Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

51
Searching
by Striker in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
aqwsed12345
@Duran
Are the "Sons of God" in Job 1:6 Angels?
Yes, the "sons of God" mentioned in Job 1:6 refer to angels, but they are a general category of created beings. They are spiritual beings created by God and, as such, can be referred to as "sons of God" because they derive their existence from Him. However, this designation does not imply equality or equivalence with Jesus.
Jesus is uniquely called "Son of God" in a way that surpasses all other beings. Hebrews 1:5 specifically says, “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’?” This shows that God’s declaration of Jesus as "Son" is unique and does not apply to any created angelic beings, including Michael. The Greek term “huios” (son) in relation to Jesus is used in a unique context that denotes relational and ontological unity with God, not merely created status.
Is Satan an Angel?
Yes, Satan is a fallen angel. Originally created as a spirit being, Satan later chose to rebel against God. While angels like Satan are called "sons of God" in the Old Testament due to their created nature, this does not imply sonship in the same way as Jesus, who is the “only-begotten Son” (John 3:16).
Satan’s status as an angel underscores that he, like other angels, is a created being and falls under God’s authority, unlike Jesus, who is “over all” (Colossians 1:15-20) and worshiped by angels (Hebrews 1:6).
Is Michael an Angel and a "Son of God"?
Michael is indeed an angel, specifically designated as an "archangel" in Jude 1:9, which refers to him as the chief or leader of the angels. The term "archangel" (Greek: archangelos) means "chief angel," indicating a high-ranking role among angelic beings.
Michael, like other loyal angels, is a "son of God" in the sense that he is a created spiritual being, but this does not equate him with Jesus. As Hebrews 1:4-5 shows, Jesus’ sonship is entirely unique and does not apply to any angelic beings, even the archangel Michael.
The phrase "with the voice of an archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) does not imply that Jesus Himself is the archangel. It instead emphasizes the authoritative nature of His return. Just as a commanding officer may issue orders with a commanding voice, Jesus returns with authority that resonates like that of a leader over angelic forces.
Saying that Jesus returns "with the voice of an archangel" does not mean He is an archangel any more than calling Jesus the "Lion of Judah" makes Him a literal lion. This language illustrates the magnitude of His authority over creation, which includes angels.
Is Jesus Merely a First-Created Angel or Something Greater?
Colossians 1:16-17 clearly distinguishes Jesus as the one through whom all things were created, "in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him." This includes all angelic beings, indicating that Jesus is not part of creation but rather the divine agent through whom creation came into existence.
Describing Jesus as the “Firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) does not imply that He was created. The term “firstborn” (Greek: prototokos) here signifies preeminence or supremacy, not chronological order. As “firstborn,” Jesus holds the position of authority and inheritance over all creation, which would be inappropriate if He were a created being. He is distinct from all creation and the source of it.
Michael is consistently portrayed as a protective angelic figure, particularly in Daniel 10:13, Daniel 12:1, and Revelation 12:7, where he contends with evil forces but is never described as the Creator, Sustainer, or Savior. Michael’s role is that of an angelic defender of God’s people, not as the Son of God.
Jesus’ role goes far beyond that of an angel. Hebrews 1:3 describes Jesus as “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature,” a description that is never applied to any angel, including Michael. Jesus is the One who sustains “all things by the word of His power,” indicating that He possesses divine attributes and authority.
Hebrews 1:6 states, “Let all God’s angels worship him [Jesus].” If Jesus were simply an angel, it would be contradictory for God to command all angels, including archangels, to worship Jesus. This worship is directed solely toward the divine in Scripture, underscoring Jesus’ divine identity rather than angelic status.
Additionally, in Revelation 5:13-14, Jesus (the Lamb) receives worship alongside the One on the throne (God the Father). This dual worship aligns with Trinitarian theology, which teaches that Jesus shares in the divine essence with the Father, rather than being a separate created being. If Jesus were merely an archangel, such worship would be inappropriate and inconsistent with monotheistic worship.
In Revelation 12:7, Michael is described as leading “his angels” in a heavenly battle. Similarly, Jesus is described in Matthew 13:41, 16:27, and 24:31 as sending “his angels” to gather His elect. However, this does not imply they are the same being; rather, it emphasizes that both Jesus and Michael operate under divine command but in distinct roles.
Jesus’ authority over angels is absolute (Matthew 28:18), whereas Michael’s role as “one of the chief princes” (Daniel 10:13) implies a level of hierarchy under divine authority rather than supreme authority. Michael is a commander within the angelic ranks, whereas Jesus is “Lord of lords” and “King of kings” (Revelation 19:16), over all creation.
Summary
- While angels can be termed “sons of God,” Jesus holds a unique status as the “only-begotten Son,” a term that indicates a unique, divine relationship with the Father, distinct from that of any created being.
- The term “archangel” is a title indicating a high-ranking angel but does not apply to Jesus, who holds authority above all angels. Describing Jesus as having a “voice of an archangel” signifies His commanding authority, not identity as an archangel.
- Michael and Jesus have different roles, with Michael serving as a defender within the angelic order, while Jesus exercises divine sovereignty over all creation, including angels.
- Jesus is worshiped by angels, indicating His divine nature, while Michael is never depicted as receiving worship.
In conclusion, Scripture makes clear distinctions between Jesus and Michael. Jesus is God’s unique Son, worthy of worship and possessing divine authority over all creation, whereas Michael serves as an archangel within the created order. This difference in roles, worship, and authority underscores that Jesus is not an angelic being but rather the eternal Son of God.
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
You argue that Aquila’s choice of “possessed” in Proverbs 8:22 was not due to theological intent but rather his literal translation style, as Britannica suggests. However, the translation style alone doesn’t negate the fact that “possessed” is a legitimate rendering of qanah. Aquila’s translation reflects an understanding in Jewish thought that qanah in this context could mean “possessed” or “acquired,” especially when referring to Wisdom as an attribute of God. The translators of the Septuagint understood that qanah did not imply Wisdom was created in the same sense as other creatures, but rather that Wisdom was integrally part of God’s work from the beginning. Aquila’s literal approach reflects fidelity to Hebrew meanings, not a departure from theological implications. Quote from HERE:
This Arian attempt to support the doctrine of the Son’s creation is demolished by the fact that the Hebrew text simply does not say “created,” as the Greek translation does, but “possessed,” qanah. No Hebrew manuscript reads “created” (bara) in Proverbs 8:22. The semantic range of qanah in the OT includes “acquire,” “buy,” and “possess,” but it never means “create” in any of its 85 appearances in 75 OT verses. It is possible that the rather unusual mistranslation of Proverbs 8:22 in current copies of the LXX is a scribal error arising from Sirach 24:9 in the Apocrypha, where wisdom, the personified representation of “the book of the covenant of the most high God, even the law which Moses commanded for an heritage unto the congregations of Jacob” (24:23), said “[God] created me from the beginning before the world, and I shall never fail.” Origen’s Hexapla gives strong evidence for the Hebrew “possessed” instead of “created.” The Greek word ektesato, the correct translation for the Hebrew qanah, “possessed,” is the translation given by the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian, and therefore appears in every column of the Hexapla except that for that of the Seventy. Origen also takes the unusual step of commenting on the LXX translation ektise, “created,” that the Hebrew has qanah, supporting the view that he also knew that create was a mistranslation in the LXX of his day. The inspired text of Scripture simply does not say that the Son was “created” in Proverbs 8:22.
You mention that I didn’t answer your question about Matthew 1:22 and the use of “through” (διά). The angel in Matthew 1:22 indeed serves as a messenger, acting as a medium through whom God’s message is conveyed, much like how Jesus is described as the means “through” whom creation occurs. However, Jesus’ role as “through whom” all things were made (Colossians 1:16) and “through whom” God spoke (Hebrews 1:2) differs significantly because Jesus is described as actively involved in creation, not as a passive intermediary. The context in these verses presents Jesus as preexistent and directly engaged in creation, rather than merely passing along God’s actions like a messenger. This is why Hebrews 1:10 and other passages directly attribute creation to Jesus, not in a secondary or passive way, but as an essential agent in creation.
You emphasize that BDAG lists “first created” as a “probable” meaning for arche in Revelation 3:14 and notes Job 40:19 as a comparable usage. However, while BDAG mentions this interpretation as “probable”, it does not present it as definitive, and interpretation depends on context. Revelation’s apocalyptic genre, combined with the consistent New Testament portrayal of Jesus as Creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), supports understanding arche as “origin” or “source” of creation rather than “first created.” Job 40:19 describes Behemoth as “the first of the works of God,” which linguistically might suggest a temporal priority, but contextually it’s different from Revelation 3:14’s theological and Christological context. Thus, while Job 40:19 may serve as a linguistic parallel, it does not necessarily determine the theological meaning in Revelation.
I don't know if you have heard of the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof, well, a prosecutor would not be able to successfully argue in favor of the defendant’s guilt if his main evidence was a simply "probable". You claim that mainstream Christianity is "apostate" when it claims that the Son was "begotten, not made" because He was actually made and not begotten. And the strongest argument in your hand is a lexicon that says nothing more than "probable"?! Well, you came into the battle pretty empty-handed then.
You argue that David’s family context is irrelevant to the title “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27, which describes his preeminence among kings. However, the point here is not David’s family per se, but rather that “firstborn” conveys a title of rank and authority rather than birth order. David was neither the firstborn in his family nor the first king of Israel, yet he is designated “firstborn” to signify his special status as the exalted king. In a similar way, Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus as “firstborn over all creation” not to indicate that He was created, but to emphasize His supreme authority over creation.
You mention that Greg Stafford “beat” my “master.” To clarify, I don’t have a “master” in theological debate, nor am I beholden to any particular apologist’s views. My arguments are based on the weight of biblical evidence, historical theology, and scholarly sources. Citing a scholar’s expertise or debating their interpretations is not about “picking on” people; it’s about examining the soundness of arguments. Greg Stafford, while knowledgeable, does not possess an infallible interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 or Revelation 3:14. His views represent one perspective among many in the academic field, and his conclusions are not definitive in the wider context of Christian scholarship.
You claim that Stafford has “debunked” my interpretation of Proverbs 8:22, particularly regarding typology and the double accusative. While Stafford may argue that Proverbs 8:22-25 refers to a literal creation of Wisdom, other reputable scholars and Church Fathers interpret this passage as metaphorical or typological, pointing to Christ’s unique relationship with the Father without implying that He is a created being. The double accusative in the Hebrew structure does not inherently imply temporal creation, and many Church Fathers interpreted this verse as a poetic depiction of Wisdom’s role in creation rather than a statement of ontological origin. Wisdom literature, by nature, uses figurative language to express complex theological ideas, which is why traditional Christian interpretation often views this passage typologically.
You argue that verses 23-25 establish Wisdom as “beginning” God’s ways, suggesting a temporal creation. However, the Hebrew phrasing in these verses can be understood as a poetic device illustrating Wisdom’s foundational role in creation, not necessarily a literal creation in time. Even if Proverbs 8:22-25 suggests that Wisdom was “established” or “appointed” from the beginning, early Christian interpretation often views this as an eternal “begotten” relationship, reflecting the Son’s role alongside the Father without implying that the Son came into being. Traditional Christian doctrine holds that Jesus, as divine Wisdom, is eternally begotten, not temporally created, and this interpretation has strong historical and theological support.
@Duran
Some resources for you:
In Revelation 3:14, when Jesus is referred to as the "beginning of the creation by God," the Greek word used here is "archē", which can mean "beginning" but also denotes "origin," "source," or "ruler." Interpreting "archē" as "the source" or "the origin" aligns well with the New Testament's consistent portrayal of Jesus as the agent of creation.
For example:
- In John 1:3, we read, "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made."
- Colossians 1:16-17 also confirms, "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
If Jesus were merely the "first created being," it would be contradictory to say that "all things" were created through Him, as this would require Jesus to create Himself—an illogical conclusion. The term "archē," in this case, does not imply that Jesus is a created being but rather indicates His role as the origin and ruler of creation. In the context of Revelation, "archē" implies that Jesus is the supreme authority and source of all creation, not a created part of it.
Hence the Greek word archē does not imply “first in order of creation.” Instead, it often refers to “origin,” “source,” or “ruler.” In the context of Revelation and the rest of the New Testament, archē implies that Jesus is the “source” or “origin” of all creation. As John 1:3 clarifies, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” This statement explicitly excludes Jesus from creation, indicating that He is the agent through whom creation itself was brought into existence.
So, in Revelation 3:14, “beginning” should be understood as a title of authority, meaning the source or originator of creation, not a part of creation itself. The Nicene Creed echoes this, stating that Jesus is “begotten, not made,” which reaffirms that His being is fundamentally different from created beings.
In John 10:30, Jesus states, "I and the Father are one." The context here is crucial: Jesus has just discussed His authority and power, stating that no one can snatch His sheep from His hand, a divine claim of protection that parallels God’s power. The Jewish listeners understood this as a claim to divinity because they immediately accused Him of blasphemy for “making Himself God” (John 10:33). If Jesus were merely claiming unity of purpose or action, this reaction would not make sense, as Jewish leaders would not accuse a person of blasphemy for merely aligning themselves with God's will.
Furthermore, the Greek word "one" (hen) used in John 10:30 denotes unity of essence or nature, not just agreement in will. This unity suggests an inseparable, ontological connection between Jesus and the Father, consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of one essence shared by distinct persons.
In John 10:30, Jesus states, “I and the Father are one.” This statement was indeed understood by the Jewish audience as a claim to divinity. In the following verse (John 10:31), they attempt to stone Him for blasphemy, saying, “You, a mere man, claim to be God.” This reaction shows that Jesus’ audience understood His statement as a claim of unity in nature, not merely in purpose.
In John 17:22, Jesus prays that His disciples may be "one just as we are one." However, this prayer for the disciples' unity does not mean that the disciples share the same divine essence as the Father and the Son. Jesus is praying for unity among His followers—a unity of purpose, love, and mission. The disciples can never be "one" with the Father in the same sense that Jesus is "one" with the Father, as they do not share the same divine nature.
The phrase "just as" here serves to illustrate a comparison in terms of relational unity, not ontological identity. Jesus’ unity with the Father is unique and fundamentally different, as Jesus is of one essence with the Father, sharing the fullness of the divine nature (Colossians 2:9). In contrast, the unity among the disciples reflects shared purpose and commitment to God’s mission but does not make them equal with God. While it might appear to draw a parallel between Jesus and the Father’s unity and the disciples’ unity, these two forms of unity are not equivalent in nature. Read this: https://justpaste.it/h4pcq
In this prayer, Jesus desires for His followers to be unified in spirit and purpose, just as He is perfectly united with the Father. The oneness that Jesus has with the Father is unique; it speaks to a shared divine essence, as supported by multiple passages, including John 1:1, Colossians 2:9 (“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”), and Philippians 2:6, which asserts that Jesus existed “in the form of God” before taking on human form.
The unity Jesus desires among His disciples reflects a harmony of purpose and love, but it does not suggest that they share the same divine essence. For humans, being “one” with God means aligning with His will and mission, while for Jesus and the Father, their unity is ontological—it is a unity of being, not merely of purpose.
51
Searching
by Striker in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
aqwsed12345
@Duran
The term “sons of God” (bene Elohim) is indeed used for angels in the Old Testament (Job 1:6, Job 2:1), but the Bible makes a clear distinction between Jesus as the unique “Son of God” and other beings, including angels, who are collectively called “sons of God.”
Hebrews 1:5-6 clarifies this difference by asking, “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’?” This verse emphasizes that none of the angels, including Michael, received the specific designation of “Son” in the unique sense that Jesus did. Jesus is not one among many “sons of God” in the same way as angels; rather, He is the only-begotten Son (John 3:16), holding a unique, relational status with the Father that is never applied to any angel.
While “sons of God” in Job may refer to angels collectively, Satan’s later designation and role in Scripture are fundamentally distinct from the loyal angels. Satan is depicted as a fallen being who opposes God, while Michael is described as loyal to God. More importantly, Jesus is never included in any general group of “sons” in the sense applied to angels or Satan. Hebrews 1:6 further highlights this distinction by instructing all angels (including Michael) to worship Jesus, underscoring that Jesus’ sonship and position are unique and superior to that of any created angel.
This phrase in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 does not imply that Jesus is an archangel; rather, it uses the imagery of an archangel’s voice to signify authority and command over the angelic hosts. A helpful parallel is found in Revelation 1:10, where John hears a “loud voice, like a trumpet,” without implying that the voice or John is a literal trumpet. The “voice of an archangel” in this context is symbolic language indicating that Jesus’ return will be accompanied by an authoritative command, as befits His role as the Lord of hosts.
Additionally, Jesus being described as having an authoritative voice “like” that of an archangel underscores His commanding position over angelic beings, rather than identifying Him as one. This usage demonstrates a manner or style of authority, not an indication of identity. Hebrews 1:4 reinforces that Jesus “inherited a name superior to the angels,” meaning He holds an elevated rank above all angelic beings, including archangels.
The reference to the “voice of an archangel” is a stylistic description rather than an indication of rank or identity. In ancient Near Eastern cultures and biblical language, the “voice” or “shout” associated with an archangel signifies the power and authority of a ruler commanding their forces. This does not imply that the ruler is of equal rank to those commanded but simply emphasizes the authority of the call.
In military contexts, for instance, a general might issue a command that could be described as “with the voice of a captain,” meaning it carries the clarity, urgency, and authority expected in such a command. It does not mean the general is a captain. Similarly, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 uses the “voice of an archangel” to portray the authoritative power of Jesus’ command at His return, not His identity as an archangel.
The writer of Hebrews goes to great lengths to differentiate Jesus from all angelic beings:
- Hebrews 1:6 commands that all angels worship Jesus, setting Him apart from all of them.
- Hebrews 1:8-9 refers to Jesus as “God” and attributes an eternal throne to Him, affirming His divinity.
- Hebrews 1:13 says, “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’?” emphasizing that no angel, including Michael, shares this position of authority.
These passages affirm that Jesus is superior in nature, rank, and worship to all angels, including Michael. If Jesus were Michael, the distinction made in Hebrews 1 would be both unnecessary and contradictory.
The term “archangel” means “chief angel” or “leading angel,” indicating rank among angels, not exclusivity to one being. The Bible does not state that there can only be one archangel; rather, it simply identifies Michael as an archangel. Even if Michael were unique in this rank, this does not imply that Jesus must be Michael. Jesus holds authority over all, not just angels, as affirmed by His role as the Creator (Colossians 1:16-17) and by the fact that all of creation, including angels, worships Him (Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 5:13-14).
In summary:
- The “voice of an archangel” in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 denotes authoritative command, not identity as an archangel. It conveys power, not equality of rank.
- Jesus is distinct from all angels, including Michael, as shown in Hebrews 1, where He is worshiped by angels and described as God’s unique Son.
- Michael and Jesus have different roles in Scripture: Michael is a protector and warrior angel, while Jesus is depicted as the eternal Son, Creator, and King over all.
Thus, the idea that Jesus is Michael the archangel is inconsistent with the biblical portrayal of Jesus as inherently superior to and distinct from all angels, including Michael. This understanding reinforces the Christian belief in Jesus’ divinity, distinct from angelic beings.
51
Searching
by Striker in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
aqwsed12345
@Duran
Revelation 5 focuses on Jesus’ unique role as the Redeemer who opens the scroll, a specific function not related to the Holy Spirit. This does not imply the Holy Spirit’s exclusion from the Godhead. Scripture presents the Trinity in various contexts, where each Person’s role is distinct. For example, Matthew 28:19 includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Great Commission, showing that each Person has a unique but interconnected role in salvation history.
The absence of the Holy Spirit in this scene does not negate His divinity, just as scenes without Jesus do not negate His divinity (e.g., Genesis 1:1-2, where the Spirit is present at creation). Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 depict the Holy Spirit alongside the Father and the Son, demonstrating their unity within the Godhead without requiring that each be mentioned in every passage.
For example according to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, in the account described in Acts 7:55-56, when Stephen the martyr receives a vision of heaven and sees Jesus at the right hand of God, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned. From this, they conclude that the Holy Spirit is not a person. However, this reasoning is flawed. The fact that Stephen does not specifically mention the Holy Spirit does not mean it was not present or that it is not a person. The absence of a specific name in a given text does not prove nonexistence. For example, in Stephen’s vision, only Jesus and the Father are mentioned, but the Holy Spirit could still have been present.
The New Testament frequently mentions the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together, as seen in verses such as 2 Corinthians 13:14 and 1 Peter 1:2. In other passages, like Matthew 4:1 and Acts 2:38, the Holy Spirit appears with Jesus without mentioning the Father, yet it is understood that the Father is also present. Additionally, in the Old Testament, there are passages where God and the Holy Spirit are mentioned together without specifically naming Jesus, such as in 2 Chronicles 24:20.
This shows that the three divine persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—do not need to be named together on every single occasion for their existence and personhood to be affirmed. The fact that Stephen does not mention the Holy Spirit in his vision does not prove that the Holy Spirit is not a person; it merely indicates that there was no need to mention it separately in that context. This does not imply that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force; it simply shows that not every biblical text needs to list all three divine persons by name.
Philippians 2:6-11 reveals that Jesus’ exaltation is a return to His prior glory. “Being in very nature God, [Jesus] did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing.” His exaltation after the resurrection does not mean He was inferior by nature but reflects His return to the glory He voluntarily set aside (John 17:5). Jesus’ exaltation by the Father is a confirmation of His divine nature, not a sign of inferiority.
Revelation 5:13-14 shows “every creature” worshiping “the One seated on the throne” and “the Lamb,” with the Lamb receiving the same worship as the Father. In a monotheistic context, this shared worship affirms their equality, as no created being would receive such honor. Additionally, the worship directed to both the Father and the Son is unprecedented in Jewish monotheism unless both are understood as divine.
The term “sons of God” applies generically to all angels as created beings (Job 1:6, Job 38:7) but not in the unique, relational sense given to Jesus. Hebrews 1:5 highlights that Jesus is the only Son begotten, not created. The Father says to Jesus, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father,” a phrase never applied to an angelic being, including Michael. The verse emphasizes that none of the angels, including archangels, are addressed as the Son in this unique way.
The term “firstborn” (prototokos) used in Hebrews 1:6 does not imply creation; rather, it signifies preeminence and rank. In Colossians 1:15-17, Jesus is called the “Firstborn of all creation” because He is the agent of creation, through whom “all things were created.” This includes all angelic beings, indicating Jesus’ superiority and distinctiveness as uncreated and divine.
Describing Jesus’ return “with an archangel’s voice” does not imply that He is the archangel. Rather, it indicates that He arrives with a command, akin to an archangel’s authority. The phrase “voice of an archangel” here signifies Jesus’ commanding role as the Lord of hosts, not His identification as an archangel. Moreover, Jude 9 directly names Michael as the archangel without implying he is divine or equal to God.
Jesus is explicitly portrayed as greater than all angels in Hebrews 1: He is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Hebrews 1:3). Angels are just “ministering spirits” (Hebrews 1:14), but Jesus is worshiped by them (Hebrews 1:6). If Jesus were Michael, this distinction would be meaningless, as it would contradict the clear hierarchy established by Hebrews 1.
The Greek word for “worship” (proskuneo) used in Hebrews 1:6 is consistently applied to God in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 4:10). The angels’ worship of Jesus signifies that He is more than an angelic figure; He is divine. Hebrews 1:6 places Jesus in a unique category above angels, as it directs angelic worship to Him—a form of reverence reserved for God alone in Jewish monotheism. This again affirms Jesus’ divine status distinct from Michael or any angel.
In summary, the biblical evidence consistently distinguishes Jesus from Michael the archangel. Jesus:
- Is worshiped alongside the Father in Revelation 5, receiving divine honor that only God would receive.
- Is presented as superior to angels in Hebrews 1, where He is uniquely called the Son of God, a title not given to any angel, including Michael.
- Returns with authority “with the voice of an archangel” but is never called the archangel Himself.
- Is the agent of creation in Colossians 1:16-17, which includes all angels, positioning Him as Creator rather than a created angelic being.
The identification of Jesus with Michael the archangel fails to account for the consistent biblical teaching that Jesus is the eternal, divine Son of God, distinct from all created beings and supreme over all, including archangels. The worship, titles, and roles ascribed to Jesus in Scripture affirm His full divinity, making any angelic identification incompatible with the biblical portrayal of Christ.
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

@Duran
Jesus is clearly said to be created.
Where did you read anywhere that the Father "created" or "made" the Son? I only read that the Son was born or begotten of the Father. The term "begotten," when applied to Jesus, does not mean "created," or “made”. In theological and scriptural context, "begotten" indicates an eternal, unique relationship between the Father and the Son, rather than a moment of creation. The Nicene Creed clarifies this by stating that Jesus is "begotten, not made," underscoring that He is of the same essence (Greek homoousios) as the Father.

The Gospel of John, particularly John 1:1-3, asserts that "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 directly indicates that Jesus (the Word) is not a created being, as all creation came into existence through Him. If Jesus were created, it would mean He would have to create Himself, which is illogical and not supported by the text.

"Firstborn" (prototokos) does not imply "first created." Instead, it is a term of preeminence and authority. In the cultural and biblical context, "firstborn" often signifies a position of honor and inheritance rather than literal birth order. Psalm 89:27, for example, uses "firstborn" to refer to King David, saying, "I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth." Clearly, David was not literally the firstborn in his family, yet he is called "firstborn" as a title of authority and preeminence.

Similarly, in Colossians 1:15-17, where Jesus is referred to as the "Firstborn of all creation," the passage immediately clarifies that "all things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Thus, Jesus is "firstborn" in the sense of being supreme over all creation, not as a part of creation itself. This emphasizes His sovereignty, not His origin.

Your assertion that Jesus merely shares the nature of being a "spirit being" like angels or other sons of God overlooks a critical difference. While it’s true that both the Father and Son are spiritual, the Bible teaches that Jesus uniquely shares the divine essence with the Father, a nature not ascribed to angels or created beings. In John 10:30, Jesus declares, "I and the Father are one," which the Jews understood as a claim to divinity, prompting them to accuse Him of blasphemy (John 10:33).

Furthermore, Colossians 2:9 states, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." The phrase "fullness of the Deity" (Greek theotēs) indicates that Jesus possesses the complete divine nature, not merely a share of divine qualities. Angels and other spiritual beings do not hold this fullness; it is unique to Jesus.

The prologue of John’s Gospel (John 1:1) asserts that "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This underscores Jesus’ eternal coexistence with the Father, establishing Him as uncreated. Additionally, in John 8:58, Jesus states, "Before Abraham was, I am," invoking the divine name "I AM" (Hebrew ehye, Greek ego eimi) that God used to reveal Himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14. This assertion of timeless existence and identification with God’s name is a declaration of Jesus' eternal, uncreated nature.

In conclusion, the scriptural evidence consistently affirms that Jesus is not a created being but is the eternally begotten Son who shares the same divine essence as the Father. He is "firstborn" in the sense of preeminence and authority, not as the first of God's creation. Jesus’ unique position, divine essence, and relationship with the Father affirm His full deity, setting Him apart from all created beings, including angels.
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
The interpretation of archē as "first created" must be weighed against the broader context of Scripture and the consistent portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament as the uncreated Creator. Revelation 3:14 needs to be understood within the framework of passages like John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:2, which clearly present Jesus as the agent through whom all things were created. Context, therefore, supports interpreting archē as "origin" or "source" rather than "first created."
Lexicons provide probable meanings based on context, and they often include a range of interpretations without asserting one as definitive. Additionally, BDAG lists archē as "first created" only as one option and does not rule out meanings like "origin" or "source," which are consistent with other New Testament passages describing Jesus' role in creation. It’s also worth noting that other respected lexicons and theological resources interpret archē in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "beginning" in the sense of Jesus being the source or initiator of creation, not a created entity.
While Job 40:19 does refer to Behemoth as the "first of God’s works," this is not directly comparable to the use of archē in Revelation 3:14. Behemoth is clearly a created creature, whereas Jesus is consistently depicted as the Creator, not a part of creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). Using a term in a similar way in a different context does not establish equivalence, especially when the contexts are significantly different. Applying the same meaning to archē in Revelation ignores the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as preexistent and involved in creation.
Jesus is identified as the divine Logos in John 1:1-3, the agent of all creation, not a created being. Additionally, the term "angel" in apocalyptic literature can be symbolic or descriptive of function (a messenger), not necessarily implying that Jesus is a created being. Early Christian thought and the majority of Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Irenaeus, firmly rejected the idea that Christ was a created being, affirming instead that He was begotten of the Father, not made.
You ask for a verbatim quote of your statement, specifically that you said Jesus was created “ex nihilo.” I did not mean to imply that you literally claimed "ex nihilo" directly, but rather that your argument seemed to equate Jesus as a created being, which traditionally implies being created out of nothing (ex nihilo) in theological discussions. I acknowledge that you’re arguing Jesus was created from "something" rather than out of nothing. In fact, there is no such thing as a non-"ex nihilo" creation, it’s either a creation and then "ex nihilo", or not "ex nihilo" and then begotten, not made. The central issue here is that Christianity has historically upheld that Jesus is begotten, not created, and shares in the Father’s essence, unlike anything else in creation.
The translation of qanah as “possessed” rather than “created” is an interpretative choice supported by early Jewish and Christian scholarship, which saw Wisdom as an attribute of God rather than a creature. The Septuagint translators were not uniformly consistent, as you pointed out. However, Aquila and other early translators chose “possessed” to convey that Wisdom belonged to God, not as something that came into being later. This interpretation aligns with traditional Christian doctrine, which understands Wisdom as eternal with God, not a temporal creation.
You argue that Solomon is credited with building the Temple even though he didn’t physically do so. However, in passages that describe Jesus as the agent of creation (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), there is no hint that the Father is the primary builder while Jesus is secondary. Rather, these passages consistently portray Jesus as having direct involvement in creation, emphasizing His divinity. The New Testament does not qualify Jesus' role in creation as being "like Solomon’s role," which would undermine the direct statements about His creative work.
While Origen distinguished between the Father and the Son in their roles, he still affirmed that the Son was involved in creation. Origen described the Father as autotheos (God in Himself), but this was not to deny the Son’s divinity. Instead, he used this distinction to emphasize that while the Son’s divinity is derived from the Father, it is not inferior. He did not describe Jesus as a created being in the same way you suggest, but rather saw Him as eternally begotten.
The passive voice in Greek does not imply inferiority in function or nature. For example, when Jesus' role in creation is described with passive verbs, it highlights the Father’s role as the source, but this does not make Jesus less than fully divine. In Matthew 1:22, the angel functions as a messenger, whereas Jesus is described in Hebrews as the One through whom the universe was made (Hebrews 1:2). These passages serve different theological purposes, and therefore they are not directly comparable.
While some commentaries, like Barnes’, may favor the interpretation of arche as “first created,” this is not a universally accepted interpretation. Many scholars interpret arche in Revelation 3:14 as “origin” or “source” of creation, considering the broader New Testament context. This understanding aligns with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17, which describe all things as created through Jesus, reinforcing that He is not a created being but rather the agent and origin of creation. The choice of “first created” as a translation must be considered alongside these verses, which support the interpretation of Jesus as Creator, not a creature.
While certain scholars like Clifford or Fox may argue for ktizo to mean "create" in Proverbs 8:22, other scholars and Church Fathers interpret it as metaphorical, understanding Wisdom as personifying God’s eternal attributes. Proverbs 8 uses poetic language, which often employs personification, to illustrate God’s wisdom as present from the beginning. The New Testament writers later applied this understanding of Wisdom to Jesus, but in a way that goes beyond metaphor, ascribing to Him eternal qualities and a unique role in creation, consistent with the idea of the Logos as God (John 1:1).
Debating Greg Stafford or any other apologist is not the point here. This conversation is about examining the textual and theological evidence for the claims you’ve presented. Engaging in ad hominem attacks or suggesting that one needs to “debate a master” to validate an argument misses the point of a fair and reasonable discussion based on Scripture and tradition.
If you feel certain points were omitted, please clarify them specifically. I aim to provide a balanced response based on both historical interpretations and modern scholarship. The argument hinges on interpreting key terms like archē, ktizo, and qanah within their respective contexts. There is no intent to hide information but to present a coherent interpretation aligned with the broader Christian theological tradition.
Personal attacks detract from a productive discussion. The focus should be on scriptural interpretation and evidence, rather than labeling each other as "hypocrites" or "frauds." The goal here is to engage respectfully with the arguments and understand differing perspectives without resorting to insults.
In summary:
- The interpretation of archē in Revelation 3:14 as “origin” or “source” is supported by the broader New Testament witness of Jesus as the agent of creation.
- Proverbs 8’s use of ktizo in relation to Wisdom reflects a poetic personification that was later typologically applied to Jesus, who is understood as eternally begotten, not created.
- The historical Church, including early theologians like Origen and Athanasius, did not view Jesus as a temporal creation but as eternally begotten, distinct from created beings.
Engaging with these points through respectful dialogue will facilitate a deeper understanding of these complex theological issues.
51
Searching
by Striker in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
aqwsed12345
@Duran
Your argument suggests that, because "all angels are 'sons of God,'" Jesus is simply another "angelic son," although He may be more exalted than others. However, Hebrews 1 emphasizes Jesus' unique, unparalleled relationship with God, distinct from any angelic beings:
- Hebrews 1:5 explicitly asks, “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’?” This rhetorical question is intended to clarify that God did not say this to any angel, including Michael. The Sonship of Jesus is unique; He is begotten, not created, indicating a divine nature that angels, as created beings, do not share.
- Verse 6 continues, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” Angels worship Jesus, marking a clear distinction between Jesus and the angelic realm; He is not their equal but their Lord, and only God can rightly receive worship.
Your argument attempts to equate Jesus with Michael by pointing out that He descends “with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” However, this phrase doesn’t imply that Jesus is an archangel but rather that He descends with the authority and power akin to that of an archangel:
- Context and Language: In this verse, Paul is using vivid, descriptive language to emphasize the power and authority with which Christ will return. Just as one might say, “He comes with a king’s decree,” this doesn’t imply that the person is a king but that he has the authority of one.
- Additionally, Revelation 19:16 presents Jesus as “King of kings and Lord of lords,” a title far surpassing that of any angel, including an archangel. His role in the resurrection of the dead and judgment is uniquely divine and beyond the role of any angel.
Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus is merely exalted by God rather than sharing God’s divine nature. However, Scripture attests to the divinity of Jesus and His role as Judge of humanity, which in Jewish theology is a role belonging solely to God:
- John 5:22-23 asserts, “The Father judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” This equal honor implies shared divinity. To honor Jesus as one honors the Father underscores His divine status, incompatible with the status of a created being.
- Philippians 2:9-11 speaks of God exalting Jesus so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow… and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord.” The bowing of every knee is a direct echo of Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh declares that every knee will bow to Him alone. Paul’s application of this to Jesus affirms Jesus’ equality with God.
Your argument contends that Jesus and God are “separate beings” because they appear as distinct persons in Revelation 5. However, this understanding overlooks the Trinitarian distinction between persons while maintaining unity in divine essence:
- Revelation 5:13-14 depicts “every creature” praising both “the One seated on the throne” and “the Lamb,” with “blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever.” The worship directed at both signifies that the Lamb (Jesus) and the Father are equally worthy of divine worship, reinforcing the Christian understanding of the Trinity.
- The scene does not imply inequality but rather a relational distinction within the Godhead, where Jesus (the Lamb) and the Father are distinct persons sharing one divine essence. This theological view holds that while they are distinct in personhood, they are united in essence, allowing both to receive worship as God.
Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that because Jesus is “the radiance of God’s glory” and “the exact imprint of his being” (Hebrews 1:3), this means He is merely a reflection, not divine in Himself. However, the phrase signifies that Jesus shares the divine nature with the Father:
- The Greek word translated as “radiance” (apaugasma) indicates emanation rather than mere reflection. Jesus is described as the outshining of God’s glory, implying that He is of the same divine substance and manifests the very nature of God to us.
- As “the exact imprint of his being,” Jesus is presented as fully embodying God’s nature, not as a created representation. This phrase is used to affirm that Jesus possesses the same divine nature as the Father.
Jehovah’s Witnesses suggest that Thomas’s declaration of Jesus as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28) is representational, yet the plain reading and immediate context affirm that Thomas was acknowledging Jesus’ divinity directly:
- Jesus does not correct Thomas but accepts the title, indicating that it was correct to call Him “God.” Had Thomas misunderstood Jesus’ nature, this moment would have been critical for correction. Instead, Jesus commends Thomas’s belief.
- In Jewish monotheism, calling anyone “my God” other than Yahweh would be blasphemous. Thomas’s declaration is a strong affirmation of Jesus' divine status, aligning with the Gospel of John’s theological aim to demonstrate Jesus’ divinity.
Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus is merely exalted above other angels but remains a created being. However, Scripture clearly delineates Jesus’ identity as God and His unique Sonship, setting Him apart from the angels:
- Colossians 1:16-17 clarifies that “by him all things were created… all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” This passage suggests that Jesus is not part of creation but is the divine agent through whom creation came into being.
- The title “archangel” is only ever directly applied to Michael (Jude 1:9), not Jesus. If Jesus were Michael, Hebrews 1:5 would not make sense, as God would indeed be calling one of the angels His Son, directly contradicting the passage.
The interpretation of Jehovah’s Witnesses fails to account for the full biblical witness to Jesus’ identity. Jesus’ title as “Son of God” and His shared honor and glory with the Father, along with the worship He receives, affirm His divinity. He is not merely a highly exalted angel or representative but God incarnate, as consistently attested in Scripture. The passages presented, when understood in their proper context, reinforce the Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus is fully God, distinct from yet one with the Father, and deserving of worship as such.
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
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
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
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.
167
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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.