Posts by aqwsed12345

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.

aqwsed12345

@Blotty

The primary argument here is not about quoting you verbatim but addressing the logic that seems implied. By pointing to BDAG's listing of "first created" as a probable meaning, you appear to imply it should be the default interpretation for "archē" in Revelation 3:14. However, the BDAG listing does not necessitate this interpretation. Lexicons list potential meanings, but context in Scripture remains paramount for determining the most accurate meaning. In Revelation 3:14, "archē" fits best as "origin" or "source," given the wider biblical context that repeatedly identifies Jesus as Creator, not part of creation.

BDAG does not negate "first cause" as a meaning but simply lists other possible meanings based on various contexts. The role of BDAG is to provide lexicon-based definitions, not to provide theological conclusions. When interpreting "archē" as "origin" or "source" in Revelation 3:14, it aligns well with the broader New Testament context where Jesus is consistently depicted as the agent of creation (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2). Thus, "archē" in Revelation 3:14 can be contextually and linguistically interpreted as referring to Jesus’ role as the origin or source of creation, not as a created entity.

Your argument downplays the active role of the Son in creation by emphasizing the Father's role as the "source." This argument suggests that since the Father is the ultimate source, the Son’s role as Creator is diminished. However, New Testament passages like Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3 identify Jesus as the direct agent of creation, meaning that He holds an active, integral role in creation. Describing Jesus as merely an "instrument" without acknowledging His full participation in the creative process misunderstands the nature of His role as the divine Logos, who actively creates alongside the Father.

The Church Fathers, such as Athanasius, affirmed that the Son was eternally begotten, not “ex nihilo” created in time. The phrase "in the beginning" (John 1:1) does not imply a point in time when the Son began to exist; rather, it affirms His existence co-eternal with the Father. The concept of eternal generation, as understood by the Church Fathers, maintains that the Son shares in the Father’s divine essence and is uncreated.

Hebrews 1:10 quotes Psalm 102 to affirm that the Son is the one through whom the heavens and earth were made, directly attributing creation to Him. This citation is used to emphasize the Son’s divine role and creative power. Your comparison to other examples, like Solomon building the Temple, is not analogous because Hebrews explicitly credits Jesus as the Creator of the universe, not merely a facilitator or builder in a secondary sense. The passive or active voice does not change the theological assertion that Jesus is the Creator.

While possession and creation may sometimes be conceptually linked, they are not synonymous. The Hebrew term in Proverbs 8:22 (קָנָה, qanah) is often translated as "possessed" rather than "created" because it can indicate ownership or bringing forth. Even if some translations opt for "created," the New Testament presentation of Jesus as the eternal Logos overrides the notion of Wisdom being a temporal creation. The early Church Fathers saw Proverbs 8 as a foreshadowing of Christ’s eternal generation, not a literal account of His creation.

While some Church Fathers used "ektisen" (created) in discussions of Proverbs 8:22, this does not imply they viewed Christ as created in time. Fathers like Origen, Athanasius, and Basil understood "created" in Proverbs 8 in a metaphorical or typological sense, relating it to Christ’s eternal generation from the Father. For example, Athanasius argued extensively against Arian interpretations that treated the Son as a created being. The Fathers used Proverbs 8 to describe the relationship between the Father and Son without compromising Christ’s eternal, uncreated nature.

The term "agent of creation" does not diminish Jesus' status as Creator. In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are fully and actively involved in the act of creation, with the Son described as the one through whom all things were made (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). The title "agent of creation" emphasizes the Son’s active role in bringing creation into existence without implying that He is subordinate or secondary in essence to the Father. Describing Him as "the agent" affirms His integral involvement in creation while maintaining the relational distinction within the Trinity.

Dismissing an argument based on the perceived status of the person presenting it is an ad hominem fallacy. Sound arguments should be evaluated on their merits, not on the background or qualifications of the individual presenting them. Theological understanding comes from careful study of Scripture, history, and the writings of respected scholars, not personal attacks.

Aquila’s, Symmachus’s, and Theodotion’s translations indeed used terms for "possessed" rather than "created" to reflect the original Hebrew understanding better. Origen’s allaged “choice” to retain "ektisen" does not contradict the orthodox position because he, like other Fathers, interpreted "created" metaphorically rather than literally. The preference of Aquila and others for “possessed” highlights their understanding that qanah did not imply temporal creation, and Origen’s choice reflects a theological interpretation within the Church’s broader doctrinal framework.

While ktizo can have varied meanings, such as “to found” or “to make habitable,” the specific biblical context and theological usage help determine the intended meaning. In the New Testament, ktizo consistently refers to God’s unique act of creation. Context dictates that ktizo in Proverbs 8:22 (if read as “created”) is used figuratively, pointing to Wisdom’s foundational role in God’s creative work rather than literal creation. The pattern of ktizo usage in Scripture does not conflict with interpreting Proverbs 8 in a typological sense.

While biblical language overlaps with contemporary usage, Scripture uses terms within a theological context that often transcends standard or secular meanings. Lexicons like Thayer’s do provide historical uses, but interpreting Scripture involves understanding how these words were adapted to convey theological truths. The Bible’s usage of ktizo as "create" is primarily used in a divine context, unlike secular Greek texts, where it might mean "found" or "establish."

While ktizo can mean "to create" or "to found," the interpretation of each usage relies on context. Proverbs 8’s context is poetic and personified, indicating that Wisdom’s “creation” is metaphorical, symbolizing God’s eternal wisdom rather than a literal act of creation. Scholars widely interpret ktizo in Proverbs 8 as a poetic way of describing Wisdom’s role in creation rather than implying that Wisdom (or Christ) is a temporal creation.

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.

aqwsed12345

You claim that the term "archē" in Revelation 3:14 must be interpreted as "first created" because it is listed as a “probable” meaning in BDAG, and you suggest that since "first cause" isn't directly supported by verse references in BDAG, it is an invalid interpretation. This argument ignores the broader principle of contextual translation. Lexicons provide a range of potential meanings, and context determines which meaning is the most appropriate. In Revelation 3:14, Jesus is described as the "archē of God's creation"—the "beginning" or "source" of creation, as supported by passages like John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2. These verses emphasize that all things were created through Jesus, which strongly suggests that the meaning of "archē" in Revelation 3:14 is "origin" or "first cause," not "first created."

The argument you present—based on BDAG's listing of "first created" as a probable meaning—fails to consider that BDAG, as well as other lexicons, presents multiple meanings for "archē", depending on context. The idea of Jesus as the "origin" of creation is consistent with His role as Creator, as outlined in several New Testament texts. Therefore, while "first created" is linguistically possible, it is theologically inconsistent with the Bible's broader teachings about Jesus' divine role in creation.

You ask where the Bible explicitly calls Jesus the Creator. Let's address this:

John 1:3: "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that has been made." This passage clearly states that everything was made through Jesus, which logically excludes Him from being a created being. If everything that exists was made through Jesus, then He cannot be part of that creation.
Colossians 1:16: "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." Here, all things are said to be created by Jesus, which again excludes Him from being part of creation.
Hebrews 1:2.10: "In these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom also He made the universe. […]In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.”

You claim that these verses do not say Jesus is not a created being, but the language is clear and explicit: Jesus is the agent through whom everything was made. This precludes the possibility that He is part of creation Himself.

You bring up Origen and claim that he saw a distinction between the Father as Creator and the Son as a created being. However, this is a misrepresentation of Origen's views. Origen believed in the eternality of the Son. He used the concept of the eternal generation of the Son, which means that the Son was not created in time but was eternally begotten by the Father. Origen did distinguish between the Father and the Son in terms of roles within the Godhead, but he did not view the Son as a created being in the way that Jehovah's Witnesses argue. The idea of eternal generation affirms the Son's divine nature and eternal existence, not His creation.

You argue that because passive verbs are used in Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3, the focus is on God the Father as the ultimate Creator. However, the use of passive verbs does not negate the Son's role as the agent of creation. In fact, the New Testament consistently presents the Father as the source of creation and the Son as the instrument or agent through whom all things were made. This cooperative relationship within the Trinity does not imply a hierarchy in nature or being but rather functional distinction.

You assert that Proverbs 8:22 and the Jewish Wisdom tradition prove that Christ was created. However, the New Testament writers, particularly John, apply the concept of Wisdom to Jesus in a way that goes beyond personification. In John 1:1-3, Jesus is described as the Logos (Word), who was with God in the beginning and who was God. This passage emphasizes Jesus' eternality and divinity, not His creation. While Proverbs 8 may describe Wisdom as “created,” “appointed,” or “possessed,” the New Testament identifies Jesus as eternal and directly involved in creation, making it clear that He is not merely personified Wisdom but the divine Logos.

Additionally, Proverbs 8:22 is often mistranslated by those who wish to argue that Wisdom (and thus Jesus) was created. A more accurate translation is that Wisdom was "possessed" by God, not created. Early Christian writers, like the Church Fathers, understood Proverbs 8 in a typological sense, seeing Wisdom as a foreshadowing of Christ but recognizing that Jesus, as the divine Word, is eternal and uncreated.

You raise the question of why the Spirit is not called "monogenes" if Jesus is the only-begotten Son. The term "monogenes" (often translated as "only-begotten") emphasizes the unique relationship between the Father and the Son. It does not imply creation but rather the eternal generation of the Son from the Father. The Holy Spirit has a different role in the Godhead and is not begotten like the Son; rather, the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and the Son (as per Western Christian tradition). This reflects the distinct relationships within the Trinity, not a hierarchical structure of created beings.

Your interpretation of "archē" in Revelation 3:14 as "first created" is not supported by the broader biblical context. Jesus is consistently portrayed in the New Testament as eternal and the agent of creation, not a part of creation. The understanding of Christ as the Logos and eternally begotten Son is central to Christian theology, and the idea that He is a created being is inconsistent with the entirety of the scriptural testimony.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

aqwsed12345

Your claim that my statement about Protestants needing to reconcile the Catholic Church's role in determining the New Testament canon is a misrepresentation is unfounded. While it is true that Protestant scholars and traditions may have different perspectives on how the canon was discerned, the historical fact remains that the formal recognition of the New Testament canon was done by the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Synods like the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD) reaffirmed the 27 books of the New Testament that are recognized today.

While some Protestants may argue that the canon existed earlier in an informal sense, the official and universally accepted canon was recognized and preserved by the Catholic Church. This is not a misrepresentation but a historical reality. The point being made is that if one accepts the New Testament canon as it stands today, one must recognize that the process was guided by the same Church many Protestants claim fell into error.

Your objection that a qualitative reading of "theos" in John 1:1c does not mean that the Word shares the same divine essence as God is based on a misunderstanding of how scholars interpret the text. The qualitative nature of "theos" in this verse indicates that the Word possesses the same nature as God. The absence of the definite article before "theos" does not imply that Jesus is a lesser god, but rather emphasizes His divine essence.

Scholars like Philip Harner and Dan Wallace have argued extensively that the qualitative nature of "theos" in John 1:1c points to the Word being fully divine, not merely a being with divine-like qualities. Your comparison of "a god" with "a human" misses the point of the theological significance of this passage. In Greek, the placement of "theos" without the definite article before the verb emphasizes the nature or essence of the Word as divine, not as a separate, lower-ranked god.

The argument that translating John 1:1c as "a god" would not introduce polytheism because it merely suggests the Word is "divine" or "in a category like human" is problematic. In the context of ancient Jewish monotheism, which strongly rejects the existence of multiple gods, translating "theos" as "a god" would introduce a division within the Godhead and imply the existence of more than one divine being, which contradicts the biblical assertion of one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 45:5).

The early Christian understanding, as reflected in the writings of the Church Fathers, upheld that Christ shares fully in the divine nature of God. Translating "theos" as "a god" misrepresents the early Christian monotheistic belief that the Word is not a separate deity but one in essence with the Father.

Philo, Origen, and Justin indeed speak of "second gods" or "gods by participation," but their use of these terms must be understood in their proper context. These thinkers were exploring how the divine Word (Logos) or other heavenly beings could be understood within the framework of strict monotheism. When Philo or Origen speak of "second gods," they are not advocating for polytheism or the worship of other gods. Rather, they use this language to describe beings that participate in divine attributes, without compromising the oneness of God.

Origen, for example, speaks of beings "called gods" by participation but makes it clear that they are not gods in the same sense as the one true God. His reference to "gods by participation" emphasizes their derived divinity, not independent godhood. These discussions do not support the idea of multiple gods in the same sense as the Father, nor do they provide grounds for interpreting John 1:1c as "a god" in the way the New World Translation does.

The translation of "Elohim" as "aggelos" in the Septuagint (LXX) in some instances is a reflection of Jewish interpretive traditions, where "Elohim" could refer to divine beings or angels. This translation choice was made to clarify the meaning in contexts where "Elohim" referred to beings other than God. However, this does not support the idea that Jesus, as the Word, should be understood as "a god" in John 1:1c. The context of John 1:1c is entirely different, as it speaks of the Word's eternal existence and divine nature, not of angels or lesser divine beings.

Your argument attempts to equate the term "a god" with a lower divine being, supported by selective interpretations of early Christian writers and Jewish translation traditions. However, the broader theological context, the qualitative force of "theos" in John 1:1c, and the early Christian understanding of Christ's divinity point to a much more profound reality: the Word is fully and truly divine, sharing the same essence as the Father. The translation "a god" introduces confusion and theological errors, such as polytheism or henotheism, which contradict the monotheistic foundation of the Bible.

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.

aqwsed12345

You emphasize that the BDAG lexicon lists "first created" as a "probable" meaning for archē in Revelation 3:14 and argue that if the "first cause" meaning were valid, there should be specific Bible verses supporting it. The term archē has a wide semantic range, and while BDAG might not list specific verses under "first cause" or "origin," this doesn't invalidate that meaning, especially when supported by context. Lexicons aim to provide the most likely meanings based on the usage of words in specific passages, and they are not comprehensive theological treatises. Contextual usage can drive interpretation.

Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus "the archē of God’s creation." To interpret archē as “first created” would contradict the broader scriptural witness regarding Jesus as the Creator, not a created being (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2). Even if BDAG suggests first created as probable, it is only one possible interpretation and must be weighed against the theological and linguistic context of the passage. It is entirely valid to interpret archē as "origin" or "source" based on how Jesus is portrayed throughout the New Testament.

You also suggest that Proverbs 8:22 ("The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work") influenced how archē is interpreted in Revelation 3:14. You mention scholars like Clifford and Fox who argue that this concept from Jewish Wisdom literature influenced New Testament Christology.

While it is true that some early Christian writings reference Proverbs 8 to describe Jesus' role in creation, the New Testament presents Jesus not just as Wisdom personified but as the Logos (Word), who is integral to creation and eternal. The interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 by some scholars as referring to a created being (Wisdom) does not negate the consistent New Testament teaching that Jesus is eternal and uncreated (John 1:1-3). Thus, any link between Proverbs 8 and Revelation 3:14 does not automatically mean that Jesus is a created being.

You challenge me to name the dictionary or source where aparchē ("firstfruits") is more likely the intended meaning of archē in Revelation 3:14, and emphasize that the dictionary itself suggests aparchē is more probable. The dictionary I quoted is not in English, so you won't find it anyway.

This claim misunderstands the distinct meanings of archē and aparchē. While aparchē means "firstfruits" (as in the first portion of something, often with sacrificial connotations), archē refers to the "beginning" or "origin" of something. Revelation 3:14 uses archē, not aparchē, making the argument less relevant. The use of archē in this context aligns with Jesus as the "origin" of creation, not as a first-created being. The distinction between archē and aparchē further supports that Jesus is being identified as the source of creation, rather than a created entity.

You conclude by asserting that interpreting Jesus as the "first" or "beginning" of God's creation aligns with His title as the "only-begotten Son" of God.

This is a misunderstanding of what "only-begotten" (Greek: monogenēs) means. The term monogenēs does not imply that Jesus was created but rather emphasizes His unique and eternal relationship with the Father. The Nicene Creed, based on Scripture, makes a crucial distinction between being "begotten" and "created." Jesus is "begotten, not made," which affirms His eternal divinity. He is not the first created being but rather shares in the eternal nature of God (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17).

In summary:

The BDAG lexicon does not provide an exhaustive theological conclusion but offers possible meanings based on context. "First cause" or "origin" is a legitimate interpretation of archē in Revelation 3:14, supported by other New Testament passages.
While Proverbs 8:22 may influence some interpretations, the New Testament portrayal of Jesus as the eternal Logos goes beyond Jewish Wisdom literature.
The distinction between archē and aparchē is important, and the use of archē in Revelation 3:14 indicates that Jesus is the origin of creation, not a created being.
Jesus as the "only-begotten Son" emphasizes His unique, eternal relationship with the Father, not His creation.

59

Proof of two destinies for believers in the Bible, heavenly and earthly

by slimboyfat in

the jw idea that believers are destined either for heavenly life or for endless life on earth comes in for significant criticism by critics of various kinds.

even some groups, such as the christadelphians, who share belief in a future paradise earth, don’t share the view that some christians are destined for life in heaven.

yet there is surprisingly quite a lot of evidence in the bible for the existence of two distinct groups of believers.

aqwsed12345

1. Misinterpretation of John 3:3-16 and the "Two Hopes"

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus presents two distinct hopes in John 3:3-16—one for a heavenly class (born of the spirit) and another for an earthly class (everlasting life)—misreads the passage. John 3:3-5 speaks of being "born of water and Spirit" to enter the kingdom of God, while John 3:16 presents the promise of eternal life to "whoever believes in Him." However, these verses are not describing two separate hopes. Rather, they reflect the same hope: entry into the kingdom of God through belief in Christ and the transformative work of the Holy Spirit. Both verses describe the universal Christian hope of salvation and eternal life, not a divided hope for some in heaven and others on earth. The New Testament consistently teaches that all believers, whether they lived before or after Christ, share in this unified hope of eternal life with God.

2. The Thief on the Cross (Luke 23:42-43)

Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus' promise to the thief on the cross—“you will be with me in Paradise”—supports an earthly hope. They claim that this “paradise” refers to a future earthly paradise. However, traditional Christian interpretation sees "Paradise" here as a reference to heaven, the immediate presence of God. First of all, Christ promises the thief that he will be together "with him", so perhaps Christ himself is also a member of this alleged "earthly class"?

The traditional Christian interpretation does not equate "Paradise" in Luke 23:43 with heaven directly, but rather with Limbus Patrum (the "Limbo of the Fathers"). This belief centers on the idea that, before Christ's resurrection, the souls of the righteous were not yet able to enter the beatific vision in heaven, so they resided in a state of rest known as Abraham’s Bosom or the Limbo of the Fathers. In this context, "Paradise" here refers to this temporary state of peace where the righteous awaited Christ's victory over death.

After His death, Jesus descended into Sheol (the realm of the dead) to liberate the righteous souls awaiting the opening of heaven (1 Peter 3:19-20). This aligns with the idea that the thief on the cross would join Him in the "Paradise" of the Limbo of the Fathers, not heaven. The Apostles' Creed reflects this, stating that Christ "descended into hell" (meaning the abode of the dead, not the hell of the damned).

Thus, when Christ speaks of "Paradise" to the thief, He is most likely referring to this state of rest for the righteous, not heaven in the immediate sense. Only after Christ's resurrection would the souls of the righteous enter into heaven.

As for the idea of Jesus being in an earthly paradise in the future, this reflects more of a Jehovah's Witness perspective, which interprets "Paradise" in Luke 23:43 as a reference to a future restoration of Eden-like conditions on earth. According to this view, when Christ returns, the earth will be transformed into a paradise where the righteous will dwell.

However, traditional Christian theology—particularly Catholic and Orthodox—does not support the idea of a future, earthly paradise being the ultimate destination of the faithful. Instead, it teaches that the faithful will experience the New Heavens and the New Earth described in Revelation 21:1. This is seen as the ultimate renewal of all creation, where heaven and earth are united, and the faithful live in eternal communion with God.

The word "paradise" in the New Testament often refers to heavenly bliss (e.g., 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, Revelation 2:7), not a future earthly restoration. Jesus' promise to the thief assures him of entry into God’s presence, consistent with the understanding of heavenly resurrection rather than an earthly hope.

3. The Heavenly Hope and New Covenant (Hebrews 12:22-24)

The New Testament emphasizes the heavenly calling of all Christians, particularly those who are partakers of the New Covenant. Hebrews 12:22-24 describes Mount Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem as the destination for all who belong to the New Covenant. There is no mention in the New Testament of two distinct classes of Christians with separate destinies. Instead, the New Covenant is presented as a universal invitation to all believers, both Jew and Gentile, to partake in the blessings of salvation and eternal life in God’s presence. Hebrews 10:15-20 reaffirms this by showing that the New Covenant provides direct access to God, not merely for a select heavenly class but for all who believe.

4. Revelation 7:9 and the "Great Multitude"

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the "great multitude" in Revelation 7:9 represents an earthly class distinct from the 144,000. However, Revelation 7:9 describes this great multitude as standing before the throne and before the Lamb, which is a clear indication of their presence in heaven, not on earth. The imagery in Revelation often uses symbolic numbers, and many scholars interpret the 144,000 as a symbolic representation of the entirety of God's redeemed people, not a literal number of those destined for heaven. The great multitude thus represents the universal body of believers—both Jews and Gentiles—who will worship God in heaven.

5. The Kingdom of God and Eternal Life

While Jehovah’s Witnesses argue for an earthly hope based on verses like Revelation 21:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:13, these passages describe the renewal of all creation in the New Heavens and New Earth. Traditional Christian eschatology teaches that in the end, heaven and earth will be united, and God will dwell with His people in this renewed creation. This is not a division between two separate groups of believers (one heavenly, one earthly), but a full restoration of creation where all of God's people will experience eternal life in the presence of God. The New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 21) represent a unified eternal destiny for all believers, not a two-tier system.

6. Misapplication of Ephesians 1:5 and Galatians 4:5-7

The claim that only a specific class of Christians is "born of the spirit" and thereby made heirs of the Kingdom, while another class exists as subjects on earth, contradicts the consistent teaching of the New Testament. Ephesians 1:5 and Galatians 4:5-7 speak of all Christians as adopted children of God, heirs with Christ. There is no biblical basis for dividing believers into two classes with separate destinies. The idea of “heirs” is inclusive of all who have faith in Christ, and all believers are promised the same inheritance: eternal life in the presence of God.

7. The Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46)

In Matthew 25, the parable of the sheep and the goats does not support the idea of a two-class system. The "sheep" and "goats" are not divided into a heavenly class and an earthly class but are judged based on their response to Christ and their treatment of others. The "sheep" are those who have demonstrated love and righteousness, while the "goats" are those who have rejected Christ’s teachings. The reward for the "sheep" is eternal life, not a separate earthly existence. This parable emphasizes the importance of faith and righteous action, not a division between two distinct groups of Christians.

8. The "Two-Class" System of Hope

The notion of two separate hopes—one for a heavenly class (the 144,000) and another for the vast majority who will live on earth—is a doctrinal innovation by Jehovah’s Witnesses and lacks biblical foundation. While the Bible does speak of heaven and earth, it does so in the context of a unified hope for all believers. Revelation 21:1-4 describes the New Heavens and the New Earth as one restored creation where God dwells with humanity. There is no indication of a divided eternity, with some reigning in heaven and others living on earth.

Further, passages like 1 Corinthians 15:49 and Philippians 3:21 affirm that all believers will share in Christ’s glorified, resurrected body, a heavenly existence. The reference to “new heavens and a new earth” in 2 Peter 3:13 similarly points to the renewal of all creation rather than the establishment of two separate realms for believers.

Conclusion

The notion of two separate Christian hopes—one heavenly and one earthly—is not supported by the broader context of Scripture. The Bible presents a unified hope for all believers, centered on the New Covenant and the promise of eternal life in the presence of God. The New Testament consistently speaks of one body of believers who will share in Christ’s inheritance, not a divided system of heavenly rulers and earthly subjects. The distinctions made by Jehovah’s Witnesses in their theology are based on selective readings and misinterpretations of key biblical texts, which, when examined in context, point to a singular, glorious hope for all who are in Christ.

22

BABYLON THE GREAT IS NOT FALLING ANYMORE? (NEW LIGHT FROM THE ANNUAL MEETING)

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/rsbfa_7lqv4?si=muuxmgtll1n1ifad.

the watchtower’s babylon the great: a shrinking reality?.

so this latest annual meeting introduced a new idea about babylon the great, and here is the part from geoffrey jackson's talk we real need to dig in and consider it's ramifications..... so you’ve got to hand it to them; they know how to keep things interesting with their ever-evolving interpretations and, of course, those classic "adjustments" in understanding.

aqwsed12345

In principle, according to the JW interpretation, "Great Babylon" means all "false religions", that is, everyone else besides them, but to put it mildly, they do not deal with all "false religions" to the same extent.

The question is why the Watchtower does not polemize nearly as much about Islam or the Jews? For example, I have seen in many Watchtower publications that the destruction of "Babylon the Great" is illustrated with destroyed churches, but I have never once seen in the Watchtower a mosque or synagogue destroyed by a meteor shower at Armageddon in the picture. What is the reason for this? Perhaps they know that they are considered a protected group in the woke-PC world order, and they faithfully adhere to this?

So what makes them "brave" if they so slavishly fit into the mainstream narrative and abide by what is allowed to be said?

Why do they only polemicize with mainstream Christianity, especially Catholicism? Perhaps Hinduism or African nature worshipers are not "false religions"? Or are they less bad than Catholicism?

Or when it comes to the wrongdoings of the "false religion", it is always only about things from many hundreds of years ago, mostly Catholic, and at the same time, there is never a mention of, for example, Islamic terrorism. The real question is, what is the actual threat to the freedom of religion nowadays? The Inquisition or the Caliphate?

21

Is the JW version of The Lord's Supper really a Parody?

by Sea Breeze in

a black mass is a ceremony celebrated by various satanic groups.

it ... is intentionally a sacrilegious and blasphemous parody of a catholic mass.

- wikipedia.

aqwsed12345

Take Eat: How My View of the Eucharist Changed by Tom Cabeen

12

Will the G.B. ever give a "new light" on Romans 6:7?

by BoogerMan in

jehovah' witnesses are taught to believe that romans 6:7 refers to a person's own literal death:.

watchtower may 15th 1982, pp.

8,9 - "the bible explains that at death a person is set free or released from any sins he committed.

aqwsed12345

To address the claim that Romans 6:7 and Romans 6:23 support Jehovah’s Witnesses' teaching that sins committed in this life are wiped clean at death and that future judgment will be based solely on deeds performed after resurrection, a more in-depth examination of the biblical text and context is necessary.

1. Romans 6:7 – A Misinterpretation of Spiritual Death

Jehovah’s Witnesses interpret Romans 6:7 as implying that a person’s physical death wipes away their sins: “For he who has died has been acquitted from sin.” The Watchtower Society teaches that this applies to all humanity, suggesting that physical death erases one’s sinful record, providing a “clean slate” at resurrection. However, this interpretation misreads the intent of Paul’s letter and its context.

Paul’s discussion in Romans 6 is focused on spiritual death to sin, not physical death. The surrounding verses, such as Romans 6:4, explain that believers have been “buried with [Christ] through baptism into death” and should “walk in newness of life.” This clearly indicates a spiritual transformation—a death to the old sinful self through baptism and a rebirth into new life in Christ. The death mentioned in Romans 6:7 is not a physical death that wipes sins away, but a symbolic, spiritual death that signifies freedom from the power of sin for those united with Christ. This is confirmed by earlier verses like Romans 6:2, where Paul asks, “How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” This shows that Paul is addressing believers who are spiritually dead to sin.

2. Romans 6:23 – The Consequences of Sin

Romans 6:23 further reinforces this interpretation: “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” This verse contrasts eternal death (as the result of sin) with eternal life (as the gift of God through Christ). It doesn’t suggest that death automatically acquits one of sin; rather, it highlights that only through Christ can one receive eternal life. Physical death alone does not erase the guilt of sin, as the gift of salvation and acquittal from sin comes only through union with Christ.

3. Hebrews 9:27 – Judgment After Death

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Romans 6:7 contradicts Hebrews 9:27, which states, “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.” This verse explicitly teaches that judgment follows death, indicating that death does not erase sins or provide a clean slate. Instead, individuals are accountable for their deeds in life, and judgment is rendered after death.

It’s important to note that the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah's Witnesses misleadingly translates this verse: “And just as it is reserved for men to die once for all time, but after this to receive a judgment”. The phrase “for all time” is not present in the original Greek. Most mainstream Bible translations such as the New International Version (NIV) or English Standard Version (ESV) translate the verse more plainly: "Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment." The inclusion of “for all time” in the NWT adds a layer of meaning that is not inherent in the original text, potentially suggesting an extended, indefinite period before final judgment, a teaching aligned with their belief in progressive judgment during the millennial reign.

In traditional translations, Hebrews 9:27 is understood as stating that after death, all humans will face immediate judgment for their actions during their earthly life. For example, the NIV says: "...after that to face judgment." The NWT rendering, "to receive a judgment," seems to subtly imply an expectation of a future, unspecified judgment, rather than a definitive, once-for-all evaluation. This change shifts the emphasis away from the traditional Christian teaching of a single final judgment after death, toward a more continuous or phased process, which matches the Watchtower’s doctrine that individuals may have the opportunity to prove themselves worthy in a post-resurrection period.

The original Greek for Hebrews 9:27 is: „kai kath’ hoson apokeitai tois anthropois hapax apothanein, meta de touto krisis”. Translated literally, this means: “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment.” There is no mention of the added phrases like “for all time” or “to receive a judgment” as found in the NWT.

Hebrews 9:27 clearly establishes a one-time death followed by immediate judgment. The NWT translation of Hebrews 9:27 misrepresents the immediate, once-for-all nature of human judgment after death, aligning instead with Jehovah’s Witnesses' unique theology. In contrast, the broader Christian understanding, based on a more accurate reading of the original Greek and supported by other scriptural passages like 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Revelation 20:12, affirms that individuals are judged immediately after death for the deeds they committed in this life, not for post-resurrection actions or during some indefinite future judgment period. This is an essential point in rejecting the Jehovah's Witnesses’ interpretation that physical death "wipes the slate clean" and that judgment is based solely on post-resurrection deeds.

4. 2 Corinthians 5:10 – Accountability for Deeds in This Life

2 Corinthians 5:10 further refutes the idea that one’s sins are wiped clean by death, stating, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” This verse emphasizes that individuals will be judged based on their actions during their lifetime—what was done “in the body.” It does not support the notion that post-resurrection deeds alone determine one’s judgment. Instead, the Bible clearly teaches that everyone is accountable for their deeds during their earthly life, and judgment will be based on these deeds, not on post-resurrection actions.

5. Revelation 20 and the Misinterpretation of the “Books”

Jehovah’s Witnesses also misinterpret Revelation 20:12, which speaks of books being opened and the dead being judged according to their deeds. They claim that these “books” contain new laws or instructions for the resurrected to follow, allowing them to earn life through post-resurrection deeds. However, this is a misreading of the text.

Revelation 20:12 says, “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.” The books in this passage contain records of deeds committed in this life, not laws or instructions for the resurrected. The “book of life” determines who has received eternal life based on their faith in Christ, while the other books record the deeds of the dead, based on which they are judged. Nowhere does this passage suggest that individuals are judged based on post-resurrection deeds, nor that death erases past sins.

6. The Necessity of Christ’s Atonement

Finally, the Watchtower’s teaching that personal death provides acquittal of sin diminishes the significance of Christ’s atonement. The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that only the sacrifice of Christ can bring forgiveness of sins. 1 John 1:7 states, “The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.” Similarly, Romans 5:9 declares that we are “justified by His blood.” It is through Christ’s sacrifice alone that sins are forgiven, not through personal death. The Watchtower’s doctrine undermines this essential Christian teaching, implying that death can accomplish what only Christ’s sacrifice can truly do.

Conclusion

The Jehovah’s Witnesses' interpretation of Romans 6:7 and Romans 6:23 is deeply flawed and inconsistent with the broader teaching of Scripture. Romans 6:7 refers to spiritual death to sin for believers through union with Christ, not to physical death erasing sins. Romans 6:23 contrasts the consequences of sin with the gift of eternal life through Christ, not implying that death itself wipes away sin. Moreover, Hebrews 9:27, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Revelation 20:12 all affirm that judgment follows death and is based on one’s deeds in life, not on post-resurrection actions. Ultimately, it is Christ’s atonement alone that provides forgiveness, not physical death.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat

The claim that the canon was "settled" in the second century, as you suggest, overlooks the complexity of early Christian history. While it is true that many of the books that became part of the New Testament were recognized and used by Christians in the second century, the process of agreeing on a fixed, authoritative list took time. The Church did not possess an "official" New Testament canon until the fourth century, largely because there was no central authority to enforce such a list until Christianity became legally recognized under Constantine.

Early Christian communities used a variety of texts, and while many of the New Testament books were widely accepted early on, others (such as Hebrews, James, Revelation, and 2 Peter) faced some dispute. Likewise, some texts that were initially popular among early Christians (such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, or 1 Clement) were not ultimately included in the canon. The process of forming a universally accepted New Testament canon required discerning which texts were genuinely apostolic and which were not.

While you reference David Trobisch’s work and suggest the canon was settled earlier, we need to be cautious with assumptions about the early period. Yes, there were discussions and collections of writings that resembled a canon, but the formal and universally accepted canon we recognize today was only fixed in the fourth century, particularly through synods like the Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the Council of Carthage (397 AD), which reaffirmed the 27 books we now hold as Scripture. These councils did not create the canon but confirmed what had already been used in the liturgy and believed by the Church for centuries.

The issue here is not that the canon was suddenly invented in the fourth century; rather, it was formally recognized after a long process of discernment. The fact that Athanasius’s letter from 367 AD provides the first surviving formal list identical to the modern New Testament canon is not an argument that no canon existed before this. Instead, it shows that Athanasius was affirming what had increasingly become the accepted body of sacred Scripture, a process guided by the Church and the Holy Spirit.

You reference Origen and suggest that he listed the 27 books of the New Testament canon. While Origen is indeed an important early Christian figure, it is important to recognize that Origen himself acknowledged that there was still debate about certain books. For instance, Origen mentions in his writings that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Hebrews were questioned in some Christian communities. This shows that while Origen had a high regard for many of the books that eventually became canonical, the canon was not universally agreed upon in his time.

Origen’s contribution is critical, but it does not prove that a settled, universally accepted canon existed as early as the third century. The Muratorian Fragment, a document from the late second century, also lists many books of the New Testament, but it still omits some (like Hebrews) and includes others (like the Apocalypse of Peter) that were later excluded. This shows that while there was significant agreement on many New Testament writings, there was still no finalized canon in the second or third centuries.

You raise a valid point that just because the Festal Letter of Athanasius is the first formal list we have from the fourth century, it doesn’t mean that the Church was in complete disarray before that. However, the key issue remains: the canon of the New Testament, as we know it today, was ultimately recognized and affirmed by the Church—the same Church that many Protestant groups claim to have fallen into “apostasy”.

This presents a dilemma for groups that reject the authority of the Catholic Church while still accepting the New Testament canon, which was discerned and preserved by that same Church. How can one trust that the Church made the right decisions about the canon if one believes that the Church had already fallen away from the truth? To accept the canon without acknowledging the Church’s role in preserving it is inconsistent.

You mention that some scholars suggest Origen listed the entire canon, and while that might provide insight into how early Christians viewed certain texts, the broader question is about who had the authority to discern the canon. Even if there were early collections of New Testament books, the authority to define and recognize the canon officially came from the Church, not individual theologians or local communities.

As Tertullian and St. Irenaeus both noted in their writings, apostolic succession was key in maintaining doctrinal integrity. The Church, through its apostolic authority, was entrusted with preserving and interpreting Scripture. The councils that later affirmed the canon did so based on the long-standing tradition of the Church, which preserved the apostolic teaching. This is the same Church that Protestant groups now question when it comes to doctrine but rely on when it comes to the canon.

While it is true that the New Testament canon developed over time and that many of the texts were recognized early on, the formal recognition of the canon took place under the authority of the Church in the fourth century. Early lists like those from Origen or the Muratorian Fragment give us insight into the gradual process, but the finalization of the canon was the work of the broader Church.

Protestants who accept the New Testament canon must reconcile the fact that it was the Catholic Church, which they claim fell into error, that discerned and protected the canon of Scripture they now use. Without the Church’s authority in this process, it becomes difficult to explain how the correct books were chosen, especially since early Christian communities did not always agree on the contents of the canon.

Thus, the Catholic Church's role in canon formation is indispensable, and to accept the canon of Scripture without acknowledging the Church’s authority is inconsistent. The canon did not "happen" by accident; it was discerned and protected through the authority Christ gave to his Church.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

aqwsed12345

@Earnest

Jason BeDuhn's commentary, particularly in Truth in Translation, is often used to support the New World Translation (NWT)'s rendering of John 1:1 as "a god." However, BeDuhn himself did not fully endorse this translation. He preferred the term "divine" to describe the theos in John 1:1c, a choice that indicates a qualitative understanding of the word. He did not affirm the idea that Jesus is "a god" in the sense of being a separate deity, nor did he imply polytheism. Instead, BeDuhn’s preferred rendering of "divine" captures the qualitative nature of Jesus’ divinity, consistent with the understanding of Christ’s unique divine nature. His statement that "the meaning is the same in either case" should be understood within the context of recognizing that while the grammar may permit certain translations, not all of them are theologically valid or appropriate.

BeDuhn himself acknowledged that the term "divine" could allow for a Trinitarian interpretation. In a private correspondence, he wrote that his rendering "leaves open" the possibility of understanding the Word as fully divine and of the same essence as the Father. Thus, the suggestion that BeDuhn supports the NWT's rendering of John 1:1c as "a god" is misleading. His approach was more nuanced, and he did not promote a translation that would lead to theological polytheism or subordinationism.

Philip Harner’s seminal article on qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns is another key source often cited by proponents of the NWT’s rendering. Harner’s research focused on how the placement of anarthrous predicate nouns (nouns without the definite article) before the verb, as in John 1:1c, typically emphasizes the qualitative aspect of the noun, rather than definiteness or indefiniteness.

Harner explicitly stated that John’s intention in using this grammatical structure was to emphasize the nature or essence of the Word as divine, not to indicate that the Word was a separate, subordinate deity. His comment that there may be "some connotation of definiteness" does not imply that John meant to suggest that the Word was "a god," but rather, that the Word possesses the divine nature fully and shares in the same essence as God. Harner’s primary conclusion was that John 1:1c emphasizes the divine nature of the Word, which is consistent with Trinitarian theology. His research does not support the indefinite article "a god," as used by the NWT.

The grammatical structure of John 1:1c, in which theos precedes the verb without the article, is designed to emphasize the qualitative nature of the noun. The absence of the article does not automatically make theos indefinite, and translating it as "a god" introduces significant theological confusion, as it suggests polytheism or henotheism, neither of which align with the biblical witness of monotheism.

As scholars like Wallace, Harner, and Harris have pointed out, the use of theos in John 1:1c emphasizes that the Word shares fully in the divine nature. The Word (Logos) is distinct from the Father in person but shares the same divine essence. The qualitative force of theos shows that the Word is fully divine, which is essential for maintaining biblical monotheism. Translating this as "a god" would indeed be grammatically possible, but as Murray Harris notes, it would be theologically inappropriate because it would imply the existence of multiple gods, which contradicts the monotheistic foundation of both the Old and New Testaments.

Translating John 1:1c as "a god" would introduce polytheism, even if only two separate divine beings are mentioned (the Father and the Word). Polytheism is not just the belief in many gods but includes any belief in multiple distinct gods, regardless of their number. Deuteronomy 6:4 and Isaiah 45:5 emphasize the absolute singularity of God, and translating theos as "a god" undermines the clear biblical assertion that there is only one true God. The qualitative reading of theos in John 1:1c maintains that the Word shares fully in the divine essence of the one God, distinct in person but not in essence.

@ slimboyfat

You're right in bringing up William Barclay's situation, and it's a perfect illustration of how theological nuances can be misunderstood or misused. Here's why Barclay's frustration with being quoted by Jehovah's Witnesses is significant and why his argument about John 1:1 should not be used to deny Christ's divinity, even if he suggested theos could be qualitative in John 1:1c.

William Barclay did suggest that theos in John 1:1c ("and the Word was God") is qualitative, which means it describes the nature or essence of the Word (Logos), not necessarily identifying it as "the God" (ho theos). However, this does not diminish the divinity of the Word. A qualitative reading of theos would mean that the Word has the very nature of God, or shares in the divine essence. In essence, the Logos is divine, fully possessing God's attributes.

Jehovah's Witnesses, in their New World Translation, render John 1:1c as "the Word was a god," implying that Jesus is a lesser, created being, not truly divine. This is a misreading of both the Greek and the broader theological implications. Barclay was horrified because his nuanced argument about the qualitative nature of theos was being used to support a theology that he did not endorse. He did not deny Christ’s divinity, nor did he argue for a subordinate or created Jesus, as the Watchtower does.

Jehovah's Witnesses often selectively quote scholars like Barclay to lend credibility to their arguments, but they ignore the broader context of these scholars' work. Barclay believed in the uniqueness and divine nature of Christ, even if his views on universalism were controversial. Quoting his linguistic points without addressing his overall theological stance is misleading.

While Barclay did hold to some controversial views, such as universalism (the belief that all will eventually be saved), it’s important to separate his views on universalism from his views on Christ’s nature. The fact that he didn't want to be associated with the Jehovah's Witnesses' Christology shows that he still held a fundamentally orthodox view of Jesus' divine nature. His frustration reflects that even those who may stray in some areas of doctrine can be protective of core Christian truths like the divinity of Christ.

Barclay’s argument about theos in John 1:1c does not support the Jehovah's Witnesses’ Arian-like view of Jesus as a created being. Even though he believed theos was qualitative, that still affirms Christ’s full divinity—exactly the opposite of what Jehovah's Witnesses try to argue. Barclay himself would have been appalled to see his work misrepresented in defense of a view that denies Jesus' true divinity.