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

Yes, there is scriptural support in the New Testament indicating that human souls are in heaven. Here are some key examples:

Hebrews 12:1 speaks of a "great cloud of witnesses," referring to the faithful who have died, as described in Hebrews 11. This passage suggests that these faithful departed are alive in heaven and aware of God’s activity on earth.
Luke 23:43 records Jesus’ words to the repentant thief on the cross: “Today you will be with me in paradise.” This statement implies an immediate transition to paradise, understood in the Catholic tradition as heaven or its antechamber, after death for the repentant thief.
2 Corinthians 5:8: Paul expresses confidence that to be “absent from the body” is to be “present with the Lord.” This passage indicates that upon death, those in Christ are immediately in God's presence, understood by early Christians as heaven.
Revelation 6:9-11 describes the souls of martyrs under the heavenly altar, asking God how long until justice is done on earth. This scene reveals that the martyrs are in God’s presence, conscious and interceding, which supports the understanding of the faithful residing in heaven.
Matthew 17:1-3 describes the Transfiguration, where Moses and Elijah, long dead, appear alongside Christ in a state of glory. This event is taken as a demonstration of the righteous entering into the presence of God after death.

In Catholic understanding, these passages affirm that those who have died in God’s grace are with Him in heaven and are part of the “Church Triumphant,” praying for and encouraging the faithful on earth.

Catholic teaching recognizes certain signs that are expected to precede the final coming of Christ, though the exact sequence and timing remain a mystery. Some signs include:

The Gospel Preached to All Nations: Matthew 24:14 states, "This gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." The universal proclamation of the Gospel is understood as a sign, though it remains ambiguous how fully this must be accomplished.
A Great Tribulation and the Appearance of the Antichrist: Matthew 24:21-24 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 speak of a period of tribulation and the revealing of a man of sin, often understood as the Antichrist, who will deceive many. Catholic tradition holds that this period precedes Christ’s final victory.
The Conversion of Israel: Romans 11:25-26 suggests that “all Israel will be saved” before the end. This is interpreted as a widespread conversion of the Jewish people, acknowledging Christ as the Messiah.
Cosmic Signs: Apocalyptic passages, such as those in Matthew 24:29-31, mention celestial disturbances (sun darkened, moon not giving light, etc.), and Luke 21:25-26 speaks of signs in the sun, moon, and stars.

While these signs are part of Catholic eschatology, the Church cautions against exact end-time speculation, emphasizing that Christ’s return will come “like a thief in the night” (1 Thessalonians 5:2), and that believers should remain always ready, without trying to pinpoint specific dates or events. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1040) reminds us that God has not revealed the specific day or hour, encouraging Catholics to focus on faithfulness and preparedness over speculation. Thomas Aquinas writes

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

At the moment of death, each person undergoes the particular judgment. This judgment is an immediate, individual assessment of the soul’s relationship with God. Based on this judgment:

Those in a state of perfect grace and friendship with God enter heaven immediately, enjoying the beatific vision (the direct, joyful communion with God).
Those who die in God’s grace but still need purification enter purgatory, where they are cleansed of residual sin and made ready for heaven.
Those who have definitively rejected God through mortal sin without repentance face eternal separation from God in hell.

A nonbeliever also undergoes particular judgment immediately upon death. If they are found to have rejected God, their soul would face hell as a final separation. However, the Catholic Church also acknowledges that God’s mercy and justice are beyond human understanding. For those who, through no fault of their own, did not know Christ or the gospel but sought truth and goodness, there is hope that God may grant them salvation.

A living believer is awaiting the Second Coming of Christ, as well as the Final Judgment. Catholics believe that, in God’s time, Christ will return to fully establish His kingdom, bringing history to its fulfillment. At that time, the dead will be resurrected, and all will face the final judgment.

Catholics believe that Christ could return at any time, emphasizing the importance of being spiritually prepared. While certain signs are described in the New Testament, these are interpreted as reminders to remain vigilant and faithful, rather than as precise predictions of timing. Catholics believe we are to live in expectation, trusting in God’s timing while focusing on living out the gospel faithfully.

Catholic doctrine affirms the resurrection of the body at the end of time. At Christ’s second coming, all the dead—both righteous and unrighteous—will be raised bodily. This belief is rooted in Christ’s own resurrection and reflects the Christian understanding that human beings are a unity of body and soul. The body will be transformed and glorified, free from corruption, to share in the eternal life promised by Christ. For Catholics, the resurrection affirms that salvation encompasses the whole person and not just the soul.

Following the resurrection, will be the general judgment, where Christ will come in glory to judge all people, living and dead. This event will reveal the full scope of God’s plan, demonstrating His justice and mercy to all creation. While the particular judgment determines each person’s eternal destiny, the general judgment will reveal the ripple effects of every action across history, showing how each individual contributed to the good or the harm in God’s creation. In the final judgment, all will witness the fulfillment of justice and mercy, as well as the victory of good over evil.

Catholic eschatology looks forward to the new heaven and new earth described in Revelation, where God will dwell with humanity in a perfected, renewed creation. The ultimate destiny is not a spiritualized, disembodied existence but rather the union of heaven and earth, where all creation is reconciled and made whole in God. This vision fulfills the Lord’s Prayer: "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." In this restored creation, heaven and earth will be united, and God's presence will permeate everything, making it a place of peace, justice, and communion with Him forever.

The Catholic Church has traditionally rejected speculative predictions about the timing or specifics of the end times. Jesus himself warned against attempts to predict the day or hour of His return, stating that "no one knows" this timing except the Father (Matthew 24:36). Catholics are encouraged to live in readiness for Christ’s return by remaining faithful and growing in holiness rather than focusing on apocalyptic timelines or speculating about the sequence of events. This approach keeps the focus on the present call to follow Christ, trust in God’s plan, and leave the timing of future events to His wisdom.

In summary, Catholic eschatology centers on the certainty of God’s ultimate victory and the hope of eternal life with Him. Believers are called to prepare for their own particular judgment, await the resurrection, anticipate the general judgment, and live with hope in the new heaven and new earth, where God will be "all in all." This perspective emphasizes trust in God’s plan without needing to engage in speculative interpretations, focusing instead on the mission of living a holy life in anticipation of the fullness of God’s Kingdom.

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

Your analogy likens God and His heavenly beings to a hive of bees, with God as the “queen” and others as “worker bees,” suggesting all heavenly beings share the same essential nature, with differences only in role. This fails to capture the unique nature of God as revealed in Scripture, where God alone is described as eternal, uncreated, and possessing the fullness of deity. In John 4:24, "God is Spirit," but the term does not imply equality of essence with all spirit beings. For instance, Hebrews 1:7, 14 distinguishes between the Son and created spirit beings, angels, who serve God but do not share His divine essence or authority. Hebrews 1:3-4 explicitly affirms Jesus as the “exact representation of His [God’s] being,” signifying a unique identity and essence that is distinct from that of created beings.

You mention that "exact representation" implies Jesus acts “on behalf of” God, but the Greek term charaktēr used here means “express image” or “exact imprint,” referring to an identity in essence, not merely function. Jesus’ relationship to the Father is distinct from mere representation or agency because He possesses the same divine nature, as seen in passages like Colossians 2:9: “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” Therefore, Jesus’ authority and power are not borrowed or transient; they belong to Him as part of His divine identity.

So in Hebrews 1:3, the term charaktēr (χαρακτήρ) is used to describe Jesus as the “exact representation” of God’s hupostasis (ὑπόστασις), or essence. This term, historically used in Greek to refer to a precise engraving or stamp, conveys that Jesus is an exact and unique imprint of God’s nature, not a created replica but a direct and identical image of the divine essence. This makes it clear that Jesus is not merely a messenger or servant, as angels or prophets would be, but one who possesses the same divine nature as God.

The early church used hupostasis to articulate the shared essence of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus, as charaktēr of God’s hupostasis, reflects and embodies God’s nature perfectly, making Him fully and truly divine, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. This supports the theological claim that Jesus, though distinct in personhood, is fully one with the Father in essence.

You argue that Jesus’ authority and power were granted by Jehovah, thus implying inferiority. While Jesus acknowledges receiving authority from the Father (e.g., Matthew 28:18), this does not imply He lacks divinity. In Philippians 2:6-11, we learn that Jesus, “being in very nature God,” voluntarily humbled Himself and accepted a human form, choosing to subordinate Himself for the purpose of redemption. His willing submission, even though He is equal with the Father, reflects the mystery of the Incarnation rather than a limitation of His divine nature. Furthermore, His power to judge (John 5:22-27) is integral to His divine role and identity.

In your response, you suggest that Jesus resumed a "spirit form" after His ascension, using an analogy with angels who took physical form on earth. However, Scripture presents Jesus’ resurrection body as uniquely different from temporary appearances by angels. After His resurrection, Jesus’ body is described as "imperishable" (1 Corinthians 15:42-44), signifying an eternal, glorified body that does not revert to a non-physical form. Acts 1:11 emphasizes continuity by declaring that Jesus will return “in the same way you have seen him go.” This statement affirms that His glorified body is permanent, fitting Christian hope for resurrection. Jesus’ post-resurrection interactions (Luke 24:39-43) emphasize the physical reality and permanence of His glorified body, distinct from temporary, materialized forms.

The concept that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human is not an arbitrary doctrine but essential to Christian faith and salvation (Hebrews 2:14-17). Only by possessing both natures can Jesus serve as the mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). This dual nature—fully God and fully man—ensures that He can accomplish redemption and fulfill the role of an eternal High Priest, sympathizing with our weaknesses (Hebrews 4:15).

You equate Jesus’ resurrected body with that of Lazarus, implying that Jesus returned in the same earthly body only to abandon it later. However, the resurrection of Jesus differs fundamentally from Lazarus’s. Lazarus was brought back to mortal life in his original, corruptible body and would eventually die again. In contrast, Jesus’ resurrection body is described as “imperishable” and “immortal” (1 Corinthians 15:42-44), one that will never decay or die. Romans 6:9 affirms, "Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.” His resurrection was not a temporary return to human life but the beginning of eternal, glorified life.

When Jesus invites his disciples to touch his hands and side in Luke 24:39 and John 20:27, he is demonstrating that he has a physical body that is still glorified. This body is not like the earthly body of Lazarus, as it transcends normal human limitations, evidenced by Jesus’ ability to appear in locked rooms (John 20:19, 26) and ascend into heaven (Acts 1:9-11) in the same glorified form.

You claim that Jesus “became a spirit being” after ascending through the clouds, suggesting a transformation into a purely spiritual form once he left their sight. However, Acts 1:9-11 does not indicate any such change. The passage describes Jesus being “taken up” in a visible, physical manner, witnessed by the apostles. The two angels present immediately clarify that Jesus “will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven,” which implies a physical return, not a spiritual or metaphorical one. This affirms that he ascended in the same glorified body in which he was resurrected, and it is this same body in which he will return.

The notion that Jesus “became a spirit being” upon leaving sight contradicts the biblical teaching of his bodily resurrection and glorified ascension. Jesus did not shed his body or become a disembodied spirit; rather, he remains incarnate, as emphasized in Philippians 3:21, which promises believers that Christ “will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body.” This continuity emphasizes that Jesus remains fully God and fully human—body and spirit—in his glorified state.

Your comparison of Jesus’ resurrection body with the physical forms of angels who appeared on earth (as in Genesis 19) misunderstands the nature of Jesus' incarnation and glorification. Angels temporarily take physical forms when interacting with humans, but these forms are not their true essence. Jesus’ incarnation, by contrast, is a permanent union of God with human nature. Colossians 2:9 states, “In him the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily.” Jesus’ physical, glorified body is essential to his identity as the God-Man, unlike angels, who temporarily manifest in physical forms without permanently assuming human nature.

Furthermore, the Epistle to the Hebrews highlights the unique status of Jesus’ humanity: “He had to be made like his brothers in every respect” (Hebrews 2:17). This humanity was not discarded at the ascension. Jesus is unique among all beings, as he is truly God and truly human, and his resurrection affirms the permanent glorification of his humanity.

When Acts 1:11 says that Jesus will “come in the same way,” it does not suggest a temporary, physical appearance like that of angels. Instead, it points to a visible, physical return in his glorified body. The imagery of coming “in the clouds” or “on the clouds” in passages like Mark 13:26 and Revelation 1:7 symbolizes divine authority and glory, not a mere temporary physical manifestation. Jesus’ return will be both bodily and glorious, consistent with his resurrected and ascended state, not as a temporary spirit manifestation or shedding of his human nature.

Your description seems to deny the permanent reality of Jesus’ incarnation, which is central to Trinitarian belief and Christian hope. According to Christian doctrine, Jesus' bodily resurrection and ascension guarantee believers’ future resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:20-23 emphasizes that Christ is “the firstfruits” of those who have fallen asleep, meaning his resurrection is the pattern and guarantee of the resurrection of believers. If Jesus merely discarded his body, as angels discard temporary forms, then this hope is undermined. Instead, Christians believe that Jesus remains the risen, glorified God-Man who intercedes for humanity and will return in the same glorified body to judge and redeem the world.

In conclusion, the passages you reference do not imply a lesser nature or diminished status for Jesus. Instead, they emphasize Jesus' unique role as fully divine and fully human. The distinctions made in Hebrews 1 and throughout Scripture affirm Jesus' equality with God in nature, while also highlighting His willing subordination in function within the divine plan.

Your claim that Jesus became a spirit being after his ascension conflicts with the consistent biblical teaching that his resurrected, glorified body is eternal and that he remains fully incarnate. His ascension and promised return underscore that he did not abandon his humanity; instead, he raised it to a glorified, eternal state. This belief is essential to understanding Jesus’ role as the eternal Mediator and Savior, who will return in the same glorified body to fulfill God’s promises.

171

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

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

aqwsed12345

You 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

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

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

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.

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

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.