Posts by aqwsed12345

51

Searching

by Striker in

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

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....

aqwsed12345

@Duran

Revelation 5 focuses on Jesus’ unique role as the Redeemer who opens the scroll, a specific function not related to the Holy Spirit. This does not imply the Holy Spirit’s exclusion from the Godhead. Scripture presents the Trinity in various contexts, where each Person’s role is distinct. For example, Matthew 28:19 includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Great Commission, showing that each Person has a unique but interconnected role in salvation history.

The absence of the Holy Spirit in this scene does not negate His divinity, just as scenes without Jesus do not negate His divinity (e.g., Genesis 1:1-2, where the Spirit is present at creation). Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 depict the Holy Spirit alongside the Father and the Son, demonstrating their unity within the Godhead without requiring that each be mentioned in every passage.

For example according to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, in the account described in Acts 7:55-56, when Stephen the martyr receives a vision of heaven and sees Jesus at the right hand of God, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned. From this, they conclude that the Holy Spirit is not a person. However, this reasoning is flawed. The fact that Stephen does not specifically mention the Holy Spirit does not mean it was not present or that it is not a person. The absence of a specific name in a given text does not prove nonexistence. For example, in Stephen’s vision, only Jesus and the Father are mentioned, but the Holy Spirit could still have been present.

The New Testament frequently mentions the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together, as seen in verses such as 2 Corinthians 13:14 and 1 Peter 1:2. In other passages, like Matthew 4:1 and Acts 2:38, the Holy Spirit appears with Jesus without mentioning the Father, yet it is understood that the Father is also present. Additionally, in the Old Testament, there are passages where God and the Holy Spirit are mentioned together without specifically naming Jesus, such as in 2 Chronicles 24:20.

This shows that the three divine persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—do not need to be named together on every single occasion for their existence and personhood to be affirmed. The fact that Stephen does not mention the Holy Spirit in his vision does not prove that the Holy Spirit is not a person; it merely indicates that there was no need to mention it separately in that context. This does not imply that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force; it simply shows that not every biblical text needs to list all three divine persons by name.

Philippians 2:6-11 reveals that Jesus’ exaltation is a return to His prior glory. “Being in very nature God, [Jesus] did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing.” His exaltation after the resurrection does not mean He was inferior by nature but reflects His return to the glory He voluntarily set aside (John 17:5). Jesus’ exaltation by the Father is a confirmation of His divine nature, not a sign of inferiority.

Revelation 5:13-14 shows “every creature” worshiping “the One seated on the throne” and “the Lamb,” with the Lamb receiving the same worship as the Father. In a monotheistic context, this shared worship affirms their equality, as no created being would receive such honor. Additionally, the worship directed to both the Father and the Son is unprecedented in Jewish monotheism unless both are understood as divine.

The term “sons of God” applies generically to all angels as created beings (Job 1:6, Job 38:7) but not in the unique, relational sense given to Jesus. Hebrews 1:5 highlights that Jesus is the only Son begotten, not created. The Father says to Jesus, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father,” a phrase never applied to an angelic being, including Michael. The verse emphasizes that none of the angels, including archangels, are addressed as the Son in this unique way.

The term “firstborn” (prototokos) used in Hebrews 1:6 does not imply creation; rather, it signifies preeminence and rank. In Colossians 1:15-17, Jesus is called the “Firstborn of all creation” because He is the agent of creation, through whom “all things were created.” This includes all angelic beings, indicating Jesus’ superiority and distinctiveness as uncreated and divine.

Describing Jesus’ return “with an archangel’s voice” does not imply that He is the archangel. Rather, it indicates that He arrives with a command, akin to an archangel’s authority. The phrase “voice of an archangel” here signifies Jesus’ commanding role as the Lord of hosts, not His identification as an archangel. Moreover, Jude 9 directly names Michael as the archangel without implying he is divine or equal to God.

Jesus is explicitly portrayed as greater than all angels in Hebrews 1: He is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Hebrews 1:3). Angels are just “ministering spirits” (Hebrews 1:14), but Jesus is worshiped by them (Hebrews 1:6). If Jesus were Michael, this distinction would be meaningless, as it would contradict the clear hierarchy established by Hebrews 1.

The Greek word for “worship” (proskuneo) used in Hebrews 1:6 is consistently applied to God in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 4:10). The angels’ worship of Jesus signifies that He is more than an angelic figure; He is divine. Hebrews 1:6 places Jesus in a unique category above angels, as it directs angelic worship to Him—a form of reverence reserved for God alone in Jewish monotheism. This again affirms Jesus’ divine status distinct from Michael or any angel.

In summary, the biblical evidence consistently distinguishes Jesus from Michael the archangel. Jesus:

Is worshiped alongside the Father in Revelation 5, receiving divine honor that only God would receive.
Is presented as superior to angels in Hebrews 1, where He is uniquely called the Son of God, a title not given to any angel, including Michael.
Returns with authority “with the voice of an archangel” but is never called the archangel Himself.
Is the agent of creation in Colossians 1:16-17, which includes all angels, positioning Him as Creator rather than a created angelic being.

The identification of Jesus with Michael the archangel fails to account for the consistent biblical teaching that Jesus is the eternal, divine Son of God, distinct from all created beings and supreme over all, including archangels. The worship, titles, and roles ascribed to Jesus in Scripture affirm His full divinity, making any angelic identification incompatible with the biblical portrayal of Christ.

171

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

by slimboyfat in

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

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

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

aqwsed12345

@Duran

Jesus is clearly said to be created.

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

The Gospel of John, particularly John 1:1-3, asserts that "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." This directly indicates that Jesus (the Word) is not a created being, as all creation came into existence through Him. If Jesus were created, it would mean He would have to create Himself, which is illogical and not supported by the text.

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion, the scriptural evidence consistently affirms that Jesus is not a created being but is the eternally begotten Son who shares the same divine essence as the Father. He is "firstborn" in the sense of preeminence and authority, not as the first of God's creation. Jesus’ unique position, divine essence, and relationship with the Father affirm His full deity, setting Him apart from all created beings, including angels.

171

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

by slimboyfat in

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

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

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

aqwsed12345

@Blotty

The interpretation of archē as "first created" must be weighed against the broader context of Scripture and the consistent portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament as the uncreated Creator. Revelation 3:14 needs to be understood within the framework of passages like John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:2, which clearly present Jesus as the agent through whom all things were created. Context, therefore, supports interpreting archē as "origin" or "source" rather than "first created."

Lexicons provide probable meanings based on context, and they often include a range of interpretations without asserting one as definitive. Additionally, BDAG lists archē as "first created" only as one option and does not rule out meanings like "origin" or "source," which are consistent with other New Testament passages describing Jesus' role in creation. It’s also worth noting that other respected lexicons and theological resources interpret archē in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "beginning" in the sense of Jesus being the source or initiator of creation, not a created entity.

While Job 40:19 does refer to Behemoth as the "first of God’s works," this is not directly comparable to the use of archē in Revelation 3:14. Behemoth is clearly a created creature, whereas Jesus is consistently depicted as the Creator, not a part of creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). Using a term in a similar way in a different context does not establish equivalence, especially when the contexts are significantly different. Applying the same meaning to archē in Revelation ignores the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as preexistent and involved in creation.

Jesus is identified as the divine Logos in John 1:1-3, the agent of all creation, not a created being. Additionally, the term "angel" in apocalyptic literature can be symbolic or descriptive of function (a messenger), not necessarily implying that Jesus is a created being. Early Christian thought and the majority of Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Irenaeus, firmly rejected the idea that Christ was a created being, affirming instead that He was begotten of the Father, not made.

You ask for a verbatim quote of your statement, specifically that you said Jesus was created “ex nihilo.” I did not mean to imply that you literally claimed "ex nihilo" directly, but rather that your argument seemed to equate Jesus as a created being, which traditionally implies being created out of nothing (ex nihilo) in theological discussions. I acknowledge that you’re arguing Jesus was created from "something" rather than out of nothing. In fact, there is no such thing as a non-"ex nihilo" creation, it’s either a creation and then "ex nihilo", or not "ex nihilo" and then begotten, not made. The central issue here is that Christianity has historically upheld that Jesus is begotten, not created, and shares in the Father’s essence, unlike anything else in creation.

The translation of qanah as “possessed” rather than “created” is an interpretative choice supported by early Jewish and Christian scholarship, which saw Wisdom as an attribute of God rather than a creature. The Septuagint translators were not uniformly consistent, as you pointed out. However, Aquila and other early translators chose “possessed” to convey that Wisdom belonged to God, not as something that came into being later. This interpretation aligns with traditional Christian doctrine, which understands Wisdom as eternal with God, not a temporal creation.

You argue that Solomon is credited with building the Temple even though he didn’t physically do so. However, in passages that describe Jesus as the agent of creation (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), there is no hint that the Father is the primary builder while Jesus is secondary. Rather, these passages consistently portray Jesus as having direct involvement in creation, emphasizing His divinity. The New Testament does not qualify Jesus' role in creation as being "like Solomon’s role," which would undermine the direct statements about His creative work.

While Origen distinguished between the Father and the Son in their roles, he still affirmed that the Son was involved in creation. Origen described the Father as autotheos (God in Himself), but this was not to deny the Son’s divinity. Instead, he used this distinction to emphasize that while the Son’s divinity is derived from the Father, it is not inferior. He did not describe Jesus as a created being in the same way you suggest, but rather saw Him as eternally begotten.

The passive voice in Greek does not imply inferiority in function or nature. For example, when Jesus' role in creation is described with passive verbs, it highlights the Father’s role as the source, but this does not make Jesus less than fully divine. In Matthew 1:22, the angel functions as a messenger, whereas Jesus is described in Hebrews as the One through whom the universe was made (Hebrews 1:2). These passages serve different theological purposes, and therefore they are not directly comparable.

While some commentaries, like Barnes’, may favor the interpretation of arche as “first created,” this is not a universally accepted interpretation. Many scholars interpret arche in Revelation 3:14 as “origin” or “source” of creation, considering the broader New Testament context. This understanding aligns with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17, which describe all things as created through Jesus, reinforcing that He is not a created being but rather the agent and origin of creation. The choice of “first created” as a translation must be considered alongside these verses, which support the interpretation of Jesus as Creator, not a creature.

While certain scholars like Clifford or Fox may argue for ktizo to mean "create" in Proverbs 8:22, other scholars and Church Fathers interpret it as metaphorical, understanding Wisdom as personifying God’s eternal attributes. Proverbs 8 uses poetic language, which often employs personification, to illustrate God’s wisdom as present from the beginning. The New Testament writers later applied this understanding of Wisdom to Jesus, but in a way that goes beyond metaphor, ascribing to Him eternal qualities and a unique role in creation, consistent with the idea of the Logos as God (John 1:1).

Debating Greg Stafford or any other apologist is not the point here. This conversation is about examining the textual and theological evidence for the claims you’ve presented. Engaging in ad hominem attacks or suggesting that one needs to “debate a master” to validate an argument misses the point of a fair and reasonable discussion based on Scripture and tradition.

If you feel certain points were omitted, please clarify them specifically. I aim to provide a balanced response based on both historical interpretations and modern scholarship. The argument hinges on interpreting key terms like archē, ktizo, and qanah within their respective contexts. There is no intent to hide information but to present a coherent interpretation aligned with the broader Christian theological tradition.

Personal attacks detract from a productive discussion. The focus should be on scriptural interpretation and evidence, rather than labeling each other as "hypocrites" or "frauds." The goal here is to engage respectfully with the arguments and understand differing perspectives without resorting to insults.

In summary:

The interpretation of archē in Revelation 3:14 as “origin” or “source” is supported by the broader New Testament witness of Jesus as the agent of creation.
Proverbs 8’s use of ktizo in relation to Wisdom reflects a poetic personification that was later typologically applied to Jesus, who is understood as eternally begotten, not created.
The historical Church, including early theologians like Origen and Athanasius, did not view Jesus as a temporal creation but as eternally begotten, distinct from created beings.

Engaging with these points through respectful dialogue will facilitate a deeper understanding of these complex theological issues.

51

Searching

by Striker in

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

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....

aqwsed12345

@Duran

Your argument suggests that, because "all angels are 'sons of God,'" Jesus is simply another "angelic son," although He may be more exalted than others. However, Hebrews 1 emphasizes Jesus' unique, unparalleled relationship with God, distinct from any angelic beings:

Hebrews 1:5 explicitly asks, “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’?” This rhetorical question is intended to clarify that God did not say this to any angel, including Michael. The Sonship of Jesus is unique; He is begotten, not created, indicating a divine nature that angels, as created beings, do not share.
Verse 6 continues, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” Angels worship Jesus, marking a clear distinction between Jesus and the angelic realm; He is not their equal but their Lord, and only God can rightly receive worship.

Your argument attempts to equate Jesus with Michael by pointing out that He descends “with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” However, this phrase doesn’t imply that Jesus is an archangel but rather that He descends with the authority and power akin to that of an archangel:

Context and Language: In this verse, Paul is using vivid, descriptive language to emphasize the power and authority with which Christ will return. Just as one might say, “He comes with a king’s decree,” this doesn’t imply that the person is a king but that he has the authority of one.
Additionally, Revelation 19:16 presents Jesus as “King of kings and Lord of lords,” a title far surpassing that of any angel, including an archangel. His role in the resurrection of the dead and judgment is uniquely divine and beyond the role of any angel.

Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus is merely exalted by God rather than sharing God’s divine nature. However, Scripture attests to the divinity of Jesus and His role as Judge of humanity, which in Jewish theology is a role belonging solely to God:

John 5:22-23 asserts, “The Father judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” This equal honor implies shared divinity. To honor Jesus as one honors the Father underscores His divine status, incompatible with the status of a created being.
Philippians 2:9-11 speaks of God exalting Jesus so that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow… and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord.” The bowing of every knee is a direct echo of Isaiah 45:23, where Yahweh declares that every knee will bow to Him alone. Paul’s application of this to Jesus affirms Jesus’ equality with God.

Your argument contends that Jesus and God are “separate beings” because they appear as distinct persons in Revelation 5. However, this understanding overlooks the Trinitarian distinction between persons while maintaining unity in divine essence:

Revelation 5:13-14 depicts “every creature” praising both “the One seated on the throne” and “the Lamb,” with “blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever.” The worship directed at both signifies that the Lamb (Jesus) and the Father are equally worthy of divine worship, reinforcing the Christian understanding of the Trinity.
The scene does not imply inequality but rather a relational distinction within the Godhead, where Jesus (the Lamb) and the Father are distinct persons sharing one divine essence. This theological view holds that while they are distinct in personhood, they are united in essence, allowing both to receive worship as God.

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that because Jesus is “the radiance of God’s glory” and “the exact imprint of his being” (Hebrews 1:3), this means He is merely a reflection, not divine in Himself. However, the phrase signifies that Jesus shares the divine nature with the Father:

The Greek word translated as “radiance” (apaugasma) indicates emanation rather than mere reflection. Jesus is described as the outshining of God’s glory, implying that He is of the same divine substance and manifests the very nature of God to us.
As “the exact imprint of his being,” Jesus is presented as fully embodying God’s nature, not as a created representation. This phrase is used to affirm that Jesus possesses the same divine nature as the Father.

Jehovah’s Witnesses suggest that Thomas’s declaration of Jesus as “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28) is representational, yet the plain reading and immediate context affirm that Thomas was acknowledging Jesus’ divinity directly:

Jesus does not correct Thomas but accepts the title, indicating that it was correct to call Him “God.” Had Thomas misunderstood Jesus’ nature, this moment would have been critical for correction. Instead, Jesus commends Thomas’s belief.
In Jewish monotheism, calling anyone “my God” other than Yahweh would be blasphemous. Thomas’s declaration is a strong affirmation of Jesus' divine status, aligning with the Gospel of John’s theological aim to demonstrate Jesus’ divinity.

Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus is merely exalted above other angels but remains a created being. However, Scripture clearly delineates Jesus’ identity as God and His unique Sonship, setting Him apart from the angels:

Colossians 1:16-17 clarifies that “by him all things were created… all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” This passage suggests that Jesus is not part of creation but is the divine agent through whom creation came into being.
The title “archangel” is only ever directly applied to Michael (Jude 1:9), not Jesus. If Jesus were Michael, Hebrews 1:5 would not make sense, as God would indeed be calling one of the angels His Son, directly contradicting the passage.

The interpretation of Jehovah’s Witnesses fails to account for the full biblical witness to Jesus’ identity. Jesus’ title as “Son of God” and His shared honor and glory with the Father, along with the worship He receives, affirm His divinity. He is not merely a highly exalted angel or representative but God incarnate, as consistently attested in Scripture. The passages presented, when understood in their proper context, reinforce the Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus is fully God, distinct from yet one with the Father, and deserving of worship as such.

171

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

by slimboyfat in

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

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

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

aqwsed12345

@Blotty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

171

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

by slimboyfat in

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

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

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

aqwsed12345

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

164

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

by slimboyfat in

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

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

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

aqwsed12345

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

171

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

by slimboyfat in

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

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

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

aqwsed12345

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In summary:

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

59

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

by slimboyfat in

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

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

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

aqwsed12345

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. The Kingdom of God and Eternal Life

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

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

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

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

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

8. The "Two-Class" System of Hope

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

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

Conclusion

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

22

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

by raymond frantz in

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

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

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

aqwsed12345

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

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

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

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

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