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

@Earnest

You draw a connection between Revelation 3:14, which refers to Christ as "the archē of the creation of God" (ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ), and Proverbs 8:22 (LXX), where Wisdom says, "The Lord ektise me as [not “at”!] the archē of his ways." While there is a surface-level similarity, it's important to delve into the nuances of the language and theological implications.

In Revelation 3:14, “the archē” can mean not only “the first in a sequence” but also “the source” or “origin.” In John’s writings, including his Gospel, archē often signifies origin or foundational principle (see John 1:1, "In the beginning," En archē). Thus, in Revelation, archē likely conveys Christ as the origin or source of creation, rather than a part of it. This interpretation aligns with the broader Johannine theology, where Christ is depicted as the divine Logos, existing eternally and distinct from created beings (John 1:3).

While ektise in the Septuagint (LXX) translation of Proverbs 8:22 can be rendered as “created,” we need to consider why the Hebrew term qanah (קָנָה) was translated this way in the LXX. Qanah has a broader semantic range in Hebrew, encompassing meanings like “acquire,” “possess,” or “bring forth.” Scholars have debated this translation choice, and some argue that qanah in Proverbs 8:22 could imply “possess” or “acquire” rather than “create.”

The LXX translators, possibly due to the limitations of the Greek language in capturing the full nuance of qanah, chose ektise, which indeed has a more restricted sense of “create” in Greek. This choice may reflect the translators’ interpretation rather than an inherent meaning in the original Hebrew. Therefore, while the Greek word ektise can mean “create,” the underlying Hebrew context allows for a broader range of meanings, including “possess.”

You provided several verses where ktisis (creation) and ektizo (to create) are used, suggesting a common theme of creation. However, let’s examine how these terms are used specifically in contexts referring to the order and structure of the world, rather than implying that Christ is part of creation in a temporal sense:

Mark 10:6 and Mark 13:19 speak of “the beginning of creation,” referencing the start of the physical world.
Romans 1:20 and Romans 8:19 use ktisis to speak of the natural world that reveals God’s invisible qualities and eagerly awaits redemption.
Colossians 1:15, a key verse, refers to Christ as the “firstborn of all creation.” Here, prototokos (firstborn) implies preeminence or supremacy, not creation. Paul goes on to clarify in Colossians 1:16-17 that all things were created “through him and for him,” underscoring Christ’s role as the agent of creation, not as a created being.

These usages consistently show that ktisis in the New Testament refers to the created order in relation to Christ’s authority over it, rather than indicating that Christ Himself is part of the created order. When interpreting Revelation 3:14 in light of these passages, it is consistent to understand “the beginning of the creation of God” as Christ’s role in initiating and sustaining creation, not as a declaration of His own creation.

You noted that early church fathers interpreted Proverbs 8:22 as referring to Christ and that they used the LXX’s “created” language. While it’s true that church fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen acknowledged the LXX translation, their understanding of “created” in relation to Christ varied greatly:

· Origen argued for the eternal generation of the Son, interpreting “created” in Proverbs 8 as applicable to Christ’s role in manifesting God’s wisdom to creation, not as a literal act of creation. He understood ektise metaphorically, affirming that the Son is eternally begotten, not made.

· Athanasius and others at Nicaea argued that “created” in Proverbs 8 referred to the incarnation or to Christ’s role in the created order, not His divine essence. This distinction was crucial to counter Arian arguments that claimed Christ was a creature. Athanasius emphasized that ektise in Proverbs 8 should be understood in a poetic or relational sense, affirming Christ’s divinity and co-eternity with the Father.

· Post-Nicene Fathers like Augustine and the Cappadocians continued this interpretation, seeing “created” in a metaphorical sense that underscores the Son’s unique relationship with the Father and the created order. For them, Proverbs 8 reflected Wisdom’s manifestation, not a literal beginning.

The argument that archē in Revelation 3:14 should mean “beginning” as in “first created” neglects the wider Johannine usage of the term. In John’s Gospel, archē is repeatedly used in relation to God’s eternal nature and the Logos. Understanding archē as “origin” or “source” is consistent with John 1:3, where it’s clear that “all things were made through” the Logos, who Himself is uncreated.

Thus, interpreting archē in Revelation 3:14 as implying Christ’s status as a creature conflicts with the broader Johannine theme of Christ’s preexistent, divine role in creation. This interpretation has been historically affirmed by church fathers and is reflected in doctrinal affirmations like the Nicene Creed, which calls Christ “begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father.”

In conclusion, the arguments for Christ being “the beginning of creation” as a created being are not supported by the language of Scripture when analyzed in its broader theological context. The phrase in Revelation 3:14 aligns with the interpretation of Christ as the origin and ruler of creation, not a created being. Proverbs 8:22’s use of “created” is poetic and relational, reflecting Wisdom’s role rather than a literal act of creation. Early church fathers recognized this nuance, interpreting ektise in light of Christ’s divinity and eternal relationship with the Father, a point further clarified in the doctrines developed in response to Arian controversies.

By maintaining this interpretation, we respect both the scriptural and historical context, affirming the church’s traditional understanding of Christ as the uncreated, divine Logos, eternally begotten and fully divine.

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

@Duran

You emphasized that all beings in heaven are spirit beings, not implying they are of the same divinity or status as God. However, this distinction is critical in Christian theology, especially concerning the nature of Christ. While beings in heaven may be “spirits,” the term does not imply homogeneity in essence or status. Scripture makes clear distinctions, not only in terms of created versus uncreated beings but in unique aspects of divine authority and power. Hebrews 1:3-4, for example, explains that Jesus is the “exact representation of God’s being,” establishing Him as of the same essence as God in a way no angel or created spirit is. This distinction matters, as it underscores why Jesus is worshipped and adored in a manner distinct from other spirit beings in heaven.

You mentioned that you were not implying Jesus was created. However, when discussing the term “firstborn,” it’s essential to clarify that in Scripture, “firstborn” (prototokos) often implies preeminence in rank, not necessarily birth order or creation. In Jewish and ancient cultural context, “firstborn” denotes inheritance rights, authority, and honor. Colossians 1:15, therefore, affirms Jesus’ supremacy over creation without indicating He was created. This understanding aligns with the surrounding verses (Colossians 1:16-17), which affirm that “all things were created through Him and for Him.” A created being could not be responsible for creating “all things,” as only the uncreated can hold this status.

You stated that after His 40-day period on earth post-resurrection, Jesus returned to heaven “as a spirit.” However, the biblical witness in passages like Acts 1:9-11 and Luke 24:39-43 highlights that Jesus ascended in His glorified, physical body, which is now eternal and imperishable. This body was witnessed by His disciples, emphasizing continuity rather than change. In Acts 1:11, the angel specifies that “this same Jesus” will return “in the same way you have seen him go,” implying a visible, bodily return. This continuity is crucial because Jesus retains His resurrected, glorified body, even in heaven (1 Corinthians 15:42-44), illustrating the Christian hope of bodily resurrection.

You mentioned that what matters is that events like World War III and the Great Tribulation must occur to bring about the return of Christ. While the sequence of eschatological events is significant, the identity of Christ—whether He is seen as merely the “Son of God” in a lesser sense or as fully divine—remains paramount. Christian theology teaches that Jesus’ divine and human natures are essential for His mediatorial work (1 Timothy 2:5). This dual nature—fully God and fully human—assures Christians that He has the power to redeem humanity and the authority to judge. Therefore, recognizing Jesus’ divine identity is central to understanding His role in the end times.

To summarize, the Scriptures present Jesus not as a spirit being who reverted to mere spirituality but as the eternal, incarnate Word who ascended with a glorified body and will return visibly. The continuity in His divine-human identity before and after the resurrection is vital in Christian doctrine, affirming both His divinity and His role as the awaited Redeemer.

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

@Duran

While it's true that God is spirit (John 4:24), this statement does not imply that all spiritual beings are of the same divine essence or status as God. Angels are created beings, not divine in the same way as God. Scripture clearly distinguishes God’s nature from that of created spirits, such as angels, and nowhere does it imply that angels or other spiritual beings are equal to God in essence, power, or authority. Hebrews 1:3-4 tells us that Jesus is “the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being,” which sets Him apart from all other created beings, showing that He shares in the divine essence in a unique way that angels do not.

The Bible reveals that, though Jesus took on human flesh (Philippians 2:6-8), He did not lose His divinity or revert back to a purely “spiritual” form after the resurrection. Instead, He was raised in a glorified body, still fully divine and fully human. When Jesus appeared to His disciples after His resurrection, He specifically showed them His physical wounds and ate with them to prove that He was not merely a spirit (Luke 24:39-43). This indicates that His resurrection body was glorified but still physical, which is consistent with the Christian teaching of bodily resurrection rather than a return to a purely spiritual form.

In Luke 24:39, Jesus explicitly states, “Touch me and see; a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” This verse highlights that Jesus was raised in a glorified, physical body, not as a spirit being. The resurrection was not merely spiritual but bodily, as affirmed in passages like 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 and Philippians 3:21, which speak of a transformation from a perishable body to an imperishable, glorified body. The physicality of Jesus’ resurrection is central to Christian theology, as it demonstrates the bodily resurrection that believers hope to share.

The term “firstborn” (e.g., Colossians 1:15) in Scripture does not imply that Jesus was created. In ancient contexts, "firstborn" often referred to rank and inheritance rights rather than to birth order. In the case of Jesus, “firstborn” means preeminent, indicating His supreme status over all creation, not that He is a created being. In fact, Colossians 1:16-17 clarifies that all things were created through Jesus and for Him, establishing Him as the Creator rather than a part of creation.

As mentioned, Jesus did not revert to being solely a spirit after His resurrection. His ascension into heaven (Acts 1:9-11) was in His glorified body. The angel’s statement to the apostles—“This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go”—emphasizes that He will return visibly and bodily, not merely as an invisible spirit.

The identity of Jesus as both God and the Son of God is foundational to Christian belief and deeply impacts how believers understand His authority and the significance of His return. Scripture presents Jesus as fully divine (e.g., John 1:1-3; Colossians 2:9), not merely as a high-ranking spiritual being. If Jesus were not God, His sacrifice on the cross would not suffice for the redemption of humanity, and His role as the final judge of the world (Acts 17:31; Matthew 25:31-46) would be inconsistent. His divinity assures believers of His power to save and His authority over all creation.

The doctrine of the Trinity isn’t “a later addition” but a conclusion drawn from the consistent biblical portrayal of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as sharing one divine essence while relating as distinct persons. Passages like Matthew 28:19 (“baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) and 2 Corinthians 13:14 (“the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit”) reflect this triune relationship.

Trinitarian belief holds that Jesus is fully God and fully human, the second Person of the Trinity. Passages like John 1:1-14 affirm Jesus’ deity, stating that “the Word was God” and that “the Word became flesh.” Ignoring Jesus’ divine identity undermines the biblical presentation of who Jesus is and why he alone is qualified to save humanity from sin. When Jesus states, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), he affirms his divine nature, making it clear that his coming is not merely as a representative of God but as God incarnate.

By emphasizing God and Jesus as separate spirit beings, you overlook the Trinitarian doctrine that includes the Holy Spirit as a distinct Person within the Godhead. According to John 14:16-17, Jesus promised that after his ascension, the Holy Spirit would come to dwell within believers, continuing God’s work on earth. This is a unique role of the Holy Spirit, demonstrating the ongoing presence of God with his people in a way that is distinct from both the Father and the Son. The New Testament consistently presents a triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—working in unity to fulfill God’s redemptive plan.

Your claim that Jesus will return to earth as a spirit being lacks biblical support. Acts 1:11 describes the manner of Jesus’ return, as the angels tell the apostles, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” This indicates a visible, physical return, not a mere spiritual appearance. Revelation 1:7 also states, “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him.” These passages point to a literal, visible return of Jesus, challenging the idea that he would return as an invisible spirit.

You assert that it doesn’t matter whether “Jesus God” or “Jesus, son of God” returns, as long as the GT happens. However, the Bible emphasizes the importance of Jesus’ divine and human natures in his work of redemption. 1 Timothy 2:5 states, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” If Jesus were not both fully divine and fully human, he could not effectively mediate between God and humanity. His dual nature is essential to his role in salvation, and to disregard this is to overlook a foundational aspect of the Christian faith.

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

@Duran

In your response, the bolded sections seem intended to reinforce an argument that Jesus is not divine or equal with God by emphasizing distinctions between the Father and the Son. The comments appear to suggest that Jesus’ role as the “last Adam” and “Son of God” should not imply divinity but rather align him with humanity. Furthermore, references to Philippians 2:6 in the New World Translation attempt to argue that Jesus does not claim equality with God.

Philippians 2:6 in the NWT is rendered as, “who, although he was existing in God’s form, did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God,” which misrepresents the original Greek phrasing. The Greek phrase “οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα Θεῷ” (ouch harpagmon hēgēsato to einai isa Theō) literally means, “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” or “exploited.” The NWT's rendering, implying Jesus did not even think of equality, distorts Paul’s meaning. Paul indicates that Jesus, though equal with God, did not cling to his status but instead humbled himself. Thus, this verse actually affirms Jesus’ divine status and demonstrates his humility.

Proof-texting, or taking individual verses out of context to prove a specific doctrine, can mislead readers by ignoring broader scriptural themes and the intent of the original authors. Here are some issues with the proof-texting approach seen here:

Many verses cited focus on Jesus' role as the "Son of God" or "Son of Man," but these titles do not negate his divinity. Rather, they reflect his unique role as both divine and incarnate. By focusing exclusively on Jesus’ human aspects, one ignores passages affirming his divine attributes, like John 1:1, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:3.

The argument that because Jesus is called "Son," he cannot be God misunderstands biblical language. In ancient Jewish culture, the term "Son of God" did not imply inferiority but could signify equality and shared nature, especially in unique contexts like that of Jesus.

Focusing on individual verses while dismissing the consistent message across the New Testament about Jesus' divine nature and his unique relationship with the Father leads to an incomplete view of Christian theology. Scripture presents Jesus as preexistent, creator (John 1:3), and sustainer of all things (Colossians 1:17)—qualities that align only with God.

The usual JW claim that the Trinity is a “borrowed” idea is based on outdated theories (e.g., Alexander Hislop’s discredited ideas) and lacks historical support. The doctrine of the Trinity was not a result of pagan influence but was developed through careful scriptural exegesis. The early church arrived at the doctrine of the Trinity after centuries of defending biblical truths about Jesus and the Holy Spirit against misunderstandings, focusing on preserving the monotheistic teachings of Judaism alongside the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit as revealed in Scripture.

6

Preaching the "good news" - about whom or what?

by BoogerMan in

the "good news" was specifically about christ's imminent kingship/rulership in heaven, to be followed by his rulership over the earth.

(matthew 6:10).

basileia (kingdom) - royal power, kingship, dominion, rule: not to be confused with an actual kingdom but rather rulership, the right or authority to rule over a kingdom, of the royal power of jesus as the triumphant messiah.

aqwsed12345

Jehovah's Witness Kingdom, or Government?

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

@Duran

Christian theology does not actually use terms like "spirit sons" or "first created spirit son" to describe Jesus or any relationship between Him and other beings. Instead, it emphasizes the unique and uncreated nature of Jesus as the eternal Son of God.

Scripturally, terms like "firstborn" (Greek: prototokos) in passages such as Colossians 1:15 do not imply that Jesus was created. Instead, they denote His authority and preeminence over all creation, not His being part of creation. Jesus is described as the "only begotten" Son (John 3:16), meaning He is uniquely God’s Son in an eternal, uncreated sense. All created beings — whether angels or humans — are viewed in Christianity as part of creation and distinct from Jesus, who is God.

While God created all spiritual beings through Jesus (Colossians 1:16), orthodox Christianity does not view Jesus as a “first created spirit son.” Instead, the term “firstborn” (or "first" in some translations) when applied to Jesus, especially in contexts like Colossians 1:15, refers to His supreme position over all things. It signifies His sovereignty, not a created beginning.

You mentioned Scripture passages where Jesus is called the "second Adam" or "last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45, 22). The term "second Adam" indeed reflects Jesus’ redemptive role, contrasting with the first Adam, who introduced sin and death into the world (Romans 5:12–19).

Jesus as the "last Adam" is essential because, unlike the first Adam, Jesus brings life and reconciliation through His death and resurrection. Thus, while Adam is the "first human son" in a created sense, Jesus is uniquely the eternal Son of God who becomes incarnate to redeem humanity, not just another created being. Jesus’ resurrection, referred to in 1 Peter 3:18 as being "made alive in the spirit," emphasizes that His divine nature remains fully intact even as He takes on human flesh.

Yes, I agree with the Scriptures you referenced, and orthodox Christianity wholeheartedly affirms these verses. They teach that:

The first Adam brought sin and death, while Jesus, as the last Adam, brings spiritual life (1 Corinthians 15:45).
Christ's sacrificial death reconciles believers to God (1 Peter 3:18).
In Adam, humanity experiences physical death, but in Christ, believers find resurrection and eternal life (1 Corinthians 15:22).

These verses affirm Jesus’ role in restoring life to humanity, contrasting with the death introduced through Adam’s disobedience. However, these verses do not imply that Jesus is a created being. Instead, they underscore His unique divine mission: to redeem and restore creation. In summary, Christian theology holds that while Adam is a created human, Jesus is the eternal Son who took on human nature for the purpose of redemption.

Thus, Jesus is not a "first created spirit son" but the eternal, uncreated Son of God. Orthodox Christianity understands Him to be both fully divine and fully human in His incarnation, emphasizing His unique, uncreated nature. This distinction preserves the scriptural teaching of Jesus' deity while recognizing His redemptive work as the "second Adam," who brings life to all who believe.

@Blotty

The phrase "living rent-free in someone’s head" is an idiomatic expression meaning that someone is frequently on another person’s mind, often in a negative or preoccupying way. My use of it here suggests that instead of focusing on the arguments I presented, you have become fixated on attacking my character. The personal insults and attempts to undermine my credibility reflect more attention on me than on the actual discussion at hand.

When I said that "you won’t get very far without my translation," I did not mean to underestimate your intelligence or language skills. My point was to illustrate that the source in question is in a language you mentioned not understanding, and therefore, my translation could be beneficial to your comprehension of it. This wasn’t a comment on your academic abilities or personal worth. If you believe you can understand the material fully without assistance, I encourage you to do so and engage with the content directly rather than making assumptions about my motives.

Your claim that I have “made up other crap” and that you have “plenty of evidence to prove it” is an ad hominem attack without substance here. If you have specific examples of inaccuracies in my citations or evidence to support your accusations, I encourage you to provide them directly and let’s examine them together. Unsupported accusations do not contribute to scholarly dialogue; rather, they divert attention away from the discussion on the topic and reflect more about your frustrations than the content of our arguments.

You argue that all academic articles cite their sources in full, regardless of language barriers. In academic discourse, it’s standard practice to provide translated excerpts for non-English sources when necessary to make the information accessible to readers who do not understand the original language. This practice does not invalidate the translation or the original source. Additionally, while Reddit or other online forums may require full citations, they are not necessarily models of rigorous academic scholarship. If you’d prefer, I can provide the title and page number of the non-English source for transparency. However, dismissing my translated portion without engaging its actual content avoids addressing the argument itself.

My translations were not peer-reviewed in the way that published academic articles are, but that does not inherently discredit them. Scholarly discussions on forums like this often involve individuals who independently translate or interpret ancient texts. Peer review is a valuable process, but it is generally limited to published material. In cases where peer-reviewed sources are unavailable, we rely on standard lexicons and established scholarly resources like HALOT or BDB, which I have consistently referenced. If you’d like a translation verified by a third party, I’m open to discussing it with another reputable source.

You mention that I previously didn’t provide a source you requested and instead made a remark about a “2+2 meme.” My intention was never to avoid providing sources but rather to streamline our discussion when it seemed a particular request was, in my judgment, not relevant to our main arguments. If specific sources are missing from my arguments here, I am open to providing them directly. Dismissing my openness to source requests without citing specific instances where sources were withheld detracts from the focus on the argument itself.

You express distrust in my translation and claim that I am “known to lie about a lot of things.” However, repeating accusations of dishonesty without presenting verifiable examples or addressing my actual argument does not strengthen your position. If you disagree with the translation itself, I encourage you to present your interpretation of the text or consult another translator for verification. This is a reasonable approach if you believe I am intentionally misleading you, but merely labeling my arguments as “lies” without proof does not support a productive discussion.

Regarding the issue of nomina sacra in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, you claim that I omitted details about the singular versus plural forms. This does not equate to “lying” about the nomina sacra. Disagreements or misunderstandings in scholarly interpretation are common and do not inherently involve dishonesty. If there’s a specific aspect of my interpretation of the nomina sacra that you disagree with, I invite you to clarify it directly so that we can examine the linguistic or contextual evidence together.

Your response seems to be fueled by frustration, leading to personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations rather than engagement with the primary arguments. Accusations of dishonesty, blanket dismissals of translations, and assumptions about motivations detract from a constructive debate. Scholarly dialogue relies on mutual respect, clear argumentation, and willingness to engage with sources in good faith. If you are open to resuming a more focused, evidence-based discussion, I welcome the opportunity to continue examining our differences with specific references and detailed analysis.

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

@Duran

From an orthodox Christian perspective, Jesus (the Word) is not among the created beings but is eternally God, uncreated and co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This belief means that there is no "first created spirit son" in the way you are framing the question, if we are referring to Jesus. If you are asking about angels or other created beings, Christianity teaches that all such beings (including any "spirit sons" like angels) were created by God through Jesus, who is the "only begotten Son" but not created.

In relation to Jesus as God, any created spirit would be described as a creature — a being created by the triune God. Therefore, the "first created spirit son," if referring to any created being like an angel, would have been created by God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Bible doesn’t specify the first angel created, but it does affirm that all creation, spiritual and physical, is through Jesus (Colossians 1:16).

Hence in Christian theology, all created spirits (angels) were created through Jesus, but Jesus Himself is not created. If "spirit son" refers to angels or other beings, then they are simply created beings in relation to Jesus, who is eternally God and not a created spirit.

In relation to Jesus as God, Adam is a created being. Orthodox Christianity holds that the triune God created Adam, and Jesus, as the second person of the Trinity, participated in that creation. Jesus, being the "Word" or "Logos" through whom "all things were made" (John 1:3), is the divine agent in creation. Thus, Adam is a creature, while Jesus, uncreated and divine, is his Creator.

In Christian theology, Jesus is also known as the "second Adam" due to His role in redemption. Where the first Adam brought sin and separation from God, Jesus (the "second Adam") brings reconciliation and life. Adam, then, is viewed as a creation made in the image of God but distinct from Jesus, who is uncreated and holds a divine nature.

So Adam is a created being, distinct from the Son in nature. Jesus, as the uncreated Word, participated in Adam’s creation and stands as the eternal Son of God, while Adam is a created human, made in the image of God but separate in nature and origin from Jesus.

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

@Duran

In orthodox Christian belief, Jesus, as the second person of the the Godhead (the Word), is indeed uncreated and eternally existent, co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The biblical witness aligns with this doctrine in passages such as John 1:1–3, which states that "all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." This directly points to the fact that Jesus, as the Word (Logos), participated in creation, including the creation of all spiritual beings, also known as "angels" or "spirit sons."

The Bible does not identify a "first-created spirit son" in relation to Jehovah/Jesus, but rather presents Jesus Himself as the "only begotten Son" (John 3:16) — meaning unique, not created but eternally begotten by the Father. This is not a biological process but a relational distinction within the divine nature, which is beyond full human comprehension.

As noted in passages like John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16–17, Jesus (as the Logos) was instrumental in the creation of all things, including humanity. Colossians 1:16 specifically states, "For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible." Thus, orthodox theology understands that the Triune God — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — collectively created Adam. This indicates Jesus’ active role in creation.

Adam, in relation to Jesus, is viewed as a created being, made in the image of God but distinct from Jesus, who is uncreated and divine by nature. This underscores the unique distinction of Jesus as eternally divine, not a part of creation.

In John 20:17, Jesus’ statement, “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God,” reflects His role within the Incarnation. Jesus, as both fully God and fully man, speaks here in His humanity. He acknowledges God the Father from the standpoint of His human nature, showing that as the incarnate Son, He remained in perfect submission to the Father. This reflects the theological truth that, although Jesus is divine, He assumed a genuine human nature in the Incarnation, through which He referred to God as His Father.

The "brothers" in this verse refer to His followers, who, through faith, are adopted as children of God (Romans 8:14–17). Through Christ, believers share in this relationship with God as Father, albeit in a different way than Christ, who is the unique Son of God by nature, while believers are adopted.

In Romans 8:29, the text describes Christ as "the firstborn among many brothers." Here, "firstborn" signifies preeminence and rank rather than temporal origin. Jesus, in His human nature, is the first to be resurrected in a glorified body, setting the pattern for believers who will follow. The “many brothers” in this context are believers, who, through adoption, become children of God and are conformed to the image of Christ.

The "He" in this verse refers to God the Father, who "foreordained" believers to be "patterned after the image of His Son." The Son, therefore, holds the position of "Firstborn" by virtue of His resurrection and supremacy over creation, as indicated also in Colossians 1:15–18.

In 1 Peter 3:18, the apostle Peter draws a profound connection between Christ's suffering and death and the faithful endurance required of believers. He emphasizes that Christ died "once for all," demonstrating that His sacrifice was perfect and sufficient, needing no repetition. This point aligns with other biblical teachings (see Romans 5:3, Ephesians 2:16, Hebrews 4:14, and 10:19) that underscore the singularity and completeness of Christ’s atonement.

Peter explains that Christ's death affected His physical nature, but His spirit, or divine essence, was unaffected by death. While His physical body suffered, His soul remained alive, ultimately entering a glorified state. This interpretation finds support in other New Testament texts that discuss Christ's exaltation and glorification. In 1 Peter 3:19, the apostle also references how Christ, "in spirit," preached to the "spirits in prison"—interpreted here as souls awaiting salvation or judgment.

The church teaches that, before Christ's resurrection, both righteous and unrighteous souls resided in the "underworld" (the "limbo of the fathers" or "Abraham's bosom"), with the righteous awaiting the Messiah’s redemptive act to open heaven. When Christ "descended to the dead," He proclaimed His victory and salvation to those souls, fulfilling the hope that even those who repented in Noah's day, though initially unfaithful, were now offered redemption through Him. This doctrine, affirmed by the Church Fathers, asserts that the underworld held both the righteous and unrighteous until Christ's redemptive sacrifice completed salvation for all.

Thus, 1 Peter 3:18-20 not only demonstrates Christ's enduring life and spiritual vitality beyond death but also speaks to His mission in the afterlife, fulfilling His redemptive work across all time and places. This passage reinforces the unity of Christ's divine and human natures and upholds the belief in His unique role as Savior, aligning perfectly with the doctrine of the Trinity.

In conclusion, the concept of the Trinity and Christ’s eternal divinity is indeed rooted in Scripture, though it may seem complex. Far from being contradictory, these passages reveal a rich, cohesive view of Jesus’ identity as the uncreated Son, eternally one with the Father, through whom all things were made. Jesus’ humanity allowed Him to fulfill His role as Mediator, yet His divinity remains intact, as Scripture consistently affirms. The unique Son of God, Jesus, brings believers into relationship with God, exemplifying both His supreme authority and loving condescension to redeem humanity.

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

I clearly live rent free in your head, maybe you should deal less with my person and much more with the content of what I have to say for its merit.

Your accusation that I "fabricated" sources simply because I didn’t provide a title and page number in another language is misplaced. In academic discourse, if a source is not accessible to the reader, it is common practice to translate or paraphrase relevant sections to facilitate understanding. This practice is standard, especially if a source’s language poses a barrier to comprehension. But if you're so insistent, feel free to check it out on page 110 (or 64), you won't get very far without my translation. The cited sources, such as The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB) and The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), are standard references in biblical Hebrew studies, used universally. Suggesting that I “made up” these sources is a baseless attack and avoids addressing the actual content and linguistic evidence presented. These lexicons confirm that qanah has multiple meanings, including “acquire” and “possess,” which is entirely relevant to the context in Proverbs 8:22.

Your distrust of my translation is understandable if you question its accuracy; however, this skepticism does not invalidate the arguments presented. The translation of non-English sources into English is a regular academic practice, and translations are vetted by established experts in the field. Furthermore, I am open to providing additional citations upon request, but dismissing my translation without engaging with the argument itself demonstrates an unwillingness to engage with the substantive points about th semantic range qanah or arkhe.

Your interpretation of David as “firstborn” seems to hinge on the idea that he was the first in the “messianic line,” thus holding a unique status over Saul. However, “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27 clearly denotes a position of preeminence rather than a temporal sequence. Saul’s anointing by God is undeniable (1 Samuel 10:1), and his removal from kingship does not retroactively make him any less the first king anointed. The term “firstborn” is consistently used throughout Scripture to indicate preeminence or favored status, as seen in Israel’s designation (Exodus 4:22) and Ephraim’s (Jeremiah 31:9), rather than a literal or genealogical “first.” David’s designation as “firstborn” refers to his preeminent role in God’s covenantal plan, not a temporal “first.”

You argue that Israel’s designation as “firstborn” is “temporal” in the sense that they were the “first nation to enter into a unique relationship with God.” While this argument has some merit, the temporal sense is secondary to the primary theological meaning: Israel’s favored status and covenantal role among nations. In Exodus 4:22, “firstborn” is used metaphorically to show Israel’s special relationship with God, not literal birth order. The usage of “firstborn” across various biblical passages demonstrates that it often signifies rank and privilege, emphasizing Israel’s unique position rather than a purely chronological designation.

Your assertion that I cite sources only when “backed into a corner” is simply incorrect. I have consistently referenced standard lexicons, such as BDB and HALOT, and reputable scholarly sources, including The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (AYBD). Dismissing these sources without engaging with the arguments or examining their content undermines the scholarly nature of this discussion. If you are genuinely interested in scholarly engagement, I encourage you to review these sources yourself rather than rejecting them without examination.

Your interpretation of Origen’s understanding of the Son’s divinity appears selective and out of context. Origen did distinguish between the Father as autotheos (that is unbegotten God) and the Son, yet he did not deny the Son’s divinity. In Contra Celsum and other writings, Origen explicitly maintains the Son’s eternal generation, affirming that the Son shares in the Father’s divine essence. While Origen’s vocabulary predates later Trinitarian definitions, he clearly upheld the Son’s unique relationship with the Father, which is distinct from created beings. Accusing me of “helping” Origen or misrepresenting his words does not align with Origen’s well-documented position on the Son’s divinity, which is acknowledged by reputable Origen scholars like Joseph W. Trigg and Ronald Heine.

You suggest that Origen’s use of “divine” applies equally to angels and to Christ, thereby reducing the Son’s status. However, Origen made a clear distinction between the Son and created beings, even if he used the term “divine” more broadly than later theology. He recognized the Son as uniquely begotten and co-eternal with the Father, while angels and other beings are created. Your failure to recognize this nuance distorts Origen’s theological intent. Origen scholars frequently discuss how his use of “divine” aligns with his understanding of the Son’s unique generation and distinction from creatures.

Your reference to Jerome’s critique of Origen does not substantiate your argument. Jerome’s relationship with Origen’s work was complex; while Jerome respected Origen’s scholarship, he also criticized some of Origen’s views, especially in light of the Arian controversy. Jerome’s comparison of Origen to Arius is not definitive proof that Origen shared Arian beliefs. Rather, it reflects the post-Nicene sensitivity to any theological statements that could be interpreted as subordinationist. Origen’s theology predates Arianism, and he did not conceive of the Son’s “creation” in the Arian sense. As scholars such as Elizabeth A. Clark have noted, Origen’s theology was later misinterpreted and criticized due to doctrinal developments that postdated his writings.

Origen’s usage of terms like "firstborn" or "created" reflects a different theological framework than Arius. Origen, as a third-century theologian, uses the term "firstborn" to denote relational primacy, not chronological or ontological inferiority. His concept of the eternal generation of the Son illustrates that the Son is derived from the Father without implying a created status, an idea distinct from Arianism, which posits that the Son has a temporal beginning. So the fact that Jerome linked Origen to Arianism does not mean Origen actually held Arian views; rather, it reflects later theological polemics and misinterpretations of Origen's language. Even within Jerome’s criticisms, historical context is essential: Jerome’s views were partly influenced by theological controversies of his own time, and Jerome himself acknowledged that many writings attributed to Origen were tampered with over the years.

You argue that Origen’s language implies a “temporal” eternity for the Son, implying a beginning. This interpretation contradicts Origen’s concept of eternal generation, where the Son is continuously begotten by the Father without a starting point in time. Origen’s use of terms like “most ancient” refers to the Son’s primacy and role as the Logos, not a finite origin. Suggesting that Origen’s view aligns with Arian beliefs about the Son’s temporality misreads Origen’s statements. Scholars such as John Behr and Mark Edwards clarify that Origen saw the Son’s generation as an eternal act, not one bound by temporal limitations.

Your claim that I rely on “theologically motivated friends” like Trevor R. Allin without checking their credibility is unsubstantiated. While Allin and others may have differing interpretations, dismissing a source solely on hearsay without addressing the specific arguments presented reflects an ad hominem approach. Biblical exegesis requires examining arguments on their own merit, not discounting them based on personal opinions about the author. For instance, Colossians 2:9 has been widely debated, and both Allin’s and others’ interpretations should be considered carefully. Broadly rejecting sources without engagement limits meaningful discourse.

Your response reflects frustration rather than substantive engagement with scholarly arguments. Rather than addressing the points I have made, your approach relies on personal accusations, dismissive comments, and misrepresentations. I have repeatedly provided standard scholarly sources, carefully contextualized Origen’s theology, and clarified the semantic nuances of terms like qanah, arkhé and “firstborn.” If you are open to continuing this dialogue in a civil andd scholarly manner, I encourage you to engage with the specific arguments and sources I have presented rather than focusing on ad hominem attacks and generalizations.

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

You claim my dictionary citation is fabricated because I haven’t provided a title. This accusation is unwarranted, as I have repeatedly used standard lexicons and reputable biblical dictionaries. Here is a direct citation: The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB), which is widely recognized in academic settings, lists qanah with meanings such as “acquire,” “possess,” and “create” in certain contexts. You can refer to BDB under the entry for qanah for verification. Additionally, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) provides similar definitions, confirming the range of meanings and context-dependence of qanah. Accusing me of fabricating sources is an ad hominem attack that does not engage with the linguistic evidence I presented. I didn't mark the other dictionary because it's not in English, so obviously you wouldn't understand it, I translated the important part into English.

You claim that David was the “first” king “chosen” by God because he was from the Messianic line and not a direct descendant of Saul. However, this is not how “firstborn” is used in biblical contexts. “Firstborn” in Psalm 89:27 refers to David’s preeminence, not his chronological order or bloodline relation to Saul. Saul’s disqualification as king due to disobedience doesn’t alter the fact that he was the first king anointed by God for Israel. David being “firstborn” is about covenantal prominence, not temporal sequence, as demonstrated by similar symbolic uses of “firstborn” (e.g., Israel in Exodus 4:22 and Ephraim in Jeremiah 31:9).

You assert that “firstborn” has a temporal meaning in both Israel’s and Ephraim’s cases, citing Deuteronomy 32 and Jeremiah 31:9. However, these examples do not align with a strict chronological firstborn status. “Firstborn” for Israel signifies their unique covenantal relationship with God among the nations, not that they were literally the first nation. Likewise, Ephraim, though not literally the firstborn of Joseph’s sons, is given preeminence over his older brother, Manasseh, illustrating that “firstborn” often denotes rank or honor, not birth order. This is consistent with the non-literal use of “firstborn” for David in Psalm 89:27.

You requested reputable sources that support “firstborn” as a title of preeminence. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (AYBD) under the entry for “Firstborn” provides ample scholarly context showing that the term denotes preeminence or favored status in many biblical passages. Richard S. Hess’s commentary on “firstborn” also discusses its symbolic and covenantal uses. These are reputable sources widely accepted in scholarly circles, not works by “theologically motivated friends.”

You argue that Burney and the NET Bible favor “created” for qanah in Proverbs 8:22 based on the context of verses 23-25 and passages like Genesis 14:19, 20, and Deuteronomy 32:6. While some scholars, including Burney, interpret qanah in Proverbs 8 as “created,” others support “possessed” or “acquired,” arguing that the context refers to Wisdom’s eternal relationship with God rather than temporal creation. For example, The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE) suggests that qanah here implies acquisition in an eternal sense rather than creation in time. The NET Bible and Burney’s interpretation are valid, but they are not the only views among scholars.

In my previous point, I clarified that Eve’s use of qanah in Genesis 4:1 does not imply creation ex nihilo but rather acquisition with divine help. You misinterpret this by suggesting that I missed your point. My argument is that qanah denotes receiving or acquiring something with God’s assistance, aligning with the concept of procreation rather than the theological notion of ex nihilo creation. This example illustrates qanah’s flexibility and supports that Proverbs 8:22 could convey a relationship rather than an act of creation.

Your response accuses me of relying on “theologically motivated friends,” selective use of terms, and cherry-picking church fathers. However, my approach has consistently been based on recognized linguistic and exegetical methods. Biblical interpretation involves understanding linguistic, cultural, and historical contexts, which scholars across denominations apply. Accusations of bias without addressing the actual arguments are unproductive. If you prefer scholarly sources free of denominational influence, I recommend consulting works like The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, and the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, which reflect broad academic consensus.

Your latest response reflects frustration rather than substantive engagement with the textual and scholarly arguments provided. Addressing theological topics requires patience, thoroughness, and respect for different perspectives. I have repeatedly demonstrated a consistent approach based on reputable scholarship and linguistic analysis. If you are open to scholarly dialogue rather than personal attacks, I would be glad to continue our discussion and further explore the nuances of qanah and “firstborn” in the context of biblical theology.

Origen's passage in Against Celsus is often misunderstood in terms of its Christology, especially in light of Arius's later teachings. Although Origen describes the Son as “the First-born of all creation,” this phrase should not be interpreted in an Arian sense that places the Son among created beings, as a creature with a definitive beginning in time. Here’s why this passage does not support an Arian interpretation and how it should be properly understood within Origen’s theological framework.

When Origen uses the phrase "First-born of all creation," he does not mean that the Son is merely the foremost creature, as Arius would argue. Instead, in Origen’s theology, the term prototokos (πρωτότοκος) implies a unique and singular relationship between the Father and the Son, signifying the Son’s eternal generation. Origen saw the Son as eternally generated by the Father, meaning that the Son's "begottenness" is without beginning or end, a continuous, timeless act of the Father.

In the Greek text, the word πρεσβύτατον (presbyteros), meaning "most ancient," emphasizes the Son's existence before all creation, positioning the Son outside of the created order. Origen argues that the Son "is not recent," which directly counters any interpretation suggesting that the Son's existence had a beginning in time or that He could be classified among created beings.

Origen consistently differentiates between the eternal generation of the Son and the temporal act of creation. The Son’s “generation” from the Father is an eternal, ongoing relationship, not a moment in time like the creation of the world. This distinguishes the Son from creatures, who come into existence ex nihilo (from nothing) and at a distinct point in time. For Origen, the Son is begotten, not made, and He participates fully in the Father’s divine nature, which is an uncreated nature.

The phrase “the most ancient of all the works of creation” could be misleading without the broader context. Origen likely uses “works of creation” (δημιουργημάτων) not to imply that the Son is a creation, but to place the Son in a relation to creation as its divine origin. By saying the Son is “the most ancient,” Origen points to the Son’s primacy and role in creation, not His inclusion within the category of created things.

Additionally, in other writings, Origen makes it clear that while the Son has a “primacy” in relation to creation, He remains qualitatively different from it, sharing the Father’s divine essence in a way creatures cannot. Thus, when Origen refers to the Son in relation to creation, he emphasizes the Son’s distinction as the origin and sustainer of creation rather than as part of it.

Origen cites the Genesis account, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness," to show the Son’s presence with the Father before the act of creation. By associating the Son with the Father in the creative act, Origen reinforces that the Son is co-eternal with the Father and shares in the divine essence, acting as an agent of creation rather than as a created being.

This distinction aligns with Origen’s understanding that the Son is the divine Logos, who participates in the Father’s work as a unique, uncreated expression of God’s wisdom and power.

Origen’s theology as a whole clearly rejects the idea that the Son is a created being. Although Arius later attempted to use similar language to argue for the Son's subordination and created nature, Origen’s understanding of the Son’s eternal generation inherently contradicts any suggestion of temporal creation. Origen sees the Son’s divinity as fully participating in the Father’s essence, precluding any interpretation that would reduce the Son to the status of a creature.

Origen’s understanding of the term "created" (ktistós) in relation to the Son must be carefully contextualized to avoid confusion with later Arian interpretations that emerged in the 4th century. In Origen’s time, during the 3rd century, the vocabulary of "creation" and "creature" (ktisma) had a broader and less rigid theological application. The use of these terms did not automatically imply an inferior or ontologically separate nature from God, nor did it suggest that the Son was a creation in the Arian sense, as something entirely distinct from the Father’s essence or subordinate in divinity.

For Origen, "created" could refer to the Son’s role in relation to the created order, highlighting the Son's unique function as the "First-born of all creation," who mediates between God and creation. This expression emphasizes the Son's primacy and preeminence, and it aligns with Origen's conception of the Son as eternally begotten by the Father—an idea fundamentally different from the Arian notion of a created, finite being. Origen understood the Son to exist eternally with the Father, derived from the Father’s essence in a way that maintained full divinity, while also being distinct as a "hypostasis" or person.

Before the Arian controversy, the term "created" did not imply, as it did later under Arian influence, a clear subordinationist position or a denial of the Son’s divinity. Origen’s use of "created" thus reflected a flexible and nuanced approach, which was neither literal in the sense of a temporal beginning nor implying inferiority, but rather a metaphorical language to express the Son’s relationship to creation and the Father. In the 4th century, however, Arian theology rigidly reinterpreted "creation" to argue that the Son had a beginning in time and was of a different substance from the Father, which fundamentally departed from Origen’s theological framework.

Thus, Origen’s language regarding the Son as "created" or "first-born" should be understood within his context, where it did not denote the same implications that Arian thought later imposed. Instead, it was part of a rich, symbolic language used to affirm the Son’s role in creation while upholding his eternal and divine relationship to the Father.