradict other New Testament passages that emphasize Jesus' role as the Creator:
- John 1:3: "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." This statement categorically places Jesus as the agent of creation, excluding the possibility of Him being a created entity.
- 1 Corinthians 8:6: "Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." This verse distinguishes the roles within the Godhead but clearly asserts that all things come through Jesus.
- Colossians 1:16: Reinforces that all things were created through and for Christ, emphasizing His preexistence and active role in creation.
- Hebrews 1:2: Declares that through the Son, God made the universe, highlighting the Son's divine agency in creation.
Addressing Historical Context vs. Fourth Century Trinitarian Context
The claim that interpreting these passages within a fourth-century Trinitarian context is outside their historical setting fails to consider the inherent and consistent depiction of Christ’s divinity and preexistence in the New Testament. The early Church Fathers, who were closer in time to the apostolic teachings, interpreted these texts in light of Christ’s divine nature, as seen in their writings and creeds.
Conclusion
While the term "ἀρχή" can have multiple meanings, the context of Revelation 3:14, along with the broader scriptural testimony, supports the understanding of Jesus as the origin or source of creation, not a created being. The interpretation that aligns with the entire biblical narrative and maintains theological consistency is that Jesus, the Logos, is eternal, preexistent, and integral to creation. Thus, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation that Jesus was created is not supported by the comprehensive biblical evidence.

Response to the Arguments Regarding Revelation 3:14 and Related Passages
1. Intellectual Conviction vs. Emotional Argumentation: The claim that my arguments are based on intellectual conviction rather than emotion stands. Intellectual debate often involves presenting strong convictions and supporting them with evidence, which is not inherently emotional or hateful. Ad hominem attacks do not address the substance of the argument.
2. Understanding 'Beginning' in Biblical Context: The term "beginning" (ἀρχή) in biblical literature is multi-faceted. While it can mean "commencement" as the JW argues, it also holds the connotation of "origin" or "first cause," particularly in theological contexts. For example, in Proverbs 9:10 and Psalm 111:10, "beginning" refers to the foundational principle, not merely the start of a sequence.
3. Barnes’ Notes on Psalm 111:10 and Revelation 3:14: Barnes interprets "beginning" in Psalm 111:10 as the foundation of wisdom, implying its origin. Similarly, while he acknowledges that ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 can denote "commencement," he also affirms that it is appropriate to see Christ as the originator of creation, consistent with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16.
4. Lexical Evidence: The BDAG Lexicon does list "first created" as a linguistically probable meaning of ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14, but it also includes "origin" and "first cause." This range of meanings suggests that context is crucial in determining the appropriate translation. The broader context of the New Testament consistently portrays Christ as the active agent in creation, not as a created being (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2-3).
5. Jewish Wisdom Tradition: While the Jewish Wisdom tradition describes Wisdom as the first of God’s creations, the New Testament writers apply these concepts to Christ in a way that emphasizes His preexistence and divinity. For example, John 1:1-3 identifies Jesus as the Logos who was with God in the beginning and through whom all things were made. This application transcends the Wisdom tradition by attributing creation's active cause to Christ.
6. Passive vs. Active Verbs in Creation: The use of passive verbs in Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3 does not diminish Christ’s role in creation. Instead, it highlights that all things were created "through" Him, indicating His instrumental role in the divine creative act. This is consistent with the theological portrayal of Christ as the divine Logos.
7. Philo’s Influence and Biblical Philosophy: Philo's use of ἀρχή to mean "beginning" or "origin" supports the interpretation of Christ as the originator of creation. While Philo was a philosopher, his concepts influenced early Christian thought. The New Testament writers, though not philosophers in the technical sense, engaged with contemporary Hellenistic ideas to communicate theological truths.
8. Trinitarian Context and Historical Setting: Understanding passages like Revelation 3:14 within the broader context of the New Testament and early Christian theology does not impose a fourth-century Trinitarian framework anachronistically. Instead, it respects the development of doctrine that arose from the scriptural witness to Christ’s divinity and role in creation.
9. Christ as the Source of Creation: Interpreting Christ as the source of creation is consistent with the broader New Testament witness. Passages such as John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 explicitly state that all things were made through Him. This understanding does not conflict with the portrayal of God the Father as the ultimate source, as it reflects the cooperative work within the Trinity.
10. Theological Consistency: Interpreting ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "first cause" maintains theological consistency with the rest of the New Testament. This view upholds Christ's divinity, preexistence, and active role in creation, avoiding the contradiction that would arise from viewing Him as a created being.
11. Proverbs 8 and Wisdom Literature: Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom, which early Christians saw as a typological reference to Christ. The use of first-person pronouns for Wisdom in Proverbs does not necessitate a direct equivalence but rather points to the preexistent Logos who embodies divine wisdom.
12. Begotten vs. Created: The early church distinguished between "begotten" and "created." While some early texts used these terms interchangeably, the Nicene Creed clarified that Christ is "begotten, not made," affirming His eternal generation from the Father. This doctrinal development reflects a deeper understanding of scriptural teaching on Christ's nature.
In conclusion, the interpretation of ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "first cause" aligns with the broader New Testament portrayal of Christ as the divine agent of creation. This view respects both the lexical range of the term and the theological context of the entire biblical corpus.
@Blotty
Response to the Arguments Regarding Revelation 3:14 and Related Passages
1. Intellectual Conviction vs. Emotional Argumentation: The claim that my arguments are based on intellectual conviction rather than emotion stands. Intellectual debate often involves presenting strong convictions and supporting them with evidence, which is not inherently emotional or hateful. Ad hominem attacks do not address the substance of the argument.
2. Understanding 'Beginning' in Biblical Context: The term "beginning" (ἀρχή) in biblical literature is multi-faceted. While it can mean "commencement" as the JWs argue, it also holds the connotation of "origin" or "first cause," particularly in theological contexts. For example, in Proverbs 9:10 and Psalm 111:10, "beginning" refers to the foundational principle, not merely the start of a sequence.
3. Barnes’ Notes on Psalm 111:10 and Revelation 3:14: Barnes interprets "beginning" in Psalm 111:10 as the foundation of wisdom, implying its origin. Similarly, while he acknowledges that ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 can denote "commencement," he also affirms that it is appropriate to see Christ as the originator of creation, consistent with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16.
4. Lexical Evidence: The BDAG Lexicon does list "first created" as a linguistically (!!!) "probable" meaning of ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14, but it also includes "origin" and "first cause." This range of meanings suggests that context is crucial in determining the appropriate translation. The broader context of the New Testament consistently portrays Christ as the active agent in creation, not as a created being (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2-3).
5. Jewish Wisdom Tradition: While the Jewish Wisdom tradition describes Wisdom as the first of God’s creations, the New Testament writers apply these concepts to Christ in a way that emphasizes His preexistence and divinity. For example, John 1:1-3 identifies Jesus as the Logos who was with God in the beginning and through whom all things were made. This application transcends the Wisdom tradition by attributing creation's active cause to Christ.
6. Passive vs. Active Verbs in Creation: The use of passive verbs in Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3 does not diminish Christ’s role in creation. Instead, it highlights that all things were created "through" Him, indicating His instrumental role in the divine creative act. This is consistent with the theological portrayal of Christ as the divine Logos.
7. Philo’s Influence and Biblical Philosophy: Philo's use of ἀρχή to mean "beginning" or "origin" supports the interpretation of Christ as the originator of creation. While Philo was a philosopher, his concepts influenced early Christian thought. The New Testament writers, though not philosophers in the technical sense, engaged with contemporary Hellenistic ideas to communicate theological truths.
8. Trinitarian Context and Historical Setting: Understanding passages like Revelation 3:14 within the broader context of the New Testament and early Christian theology does not impose a fourth-century Trinitarian framework anachronistically. Instead, it respects the development of doctrine that arose from the scriptural witness to Christ’s divinity and role in creation.
9. Christ as the Source of Creation: Interpreting Christ as the source of creation is consistent with the broader New Testament witness. Passages such as John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 explicitly state that all things were made through Him. This understanding does not conflict with the portrayal of God the Father as the ultimate source, as it reflects the cooperative work within the Trinity.
10. Theological Consistency: Interpreting ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "first cause" maintains theological consistency with the rest of the New Testament. This view upholds Christ's divinity, preexistence, and active role in creation, avoiding the contradiction that would arise from viewing Him as a created being.
11. Proverbs 8 and Wisdom Literature: Proverbs 8 personifies Wisdom, which early Christians saw as a typological reference to Christ. The use of first-person pronouns for Wisdom in Proverbs does not necessitate a direct equivalence but rather points to the preexistent Logos who embodies divine wisdom.
12. Begotten vs. Created: The early church distinguished between "begotten" and "created." While some early, especially Wisdom literature OT texts used these terms interchangeably, the Nicene Creed clarified that Christ is "begotten, not made," affirming His eternal generation from the Father. This doctrinal development reflects a deeper understanding of scriptural teaching on Christ's nature. Dionysius of Rome, in his letter "Against the Sabellians," criticizes those who interpret Proverbs 8:22 to mean that the Son was created. He argues that interpreting "created" (ἔκτισέν) as "made" or "fashioned" is a grave error. He emphasizes that the term "created" in this context should be understood as "appointed" or "established" over God's works, made by the Son Himself, rather than implying the Son’s creation. Dionysius points out the difference between creating (κτίζω) and making (ποιέω), arguing that the Son’s divine and ineffable generation cannot be reduced to the concept of making or creating in a human sense. He highlights that the Son is described in many passages as being "begotten" but never as having "come into being," thereby rejecting the notion that the Son is a created entity.
In conclusion, the interpretation of ἀρχή in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "first cause" aligns with the broader New Testament portrayal of Christ as the divine agent of creation. This view respects both the lexical range of the term and the theological context of the entire biblical corpus.
4
The Phenomenology of Sectarianism
by aqwsed12345 in
1. jw
2. friends
the analysis of sectarianism has topical relevance today, and increasingly so.

however, the scarcity and insignificance of the responses to the challenge of sectarianism create the impression as if, for some unknown reason, the historical churches would avoid this challenge.

they usually satisfy themselves with emphasizing the dangers of sectarianism and the sweeping condemnation of sects - which, although often true, does not delve into the depths of the phenomenon; and does not help those who it is intended for to understand; or they point to the heretical nature of individual sects, the distortions in their teachings, their lack of catholicity, and usually do not omit the self-critical observation that in terms of trust and faith, community, and devotion, we too can learn a lot from them.
aqwsed12345

At the end of the 20th century, various sects proliferated like mushrooms, among which there were peaceful seekers and aggressively destructive spirits. This is not only caused by Christianity sometimes being unable to keep up with the challenges of our time or inherently rejecting certain aspirations (e.g., self-redemption, reincarnation, pantheism, universal orientation, etc.), but often there is a pursuit of business profit, economic and political domination behind them. In order to defend ourselves against the activities of destructive sects (e.g., New Age, Silva Mind Control, Church of Scientology, Moon Movement, Faith Church, Society for Krishna Consciousness, Jehovah's Witnesses, Children of God, Satanists, etc.), we must understand their methods, aspirations, and tools; if possible, we must uncover the harmful forces and interest groups lurking in the background.
Many sects specifically intend to disrupt Christian unity and call for the contempt of traditional religious communities, although they refer to Christian principles (the Bible) in their teachings. Others openly turn towards Eastern cults, discrediting or denying Christian churches, claiming that they are incapable of realizing the unity of people, universal balance, thus their historical role is over.
Communism proved that breeding a religionless human type is impossible. Jesus encouraged patient cross-bearing, aimed at the innermost, radical transformation of man, genuine love of mankind, and service to God, proclaiming the resurrection of the body and soul. Sects consider the training, manipulation, and gathering of people into phalanxes to be sufficient. They aim to awaken the repressed subconscious with psychological tools, primarily hunting for weak-willed, crisis-stricken, distorted personalities. They provide one-sided explanations for complex phenomena, irresponsibly take on the difficulty and responsibility of decisions, and offer hiding places instead of solving problems. They promise a new, real life, perfect self-fulfillment, complete personality change. They disregard human freedom rights, thus the freedom of will, conscience, choice, love, and quiet contemplation, and only ensure insular enthusiasm, violent exclusivity, primitive herd mentality. Between the members and God steps in a teacher or guru, the absolute custodian of the truth. The dogma system of the sects is closed and unquestionable, therefore they sharply separate, are incapable of dialogue, and only increase misunderstanding, hatred, and the number of ruined lives in the world. Ultimately, they escape from problems, distance themselves from reality, and make their members emotionally unstable, spiritually barren, and sick.
It is virtually irrelevant how individual sects define themselves. Much more important is their public and hidden activities, their overall toxic impact. They pull their members out of their family, school, and workplace relationships, subordinating them to a Leader or Savior, burning all bridges behind them. Often, they target the middle class and intellectuals, trying to convert them through influential personalities. They exploit society's difficulties (housing shortage, unemployment, hunger, impoverishment), ride on public life, religion, education, vegetarian nutrition, leisure activities, civil organizations, certain professions, and naturally, the media. Most cults don the guise of a worldview or religious group and find ways to reach, contact, and immediately influence any age group. They often bind their targets with free language courses, foreign trips or scholarships, weekend seminars, computer management training, and similar activities. Religious or atheist, in an uncertain existential situation, open and curious, waiting for help—almost anyone can become a potential victim.
Sects are highly active in the stock market, real estate market, advertising industry, drug trade, press (own newspapers, book publishers!), and politics. Their economic activities are marked by bars, restaurants, hotels, museums, arms, machine, and car factories, farms, fishing fleets, banks. They treat people as commodities, disregard existing customs and laws, tear apart family bonds, arbitrarily control spouses and children; they reintroduce slavery, total legal and economic dependency, and trample on human dignity.
Through mind control, psychological influence, and small group sessions, they affect the spiritual sphere, weaken the will, direct feelings and thoughts, control individual tendencies and behavior, determine activities and interests, block access to information and truth, and deprive individuals of minimal independence and critical ability. They prevent leaving the sect and returning to society with intimidation, cruel punitive sanctions, and excommunication, often driving their members to nervous breakdowns or suicide. Conditioning for obedience, reeducation, and identification with the group involve simplifying thinking, introducing a new metalanguage, instilling monotonous prayer chanting, meditative songs and war slogans, continuous propaganda and book selling, constant work, minimal rest, and a complete change of identity. The rejection of difference and criticism, branding opposition as demonic or satanic, waiting for the end of the world, fostering a sense of persecution, and the suppression or unscrupulous expression of emotions are highly characteristic.
Destructive cults generally shroud the true nature of their organization and actual leadership in secrecy. If they are exposed somewhere, they relocate to a different environment. Often, they crave economic and political power in the background, using their members merely as pawns. In extreme cases, they do not shy away from violent acts, crimes, or even murders. The murky ideology, the dual truth proclaimed outwardly and inwardly, the brazenly pushy agitation, the possession of the philosopher's stone, the fraud and manipulation, the lack of tolerance all inherently warn us to be cautious of them. If possible, we should say a clear no to them and avoid encounters, visiting their events, or meetings. We must be careful that our immature children do not fall into their clutches!
It is difficult to judge who or what organizations are actually behind the individual sects. It is undeniable that both at home and abroad, there are intellectual-political cliques, Freemason and cosmopolitan clans, banking groups, conspiratorial mafias striving for world domination, whose interests lie in weakening and destroying the historical Christian churches and even society as a whole. Destructive sects unleash the basest instincts and slave-holding tendencies of humans; they subjugate, schematize individuality, wither the basic units of life, the families; they throw away invaluable cultural treasures and instead instill a false image of God ("We are God!"), distorted consciousness in their followers, and generate fear and neurosis. Neither human rights nor religious freedom justify tolerating, let alone supporting, such sects, which can be considered the cancerous tumors of humanity. Churches and society must resolutely fight against them. We must uncover their essence, their anti-democratic, fascistoid nature, and unite to ban and destroy them.
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.

niv.

gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
aqwsed12345

Those who do not accept the Trinity often argue that it was introduced into Christianity through the influence of Greek philosophy and pagan deities, during long theological debates. This argument seems to fall apart, as the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity can be demonstrated solely from Scripture. The Old Testament indicates that there is a certain plurality in the Godhead, and the New Testament details this plurality, establishing the theory of Trinitarian monotheism. There is no need to consider the councils and theological debates of the early centuries to prove the Trinity, as the Bible alone (sola Scriptura) is sufficient. We are not influenced by Greek philosophers or early church fathers who debated the Trinity, if we turn solely to the Bible and pray for the Spirit of God to lead us into all truth and teach us the truth (John 16:13; 1 John 2:27).
Nonetheless, important events occurred in the first centuries concerning the doctrine. Christians have always been warned to "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). As early as the 1st century, there were movements that questioned the clear declarations of the Bible. Some denied that Jesus lived among us in a real body, questioning his incarnation. In response, John wrote, "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist" (2 John 7). Believers had to defend their faith against false ideas and fight for the truth from early on, and this only intensified in later centuries. Christians in apostolic times believed in one God, and within that one God, they worshiped the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There was no need to explicitly formulate the doctrine of the Trinity until it was challenged. It was natural for everyone to believe that God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Without explicitly stating it, Christians implicitly believed in it. However, when criticisms of the doctrine emerged, it became necessary for the church to officially define what it meant by the Trinity.
The aim of defining the doctrine was not to explain God's existence and confine it to human categories. The early believers were simply motivated by apologetic reasons: they wanted to avoid what the Bible did not teach. The doctrine of the Trinity was formulated against theories like modalism, Arianism, and tritheism. These either denied the personhood of the Holy Spirit or/and the fully human and fully divine nature of Jesus. Modalism did not consider that within the single divine essence, there are three distinct persons, asserting instead that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three manifestations of the same person. This view was soon rejected because it was clear that all three persons exist and manifest themselves distinctively within the Godhead simultaneously. The theory thus emphasized the oneness of God. In contrast, tritheism overly highlighted the distinctiveness of the three persons, falling into the opposite extreme by speaking of three separate, independent gods. These views were not tenable within the church because they contradicted the testimony of the Bible. It was necessary to distance themselves from these and precisely define what orthodox, Scripture-faithful Christians could accept regarding the nature of God and what they could not.
In this atmosphere lived and worked Athanasius, who fought vigorously against the spread of Arianism. He was often exiled from his episcopal office but steadfastly held to his faith and refused to compromise. Although many bishops and church dignitaries in his time inclined towards accepting Arianism (which taught that only the Father is God, and the Son is a created being), many Christians clung to what they saw in the Bible. During the prolonged struggle, Emperor Constantine sought to unify Christianity. As a Roman emperor, he saw the unity of the empire in the unity of Christianity. Therefore, he wanted to settle the issue and convened an ecumenical council in Nicaea (325) for the bishops to agree on the truth. There, they adopted a Trinitarian creed. However, the debate continued, and the Arians temporarily prevailed, as an emperor who accepted Arius's teachings, Constantius, ascended the throne. He was followed by Theodosius I, who convened another council in Constantinople, where they reaffirmed the Nicene Creed:
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."
Of course, the history of the doctrine is much more complex. The most important thing to see is that the doctrine was not invented at the Councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381); it was merely universally formulated as the truth recognized from the Bible and believed in the preceding centuries. It did not develop under the influence of pagan deities and triads, nor Greek philosophical thinking. The foundation of the Trinity is the Scripture. It was formulated to defend the information found in the Bible and to prevent heretical teachings.
What is the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity? Firstly, the doctrine is inseparable from one of God's fundamental attributes. If God existed as only one person, He could not be who He is. God is love (1 John 4:8), but love is a relational concept, and if God had been a solitary being before the creation of the world, He could not be love without His creatures; He would need others to be who He is. However, God is the Almighty, self-sufficient, needing nothing from anyone else. Within the Godhead, there have always been three persons who shared perfect love even before the creation of the world. Yet, it was only with the New Testament, with the distinct appearance of the Son and the Spirit as divine persons, that it could be said, "God is love" (1 John 4:16).
Secondly, the doctrine is inseparable from the doctrine of redemption. We are sinners, and God is just. Our sins must either be accounted for us (justly punished), or God must bear the cost Himself and provide satisfaction (He offers atonement) and forgive (cancels the debt). If God were to forgive "just like that" without atonement, He would not be just. Since we sinned against Him, we must receive forgiveness from Him, but no one can compel Him to forgive, and no creature (human, animal, angel) can offer atonement to the Creator for themselves or another creature. Animal sacrifices were only temporary and could not cleanse the conscience (Hebrews 10:2-4). If God arbitrarily chose an innocent creature (e.g., an angel) to suffer in place of humans, it would demonstrate that He is unjust, unable to resolve the situation on His own, and we would be grateful to the angel for forgiveness, not to God. If an angel volunteered to be a scapegoat, it would still mean God was unjust, unable to solve the situation on His own, and furthermore, indebted to one of His creatures, who would receive more gratitude than God. However, God became man in Jesus, and on the cross, "God obtained His church with His own blood" (Hebrews 9:12, Acts 20:28 cf. Revelation 1:17-18). God is just, but He loved us so much that He did not want to punish us: when the Son became man in Jesus, He made atonement to the Father on the cross; all this happened "within God." If God were not a Trinity, we could not be redeemed in a way that preserves God's omnipotence, upholds justice, makes His love real, and directs all gratitude to Him alone.
Thirdly, the doctrine is inseparable from Christian ethics. The perfect relationship within the Godhead serves as an example for us. As the Father loved the Son, so the Son loved us, and we must love one another with this same love (John 15:9-12). This love is made real, experienceable, and transmittable through the divine and personal nature of the persons and the work of the Holy Spirit.
A brief theological perspective: As you probably know, Islam professes strict monotheism, meaning it does not tolerate any plurality in God, Allah. He is only one person and has existed alone for all time. However, there is a problem. According to traditional interpretation, the text of the Quran is not created in time but has existed eternally. This is logical because if something is revealed truth, it must also be timeless. And again, we arrive at the same issue: there necessarily must be at least two entities in eternity: one originating and one originated. This, however, violates the strict monotheism of Islam, and Islamic theology struggles to address this. This problem was recognized by the theological school of the Mutazilites, originating from Sunni Islam but utilizing principles of Hellenistic philosophy. They realized that the idea that the Quran is not created but eternal challenges the oneness of Allah (more precisely, His unique eternality) because it implies that alongside Allah, there is something else that has existed eternally. This dualistic viewpoint is incompatible with Allah's teachings found within the Quran itself. Thus, they argue similarly to Arianism: the Quran, as the World of God, is the first but most excellent creation (not speaking of a person, but of a revealed entity), yet this again leads to a contradiction as mentioned above. :-) Doesn't this brief perspective remind you of the Christian doctrine of the Logos (λόγος)? :-)
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
I don't have any kind of "hatred" towards anyone or any point of view: arguing, polemicizing against a point of view does not come from emotion ("hate") but from intellectual conviction.
The "beginning" of something, just as in Proverbs 9:10, Psalm 110:10, Sirach 37:16, Wisdom 14:27. The "beginning" of the creation is not that with which creation began, but that by which creation began and took place, so the theological content of this expression is exactly the same as Colossians 1:16, or John 1:3.
Anyway, you should read this through:
Arian Objections To The Trinity Refuted
The assertion that "arkhē" solely indicates "commencement" and not "authorship" requires a broader consideration of the word's use in various contexts, particularly in philosophical and theological discussions. While dictionaries are valuable tools for understanding words, they often summarize meanings and do not capture the full spectrum of use in different contexts, especially in scriptural texts where nuanced interpretations are common.
1. Broad Semantic Range: The Greek term "ἀρχή" (arkhē) indeed means "beginning," but its usage is not restricted to indicating a mere commencement in time. In philosophical discourse, as noted in the source you mentioned, "arkhē" can denote the "first cause" or "principle." This is particularly relevant in theological contexts where "first cause" doesn't imply being created but being preeminent and the originating source. For instance, Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, uses "arkhē" to describe the Logos (Word) as the intermediary divine being through whom the cosmos was created. Philo, a contemporary of Paul and Jesus in the 1st century A.D., uses "ἀρχὴ" in a similar sense to denote the source or origin of creation: he refers to God as the "beginning of creation" (ἀρχὴ γενέσεως), emphasizing that God is the origin and source of all creation, not part of it. This usage supports the understanding of "ἀρχὴ" as originator.
  The dictionary citation you provided acknowledges that "arkhe" can indeed mean "first cause" or "origin," supporting the interpretation that Christ is the source of creation. Here is the relevant portion:
  "the first cause, the beginning (philos. t.t. ODittrich, D. Systeme d. Moral I 1923, 360a, 369a;—Ael. Aristid. 43, 9 K.=1 p. 3 D.: ἀρχὴ ἁπάντων Ζεύς τε καὶ ἐκ Διὸς πάντα; Jos., C. Ap. 2, 190 God as ἀρχὴ κ. μέσα κ. τέλος τῶν πάντων [contrast SIG 1125, 10f]) of Christ ἡ ἀ. τῆς κτίσεως Rv 3:14."
  This indicates that even within philosophical and theological contexts, "arkhe" can signify "first cause," aligning with the interpretation of Christ as the origin of all creation.
2. Dictionaries and Lexicons: The term "arkhe" is multifaceted. While it often denotes "beginning" or "commencement," it also implies "origin," "source," and "first cause."
  BDAG (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Lexicon) lists "beginning, origin, first cause, ruler, authority" among its meanings, explicitly recognizing the term's application to Christ in Revelation 3:14 as the "origin" of God's creation.
  Thayer's Greek Lexicon also supports this interpretation, noting that "arkhe" can mean "that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause." This aligns perfectly with understanding Christ as the originator of creation.
3. Philosophical and Theological Usage: The use of "arkhē" in philosophical works often parallels its usage in theological contexts to denote not just the start but the cause or source. For example, Aristotle discusses "arkhē" as the "principle" or "origin" from which things come into being. This does not imply that the "arkhē" itself is created but rather that it is the originator or causal agent.
4. Contextual Analysis of Revelation 3:14: In Revelation 3:14, the phrase "ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ" (the beginning of God's creation) can be understood as stating Christ's role as the originating source of all creation. This aligns with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, where Christ is described as the agent through whom all things were created. To interpret "arkhē" as indicating Christ as the first created entity contradicts the broader theological testimony of the New Testament regarding His divine nature and role in creation.
5. Linguistic and Exegetical Considerations: While some argue that "arkhē" in Revelation 3:14 means the first created, such a reading introduces a theological inconsistency with the rest of the New Testament, where Christ's begottenness, preexistence and role as the agent of the creation are emphasized. The interpretation of "arkhē" as "first cause" or "originator" fits more cohesively with the scriptural depiction of Christ's divine status and function.
6. Theological Implications: Adopting a view where "arkhē" means "first created" raises significant theological concerns about the nature of Christ and His relationship to the Father. Such a view would place Christ within the created order, fundamentally altering the Christian understanding of the the eternally begotten nature of the Son.
In summary, while dictionaries provide foundational meanings, the interpretation of terms like "arkhē" must consider broader scriptural, theological, and philosophical contexts. In Revelation 3:14, understanding "arkhē" as indicating Christ's preeminent authority and role as the originating source of all creation is both linguistically viable and theologically consistent.
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/13/does-revelation-314-teach-jesus-is-gods-first-creation-pt-1/
https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/12/13/does-revelation-314-teach-that-jesus-is-gods-first-creation-pt-2/
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345
Refutation of Arian Objections Based on Revelation 3:14
Jehovah's Witnesses often cite Revelation 3:14 to support their view that Jesus is a created being. The verse states, "These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation." They interpret "the beginning of God's creation" (Greek: arche tes ktiseos tou Theou) to mean that Jesus is the first being created by God. This interpretation, however, is flawed when considering the broader biblical context and the nuanced meanings of the Greek terms used.
Contextual Analysis
1. Revelation 3:15 and Omniscience: Immediately after Revelation 3:14, Jesus states, "I know thy works." This suggests omniscience, a divine attribute, supporting His deity.
2. Jesus as Judge: Revelation 2:23 shows Jesus searching hearts and rewarding deeds, roles attributed to Jehovah alone in several Old Testament scriptures.
3. Loving Chastener: Revelation 3:19 refers to Jesus as one who rebukes and chastens those He loves, similar to descriptions of God in Deuteronomy, Psalms, and Proverbs.
4. Omnipresence: Revelation 3:20 implies Jesus' ability to be present with all who seek Him, requiring omnipresence, another divine attribute.
Analysis of "Arche"
The term "arche" in Greek can mean "beginning," but it can also mean "origin," "source," or "ruler." In the context of Revelation 3:14, "arche" is best understood as "the origin" or "the source" of creation. This aligns with the portrayal of Jesus throughout the New Testament as the agent through whom God created all things. For instance, John 1:3 states, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." This clearly positions Jesus not as a part of creation, but as its source.
Supporting Biblical Texts
To further clarify, Colossians 1:16-17 says, "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. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." These verses emphasize Jesus' preexistence and role as the Creator, not a created being. Hebrews 1:2-3 similarly describes Jesus as the one "through whom also he made the universe" and as "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being."
Early Church Understanding
The early church fathers consistently affirmed the eternal divinity of Christ. For example, Athanasius argued against the Arian interpretation by emphasizing that Jesus, as the Logos, is eternal and uncreated. He pointed out that if Jesus were a created being, He could not be the source of all creation.
Addressing the Jehovah's Witness Translation
The New World Translation (NWT) used by Jehovah's Witnesses adds the word "other" in Colossians 1:16 to suggest that Jesus is part of creation: "By means of him all [other] things were created." This insertion is not present in the Greek text and alters the meaning to fit their theological agenda. Such an addition lacks textual support and violates principles of accurate translation.
Theological Implications
The interpretation of Jesus as a created being undermines the doctrine of the Trinity and the full divinity of Christ. It conflicts with numerous scriptural affirmations of Jesus' deity and His role as Creator. The proper understanding of Revelation 3:14 within its biblical context reinforces the orthodox Christian belief in Jesus' eternal and uncreated nature.
Revelation 3:14, when correctly interpreted, does not support the Arian view that Jesus is a created being. Instead, it affirms His position as the source and ruler of all creation. The broader scriptural context and the original Greek terminology reveal that Jesus is eternally divine, coexistent with the Father, and the agent through whom all things were made. This understanding is crucial for maintaining the integrity of Christian doctrine and refuting Arian objections.
The document "Arian Objections To The Trinity Refuted" is a detailed refutation of the Arian interpretation of Revelation 3:14, which describes Jesus Christ as "the beginning of the creation of God." The Arian view suggests that this phrase means Christ was the first created being, thus denying His divinity and supporting Unitarianism. The author systematically deconstructs this argument using scriptural context, Greek lexicon definitions, and early Christian literature.
The author begins by explaining the Arian position, which asserts that Jesus was a created spirit being, similar to angels, and that He did not exist before His creation. They interpret "beginning" as "one begun," equating it with "the first creature created by God." However, the author argues that this interpretation neglects the broader context of Revelation 3:14 and other scriptural references that affirm Christ's divinity.
To counter the Arian argument, the author examines the context in which Revelation 3:14 is situated. He notes that the surrounding verses affirm Christ's deity. For instance, in Revelation 3:15, Jesus claims omniscience by stating He knows all the works of the Laodicean church, a trait attributed only to God. Moreover, in Revelation 2:23, Christ declares that He searches the hearts and minds, a function ascribed to Jehovah alone in the Old Testament. This context suggests that Christ's declaration of being the "beginning" should be understood in a way that affirms His divinity, not denies it.
The author further explores the lexical meaning of the Greek word "arche," translated as "beginning" in Revelation 3:14. He cites several authoritative Greek lexicons that define "arche" as "origin" or "source," rather than "one begun." For example, the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains defines "arche" as the initial cause or the origin, supporting the interpretation that Christ is the source of creation, not a part of it.
Additionally, the author examines other instances of "arche" in the Book of Revelation. In Revelation 1:8, Christ declares, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending," which positions Him as the eternal, self-existent God. Similarly, in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13, "arche" is used to describe the eternal nature of God, reinforcing the interpretation that Christ is the originator of creation.
The document also draws parallels between Revelation 3:14 and Colossians 1:15-18, where Christ is described as the "firstborn of all creation" and the "beginning." The author argues that "firstborn" (prototokos) in this context signifies preeminence and authority, not a literal first creature. This interpretation aligns with the depiction of Christ as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe in Colossians 1:16-17.
Furthermore, the author addresses the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) and early Christian writings to support his argument. In these texts, "arche" frequently denotes "source" or "origin," as in Wisdom 14:27, where idolatry is called the "beginning, cause, and end of all evil." The early Christian literature similarly uses "arche" to refer to Christ as the eternal one, reinforcing the Trinitarian interpretation.
The author concludes by asserting that the Arian interpretation of Revelation 3:14 is flawed due to its failure to consider the broader scriptural and lexical context. He emphasizes that the doctrine of the Trinity is firmly supported by numerous biblical passages and that recognizing the triune nature of God is essential for understanding the Christian faith. The document meticulously argues that any attempt to undermine the Trinity, such as the Arian objections, fails when subjected to rigorous theological and exegetical scrutiny.
Greek Old Testament and Early Christian Literature
The author explores the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) and early Christian writings to further support his argument. In these texts, "arche" often means "source" or "origin." For example, Wisdom 14:27 describes idolatry as the "beginning, cause, and end of all evil," using "arche" to signify the source of evil. Similarly, Sirach 37:16 and Psalm 110:10 (LXX) use "arche" to denote the beginning or origin.
Early Christian writers also use "arche" to affirm Christ's divinity. Ignatius, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, refers to divisions as the "beginning of evils," and Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippians, describes the love of money as the "beginning of all troubles." These uses illustrate that "arche" can denote origin or source rather than something created.
Conclusion
The author concludes that the Arian interpretation of Revelation 3:14 is flawed. The broader scriptural context, the lexical meaning of "arche," and historical Christian literature all affirm that Jesus is the originator of creation, not a created being. This interpretation aligns with the doctrine of the Trinity, which asserts that Jesus is fully divine and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The document systematically dismantles the Arian arguments by demonstrating that their interpretation of Revelation 3:14 ignores crucial contextual and linguistic evidence. The author asserts that recognizing the triune nature of God is essential for understanding Christian theology and salvation.
Footnotes
Throughout the document, the author includes numerous footnotes that reference specific Bible verses, Greek lexicons, and scholarly works. These footnotes provide additional evidence and support for his arguments, ensuring that his refutation of the Arian interpretation is thorough and well-documented.
35
Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...
by FragrantAddendum in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.
aqwsed12345

Church Father about Matthew 27:52-53
@KalebOutWest
First, let's address the translation of the Greek word "HAGION" as "saints." The use of "saints" in this context is widely accepted and does not pose an issue of correctness. The argument presented about flip-flopping on the translation is irrelevant because "saints" accurately reflects the Greek term in question. This term is consistently used in the New Testament to refer to holy or consecrated persons.
The primary issue revolves around the sequence of events described in Matthew 27:51-54. Let's break this down:
1. Sequence of Resurrection: According to the text, the resurrection of the saints occurred "after his resurrection" (meta tēn egersin autou). This means that the bodies of the saints came out of their tombs following Jesus' resurrection, not immediately after the earthquake or the tearing of the temple curtain. This is crucial for understanding the timeline. This sequence aligns with Paul's theology in Colossians 1:18, which states that Jesus is the "firstborn from the dead."
2. Centurion's Witness: The centurion and those with him witnessed the earthquake and the events immediately following Jesus' death, such as the tearing of the temple curtain and the rocks splitting. The text does not imply that they witnessed the resurrection of the saints, which occurred after Jesus' resurrection.
Logical Deduction: Since the resurrection of the saints happened after Jesus' resurrection, it is illogical to assume the centurion witnessed this specific event. His declaration, "Truly this man was God’s Son!" was a response to the immediate natural phenomena and Jesus' death.
3. Silence of Other Gospel Writers and Historians:
Historical Context: The argument that other Gospel writers and historians like Josephus are silent about this event does not negate its occurrence. Many events in the Gospels are unique to specific writers and are not corroborated by others. This selective reporting does not inherently disprove an event's historicity.
Unique Accounts: The Gospels often contain unique narratives that reflect different theological emphases and audience needs. Matthew’s inclusion of the resurrected saints highlights the cosmic significance of Jesus' death and resurrection.
4. Questions on the Raised Saints:
Who Were They? The text describes them as "saints who had fallen asleep," indicating they were righteous individuals who died before Jesus' crucifixion. They could be Old Testament saints or other holy persons.
Duration and Nature of Resurrection: The text does not specify how long they were raised or the nature of their resurrected bodies. It is reasonable to assume they had glorified bodies, similar to Jesus' resurrected body.
Faith and Salvation: The theology of their resurrection aligns with the broader New Testament theme that Jesus’ resurrection opened the way for all the righteous dead to be raised. Their faith and righteousness were established in their lifetimes under the Old Covenant.
Who Were the witnesses? Matthew 27:53 states that the resurrected saints "appeared to many" in the holy city. These witnesses were the inhabitants of Jerusalem who saw the resurrected saints.The resurrected saints appearing to many serves as a powerful testimony to the truth of Jesus' resurrection and the inauguration of a new covenant.
Therefore, I would place every event after Jesus' resurrection, except for the splitting of the tombs.
Another JW with whom I previously debated came up with similar objections, such as: "Who were resurrected? Who were the saints? Why was their resurrection necessary? What does it prove? How did they resurrect? What did they look like? Were they injured? As they were buried? Did they have clothes on? Where did they get them from? Where were they resurrected to? On the earth? Should they still be alive?! Could they have been resurrected and later went to heaven?" - This flood of questions, darting around in its confusion, full of verbosity, partly didn't concern Matthew at all, and even if I answer them (which is not difficult), it's entirely secondary to the irrefutable linguistic proof I have shown, namely, that indeed, the bodies of the deceased saints were resurrected and entered the holy city. Now I will answer them one by one, so the JWs have no loophole or cling to anything - but I maintain that many other answers are also possible, to which they will have no further grasp, but must admit that it also makes sense and does not contradict anything - except their own sectarian ideology. So: 1. Deceased saints were resurrected, as the text states. 2. Let's say we call them Eleazar, Nathan, Abiathar, and Bathsheba, who are obviously not the same as those previously known by these names. 3. There was no need for their resurrection, but why should only what is visibly necessary happen? There was no need for the creation of the world either, yet it happened. 4. It proves that at Jesus' death and resurrection, not only the earth trembled, but also the grave and the underworld. 5. They resurrected by an earthquake that cracked their tombs, then perhaps an angel called them by name (see 2). 6. Two of them were young lads, the rising sun's light glinting on their budding mustaches; another was a grown man, and Bathsheba was a little girl. 7. They were not injured; they resurrected as they would have reached that day in an uncorrupted world, which they did not in this corrupted world. 8. Not as they were buried, but much more perfectly. Let's say, in the way Jesus was resurrected according to the accounts. 9. They had clothes on, woven from some otherworldly brightness. But it is also possible that only the viewers saw it that way. 10. Clothes appeared on them as flesh, tendons, and skin on their withered bones. (It almost seems that this JW, in their desperation, opposed everything, even the resurrection they theoretically also believe in.) 11. After being resurrected, they eventually ascended to heaven, just like Jesus did.
And why do no other biblical writers mention it? By this logic, nothing could be a historical fact that only one evangelist reports, e.g., the repentance of one of the crucified thieves or many of Jesus' parables.
"Moreover, other sources do not mention this resurrection either, not even Josephus, who gives quite detailed accounts of events?" - Josephus does not mention a host of other things either, such as Jesus' resurrection. (The Testimonium Flavianum is a Christian interpolation, which no reasonable person can deny today.)
"Why did they rise from this particular cemetery?" - Perhaps because this cemetery had the most undeniable connection to Jesus' death and resurrection.
"Did they get a lucky ticket in the lottery and win everything, even the jackpot; were they the ones chosen and won the grand prize, meaning they were resurrected? Is it really just a matter of luck?" - This adolescently angry outburst falls more into the realm of psychology than theology. It is enough to point out that God's selective will does not require human approval, and if He chose to resurrect those particular individuals alongside Jesus, then the JW can grumble all day, and even spin on their back, but they cannot diminish or challenge God's decree.
"Wouldn't David, Abraham, Elijah, John the Baptist, and the many faithful and prophets mentioned earlier in the Bible have been among them?" - It seems they weren't swept into the mentioned cemetery by the lottery draw's whim. (Perhaps I can put it this way, since the JW resorted to such trivial images to make the natural meaning of the passage distasteful.)
"Didn’t Paul refer to them anywhere, not even in Hebrews chapter 11?" - It is almost certain that Paul did not write the letter to the Hebrews. Besides, these saints probably were not widely known heroes of faith to be used as examples for the audience. What was important about them was that they had died recently, so their relatives were still alive and could recognize them.
"Why didn't Peter speak about the resurrection of the saints in Acts chapter 2, where Peter specifically mentions who was raised and who was not (Acts 2:32, 34), as strong evidence of Jesus' resurrection?" - Because he did not provide an exhaustive list there, nor did he intend to. By that logic, the JW could also ask why Matthew did not mention Peter or Paul's list of the resurrected.
"If many saw them, then surely many of them were present at Peter’s speech as well?" - Not necessarily, because Peter's audience mostly consisted of Jews who had come from afar and spoke different languages, and they probably did not know those resurrected saints while they were alive.
"Moreover, if many of the resurrected were present, why didn’t Peter refer to them as evidence?" - It’s possible that by then, many of them had already been with Jesus in heaven.
Conclusion: The New World Translation's interpretation of this passage introduces unnecessary complexities and deviates from the straightforward reading of the Greek text. The correct understanding is that the saints were resurrected after Jesus' resurrection, and their appearance in Jerusalem serves to underscore the transformative power of Jesus' victory over death. The centurion's reaction was to the immediate events surrounding Jesus' death, and the silence of other historians does not undermine the validity of Matthew’s account. Theologically, this event fits within the broader narrative of resurrection and the new life inaugurated by Jesus Christ.
35
Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...
by FragrantAddendum in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.
aqwsed12345
Matthew 27:52-53 in the translation of the Watch Tower Society reads as follows:
"And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised up (and people coming out from among the tombs after his being raised up entered into the holy city), and they became visible to many people."
The same passage in the Nestle-Aland is as follows:
kai ta mnemeia aneōichthēsan kai polla sōmata tōn kekoimēmenōn hagiōn ēgerthēsan, kai exelthontes ek tōn mnēmeiōn meta tēn egersin autou eisēlthon eis tēn hagian polin kai enephanisthēsan pollois.
Word-for-word translation:
"And the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and (the ones) coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, they entered into the holy city and appeared to many."
The verb "ēgerthēsan" in the passive form derives from the verb "egeiró," which is one of the technical terms in the New Testament for the act of resurrection. It can also simply mean "awaken, raise up," and metaphorically, "to arouse, to incite." In its passive form, it usually means "to awaken, to rise." The 53rd verse itself refers to Jesus' resurrection as "egersis." Therefore, it is not possible to translate the appearance of the bodies as merely "emerging" in the first place. (Interestingly, the English NWT in my possession from 1961 renders it as "were raised up," using the same term for Jesus' resurrection in verse 53.)
Much depends on the participle "exelthontes" as well. It can generally be translated either way: "those coming out" or "(they) having come out." In this respect, the NWT translation has lexical accuracy. However, there is indeed no trace of the words "people, who" in the text, and the natural reading is without inserting parentheses and changing the subject simultaneously. This latter solution would weave trivial information into the text—where would the parenthetical clause introduced by the NWT be linked?—and it would only obscure the text further. The double (unmarked) subject change does not feel natural, harming the text's clarity and unity, and it is not necessarily implied by the context.
Moreover, the New World Translation's rendering ("came out") poorly represents the action of the participle, i.e., its aspect. The Greek uses the aorist (exelthontes), which typically refers to a punctiliar action, not a continuous one (exerchomenoi). This also suggests that those who came out of the tombs did not trickle out continuously but rather exited at once (or only once). True, the New Testament is not entirely consistent with verb aspects, but translating an aorist with a continuous action is a bold move without a clear contextual justification.
Theologically, it would be quite difficult to explain from the NWT's perspective why the text specifically mentions the bodies of the "holy ones" if nothing more happened than that they rolled out of the tomb due to some earthquake. This could have easily happened with any non-holy dead bodies as well. However, the resurrected "holy ones" (according to traditional Christian interpretation) appeared to many, thus bearing witness to the power that raised them.
The term "exelthontes" can theoretically mean both "coming out" and "having come out." In Greek—and as far as I know, in Latin—the participle does not require a suffix to mean "having come out" instead of "coming out." Greek grammar books dedicate entire pages to participles with subordinate clause meanings ("after they came out, when they came out, once they came out," and the like), so I will not quote those here.
Now, if the direct grammatical analysis of the word does not resolve the ambiguity, we can theoretically turn to word statistics (which is generally, and in this case too, inconclusive, because there are many examples of both meanings in the New Testament) and logical coherence. Which interpretation makes more sense in the context and fits more naturally?
kai ta mnemeia aneōichthēsan = "And the tombs were opened." We agree here.
kai polla sōmata tōn kekoimēmenōn hagiōn ēgerthēsan:
- According to the JWs: many bodies of the deceased saints rolled out, emerged, or were thrown out of the tomb.
- According to us: they did not roll out but were resurrected. The verb "egeiro" is often used to refer to resurrection (Schmoller's concordance devotes nearly 25 centimeters of text to the citations of this verb in the New Testament, and some citations are omitted due to text agreement). It lists an additional 15 centimeters of the everyday meanings "stand up, rise, arise, increase, lift up," etc. I think the majority rule strongly suggests that your translation requires concrete evidence.
kai exelthontes ek tōn mnēmeiōn (a) meta tēn egersin autou (b) eisēlthon eis tēn hagian polin:
We can set aside for now whether the explanatory comma should be placed at (a) "after his resurrection they came out of the tombs" or at (b) "they came out, and after his resurrection entered the city." This could be discussed further, although the miraculous atmosphere makes logical analysis somewhat tentative.
But most importantly: the author uses the same "egersis" directly next to the previous occurrence, and this time it undoubtedly refers to Jesus' resurrection, not merely his body rolling out. This further supports our translation's accuracy.
No matter how we punctuate the text, the positions are as follows:
According to the JWs, a new subject emerges with "kai exelthontes"—so while bodies rolled out before, now those walking out of the tombs, likely some kind of visitors or caretakers, start to act. However, the text, as it stands, fits rather awkwardly with the JWs' interpretation. A subject change would require some grammatical marker, such as "kai tines exelthontes" (and some walking out) or "kai hoi exelthontes" (and those walking out). But there's nothing there, and the text's most natural flow would require the subject to remain consistent.
Another problem for the JWs is that "exelthontes" is in the aorist, typically suggesting a single, punctiliar action rather than a continuous one. Clearly, whether these persons exited at Jesus' resurrection or at his death, the single exit suggested here fits best with the miraculous event (such as an earthquake or angelic appearance), i.e., the single departure of the resurrected saints from the tombs, rather than the everyday departure of unaffected visitors or caretakers.
Additionally, consider: if the author meant what we suggest, they would have phrased it to be interpreted and translated as we do. But if they intended your interpretation, why phrase it so that everyone else reads it our way? There is no evidence of text corruption; the NA only has one note for this place: "ēgerthēsan" versus "ēgerthē" (formally singular), but it means the same because "soma" is neuter, and it's common (one might say regular) in Greek for a plural neuter subject to be followed by a singular predicate.
Finally, entering the holy city is also in the aorist, suggesting a punctiliar action just like coming out.
"kai enephanisthēsan pollois" = "And they appeared to many." The verb "emphanizo" also has both everyday and miraculous meanings: "to make known, to reveal" or "to appear (to someone)," and in the passive form, it usually means "to appear" (according to Schmoller). The verb occurrences: Mt 27:53; Jn 14:21, 22; Acts 23:15, 22; 25:2, 15; Heb 9:24; 11:14.
According to you, it was the cemetery visitors who "appeared to many" in the city. This makes no sense: how would the mere return home of well-known, not-dead people from the cemetery testify to Jesus' resurrection? The evangelist describes this "appearance" as an essential, and somehow convincing, event supporting Jesus' resurrection.
Do you want to read into it that they "revealed, narrated to many?" The meaning "to make known" in the verb "emphanizo" strongly demands a direct object (e.g., Heb 11:14, where a subordinate clause serves as the object: "they demonstrate / make it clear that they seek a homeland"), but there is no object here. Moreover, "to make known" cannot be in the passive voice, as in Heb 9:24 ("we must appear before God").
At this point, your position becomes untenable. Logic, no matter how you try to evade it, holds you.
Our position (and that of the overwhelming majority of Bible translators—I don't know if there are any exceptions besides you) is grammatically smooth and makes sense, even if the miraculous elements might be considered excessive, but I don't find that necessary. The JW translation regarding "exelthontes" is refutable by the logical theological reflection and the grammatical and logical analysis of the other key words prove that it is nonsensical.
What happened to these resurrected saints, I can hardly tell you, but I deny that the evangelist necessarily had to follow their fate. I don't think they died again because I suppose they were now in transformed bodies (the term "enefanisthesan" = "appeared" echoes Jesus' appearances to his disciples ("efanerothe" in Mark, a related verb). If you press me, I would say that sometime after Jesus, they too ascended to heaven.
"kai exelthontes ek tōn mnēmeiōn (a) meta tēn egersin autou (b) eisēlthon eis tēn hagian polin kai enephanisthēsan pollois.
But in the JW version, a comma should not be placed at either (a) or (b), because "exelthontes" would refer to persons, not an action, and by itself, it could not form a proper clause up to (a), nor from the beginning to (b), since there is no verb or participle up to that point. In that case, "eisēlthon" would be the first word expressing an action.
So what remains is: many bodies of the deceased saints were raised from the tomb, "and certain persons came out from the tombs after his resurrection, entered the holy city, and appeared to many." But 1. what could this mean? It makes no sense. 2. If this were the meaning, then why does it not mention the relationship between these persons who came out and the rolled-out corpses ("they saw them"), and what these persons did in the city with this news ("they reported it").
Your version not only weighs little on the combined scale of meaning and grammar, but even considering the aspect of meaning alone, it proves to be obscure. According to your solution, the evangelist here forgot to describe two vital actions.
Reasons Why the NWT Translation is Incorrect:
1. Misinterpretation of "ἐξελθόντες" (exelthontes):
  The Greek participle "ἐξελθόντες" (exelthontes) is in the aorist tense, indicating a completed action. The natural reading is that the "bodies" of the saints are the subject performing the action of coming out of the tombs. The NWT suggests an ongoing action by separate individuals, which the Greek text does not support.
  Properly, the phrase should be translated to maintain the connection with the previously mentioned "bodies," indicating that these bodies came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection.
2. Incorrect Subject Linkage:
  The NWT introduces a new subject by suggesting that "(the ones) coming out of the tombs" refers to different people than the "bodies" that were raised. The Greek text does not support this. There is no change of subject indicated in the text; the same subject (the resurrected bodies of the saints) continues throughout the passage.
  Greek grammar typically marks subject changes clearly. The absence of any markers such as "τινές" (tines, some) or "οἱ" (hoi, the ones) supports the continuous subject.
3. Misunderstanding "μετὰ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῦ" (meta tēn egersin autou):
  This phrase translates to "after his resurrection," clearly referring to Jesus. The NWT translation disrupts this clear reference by implying that the coming out of the tombs is a separate event from the resurrection.
  The Greek text implies that the bodies were raised in conjunction with or immediately following Jesus’ resurrection, maintaining a cohesive narrative.
4. Contextual and Grammatical Consistency:
  The Greek passage uses consistent grammatical structures to maintain a single subject. The participles and verbs are all in agreement, pointing to a continuous action performed by the same subject: the bodies of the saints.
  The NWT translation introduces unnecessary complexity by suggesting separate actions by different subjects, which the Greek text does not indicate.
5. Resurrection Terminology in the New Testament:
  The verb "ἠγέρθησαν" (ēgerthēsan, they were raised) is commonly associated with resurrection in the New Testament. The NWT weakens this connection by implying mere physical emergence rather than miraculous raising from the dead.
  Other instances in the New Testament use "ἠγέρθησαν" to refer to resurrection, making it clear that the same interpretation should apply here.
6. Absence of Necessary Greek Grammatical Markers:
  For the NWT translation to be correct, there would need to be additional Greek words indicating a change in subject, such as "τινές" (tines, some) or "οἱ" (hoi, the ones). These markers are absent in the original Greek text, reinforcing that the same subject (the resurrected bodies) is being discussed throughout the passage.
  The text’s natural flow and grammatical structure support the continuous subject of the resurrected bodies.
7. Logical and Contextual Coherence:
  The interpretation that the bodies of the saints were resurrected and entered the holy city after Jesus' resurrection makes logical sense in the context of the passage. It highlights the miraculous nature of Jesus' resurrection and its immediate impact.
  The NWT's rendering creates a disjointed narrative that does not logically follow from the events described, introducing ambiguity and confusion.
Conclusion:
The New World Translation of Matthew 27:52-53 misinterprets key Greek terms and grammatical structures, leading to an incorrect understanding of the passage. The correct interpretation maintains that the saints' bodies were resurrected and came out of their tombs following Jesus’ resurrection, subsequently entering the holy city and appearing to many. The NWT’s insertion of additional subjects and actions not indicated by the Greek text distorts the original meaning and continuity of the passage. This correct interpretation preserves the coherence and miraculous nature of the resurrection narrative as intended in the original Greek text.
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.
aqwsed12345

Arian Objections To The Trinity Refuted
First, consider why, if it is such a fundamental teaching that the Son is a creature, this isn't explicitly stated anywhere? If you took the principle of 'sola Scriptura' seriously, which according to the standard Protestant interpretation of 1 Cor. 4:6 means “do not go beyond what is written,” then the fact that Scripture uses the terminology of begotten/born should suffice, and you should simply state that the Son is begotten/born of the Father, period.
But no, JWs insist that He was created/made, and since such a statement does not exist in the Bible, JWs cling to three verses whose context isn't even about this. Of these, Prov. 8:22 and Col. 1:15 were already cited by the 4th-century Arians, but not Rev. 3:14, as no ancient Greek speaker interpreted it that way, even though they had the Revelation.
Revelation 3:14 - Jesus Christ as the 'archē' of God’s creation
The phrase "archē tēs ktiseōs" in Revelation 3:14 is mistranslated in the NWT as "the beginning of the creation by God." The correct translation, "the 'archē' of the creation OF God," indicates Christ as the source or origin of creation, not the first created being. The NWT's use of "by" instead of "of" is misleading. The Greek text does not support "hupo" (by), but rather "archē" denotes the origin or source, aligning with John 1:3 where all things were made through Him. It is also no coincidence that no one referred to Rev. 3:14 in the 4th century Arian debates, why? Because a native Greek speaker would never think of such nonsense, since all educated Greeks knew that the archē is the first principle from which creation flows, not the first piece of created things. I think that the phrase "arkhe of creation" in Rev. 3:14 means exactly the same as Colossians 1:16, since it Jesus the "arkhe", certainly because through him all things were created.
"Archē" in Revelation 3:14 can mean "origin", "first principle" or "source," indicating that Christ is the foundational principle through which all creation came into being. This aligns with Colossians 1:16, which states that all things were created through Him.
In Revelation 3:14, "arkhe" can indeed mean "beginning," but it should not be understood in the modern English way, but as "principle", hint: the English "principle" is a Latin loanword, Latin principium, which is how the Vulgate translates it in Rev. 3:14, as well as John 1:1a tc. The NT's usage in other contexts emphasizes a role of preeminence and authority, aligning with the interpretation of Christ as the "first principle" or "originator" of creation.
According to the Thayer's Greek Lexicon ἀρχή (arkhe) can mean "beginning," "origin," "active cause," or "principle." The specific usage depends on the context, and in Revelation 3:14, it refers to Christ as the divine Logos, indicating He is the active cause or origin of creation, not a created being. The term "arkhe" in Revelation 3:14 should be understood in the context of Christ’s role as the origin and active cause of all creation (John 1:3, Col. 1:16). This interpretation aligns with the overall biblical narrative that portrays Jesus as divine and preexistent.
26
Jehovah's Witnesses - summary critique
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
since 1931, they have called themselves jehovah’s witnesses.

founded in 1879 by charles taze russell (1852-1916).

jw’s publisher is the watchtower bible and tract society, and their publications include "the watchtower" and "awake!
aqwsed12345

ADHD everywhere...

aqwsed12345

Posts by aqwsed12345

Refutation of Arian Objections Based on Revelation 3:14

Contextual Analysis

Analysis of "Arche"

Supporting Biblical Texts

Early Church Understanding

Addressing the Jehovah's Witness Translation

Theological Implications

Greek Old Testament and Early Christian Literature

Conclusion

Footnotes

Reasons Why the NWT Translation is Incorrect:

Conclusion: