@Blotty
You argue that Aquila’s choice of “possessed” in Proverbs 8:22 was not due
to theological intent but rather his literal translation style, as Britannica
suggests. However, the translation style alone doesn’t negate the fact that
“possessed” is a legitimate rendering of qanah. Aquila’s translation
reflects an understanding in Jewish thought that qanah in this context
could mean “possessed” or “acquired,” especially when referring to Wisdom as an
attribute of God. The translators of the Septuagint understood that qanah
did not imply Wisdom was created in the same sense as other creatures, but
rather that Wisdom was integrally part of God’s work from the beginning.
Aquila’s literal approach reflects fidelity to Hebrew meanings, not a departure
from theological implications. Quote from HERE:
This Arian attempt to support the doctrine of
the Son’s creation is demolished by the fact that the Hebrew text simply does
not say “created,” as the Greek translation does, but “possessed,” qanah. No Hebrew manuscript reads “created” (bara) in Proverbs 8:22. The semantic range of qanah in the OT includes “acquire,” “buy,” and “possess,” but
it never means “create” in any of its 85 appearances in 75 OT verses. It
is possible that the rather unusual mistranslation of Proverbs 8:22 in current
copies of the LXX is a scribal error arising from Sirach 24:9 in the Apocrypha,
where wisdom, the personified representation of “the book of the covenant of
the most high God, even the law which Moses commanded for an heritage unto the
congregations of Jacob” (24:23), said “[God] created me from the beginning
before the world, and I shall never fail.” Origen’s Hexapla gives strong
evidence for the Hebrew “possessed” instead of “created.” The Greek word ektesato, the correct translation for the Hebrew qanah, “possessed,” is the translation given by the Greek versions
of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian, and therefore appears in every column of
the Hexapla except that for that of the Seventy. Origen also takes the
unusual step of commenting on the LXX translation ektise, “created,” that the Hebrew has qanah, supporting the view that he also knew that create was a mistranslation in the LXX of his day. The
inspired text of Scripture simply does not say that the Son was “created” in
Proverbs 8:22.
You mention that I didn’t answer your question about Matthew 1:22 and the
use of “through” (διά). The angel in Matthew 1:22 indeed serves as a messenger,
acting as a medium through whom God’s message is conveyed, much like how Jesus
is described as the means “through” whom creation occurs. However, Jesus’ role
as “through whom” all things were made (Colossians 1:16) and “through whom” God
spoke (Hebrews 1:2) differs significantly because Jesus is described as
actively involved in creation, not as a passive intermediary. The context in
these verses presents Jesus as preexistent and directly engaged in creation,
rather than merely passing along God’s actions like a messenger. This is why
Hebrews 1:10 and other passages directly attribute creation to Jesus, not in a
secondary or passive way, but as an essential agent in creation.
You emphasize that BDAG lists “first created” as a “probable” meaning for arche
in Revelation 3:14 and notes Job 40:19 as a comparable usage. However, while
BDAG mentions this interpretation as “probable”, it does not present it as
definitive, and interpretation depends on context. Revelation’s apocalyptic
genre, combined with the consistent New Testament portrayal of Jesus as Creator
(John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), supports understanding arche as “origin” or
“source” of creation rather than “first created.” Job 40:19 describes Behemoth
as “the first of the works of God,” which linguistically might suggest a
temporal priority, but contextually it’s different from Revelation 3:14’s
theological and Christological context. Thus, while Job 40:19 may serve as a
linguistic parallel, it does not necessarily determine the theological meaning
in Revelation.
I don't know if you have heard of the “beyond reasonable doubt”
standard of proof, well, a prosecutor would not be able to successfully argue
in favor of the defendant’s guilt if his main evidence was a simply
"probable". You claim that mainstream Christianity is
"apostate" when it claims that the Son was "begotten, not
made" because He was actually made and not begotten. And the strongest
argument in your hand is a lexicon that says nothing more than
"probable"?! Well, you came into the battle pretty empty-handed then.
You argue that David’s family context is irrelevant to the title
“firstborn” in Psalm 89:27, which describes his preeminence among kings.
However, the point here is not David’s family per se, but rather that
“firstborn” conveys a title of rank and authority rather than birth order.
David was neither the firstborn in his family nor the first king of Israel, yet
he is designated “firstborn” to signify his special status as the exalted king.
In a similar way, Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus as “firstborn over all
creation” not to indicate that He was created, but to emphasize His supreme
authority over creation.
You mention that Greg Stafford “beat” my “master.” To clarify, I don’t have
a “master” in theological debate, nor am I beholden to any particular
apologist’s views. My arguments are based on the weight of biblical evidence,
historical theology, and scholarly sources. Citing a scholar’s expertise or
debating their interpretations is not about “picking on” people; it’s about
examining the soundness of arguments. Greg Stafford, while knowledgeable, does
not possess an infallible interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 or Revelation 3:14.
His views represent one perspective among many in the academic field, and his
conclusions are not definitive in the wider context of Christian scholarship.
You claim that Stafford has “debunked” my interpretation of Proverbs 8:22,
particularly regarding typology and the double accusative. While Stafford may
argue that Proverbs 8:22-25 refers to a literal creation of Wisdom, other
reputable scholars and Church Fathers interpret this passage as metaphorical or
typological, pointing to Christ’s unique relationship with the Father without
implying that He is a created being. The double accusative in the Hebrew
structure does not inherently imply temporal creation, and many Church Fathers
interpreted this verse as a poetic depiction of Wisdom’s role in creation
rather than a statement of ontological origin. Wisdom literature, by nature,
uses figurative language to express complex theological ideas, which is why traditional
Christian interpretation often views this passage typologically.
You argue that verses 23-25 establish Wisdom as “beginning” God’s ways,
suggesting a temporal creation. However, the Hebrew phrasing in these verses
can be understood as a poetic device illustrating Wisdom’s foundational role in
creation, not necessarily a literal creation in time. Even if Proverbs 8:22-25
suggests that Wisdom was “established” or “appointed” from the beginning, early
Christian interpretation often views this as an eternal “begotten”
relationship, reflecting the Son’s role alongside the Father without implying
that the Son came into being. Traditional Christian doctrine holds that Jesus,
as divine Wisdom, is eternally begotten, not temporally created, and this
interpretation has strong historical and theological support.
@Duran
Some resources for you:
In Revelation 3:14, when Jesus is referred to as the "beginning of the
creation by God," the Greek word used here is "archē",
which can mean "beginning" but also denotes "origin,"
"source," or "ruler." Interpreting "archē"
as "the source" or "the origin" aligns well with the New
Testament's consistent portrayal of Jesus as the agent of creation.
For example:
- In John 1:3, we read, "All things
were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was
made."
- Colossians 1:16-17 also
confirms, "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on
earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through him and
for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold
together."
If Jesus were merely the "first created being," it would be
contradictory to say that "all things" were created through Him, as
this would require Jesus to create Himself—an illogical conclusion. The term
"archē," in this case, does not imply that Jesus is a created being
but rather indicates His role as the origin and ruler of creation. In the
context of Revelation, "archē" implies that Jesus is the supreme
authority and source of all creation, not a created part of it.
Hence the Greek word archē does not imply “first in order of
creation.” Instead, it often refers to “origin,” “source,” or “ruler.” In the
context of Revelation and the rest of the New Testament, archē implies
that Jesus is the “source” or “origin” of all creation. As John 1:3 clarifies, “Through
him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.”
This statement explicitly excludes Jesus from creation, indicating that He is
the agent through whom creation itself was brought into existence.
So, in Revelation 3:14, “beginning” should be understood as a title of
authority, meaning the source or originator of creation, not a part of creation
itself. The Nicene Creed echoes this, stating that Jesus is “begotten, not
made,” which reaffirms that His being is fundamentally different from created
beings.
In John 10:30, Jesus states, "I and the Father are one." The
context here is crucial: Jesus has just discussed His authority and power,
stating that no one can snatch His sheep from His hand, a divine claim of protection
that parallels God’s power. The Jewish listeners understood this as a claim to
divinity because they immediately accused Him of blasphemy for “making Himself
God” (John 10:33). If Jesus were merely claiming unity of purpose or action,
this reaction would not make sense, as Jewish leaders would not accuse a person
of blasphemy for merely aligning themselves with God's will.
Furthermore, the Greek word "one" (hen) used in John 10:30
denotes unity of essence or nature, not just agreement in will. This unity
suggests an inseparable, ontological connection between Jesus and the Father,
consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of one essence shared by distinct
persons.
In John 10:30, Jesus states, “I and the Father are one.” This
statement was indeed understood by the Jewish audience as a claim to divinity.
In the following verse (John 10:31), they attempt to stone Him for blasphemy,
saying, “You, a mere man, claim to be God.” This reaction shows that
Jesus’ audience understood His statement as a claim of unity in nature, not
merely in purpose.
In John 17:22, Jesus prays that His disciples may be "one just as we
are one." However, this prayer for the disciples' unity does not mean that
the disciples share the same divine essence as the Father and the Son. Jesus is
praying for unity among His followers—a unity of purpose, love, and mission.
The disciples can never be "one" with the Father in the same sense
that Jesus is "one" with the Father, as they do not share the same
divine nature.
The phrase "just as" here serves to illustrate a comparison in
terms of relational unity, not ontological identity. Jesus’ unity with the
Father is unique and fundamentally different, as Jesus is of one essence with
the Father, sharing the fullness of the divine nature (Colossians 2:9). In
contrast, the unity among the disciples reflects shared purpose and commitment
to God’s mission but does not make them equal with God. While it might appear to draw a parallel between Jesus and the Father’s
unity and the disciples’ unity, these two forms of unity are not equivalent in
nature. Read this: https://justpaste.it/h4pcq
In this prayer, Jesus desires for His followers to be unified in spirit and
purpose, just as He is perfectly united with the Father. The oneness that Jesus
has with the Father is unique; it speaks to a shared divine essence, as
supported by multiple passages, including John 1:1, Colossians 2:9 (“For in
Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”), and
Philippians 2:6, which asserts that Jesus existed “in the form of God”
before taking on human form.
The unity Jesus desires among His disciples reflects a harmony of purpose
and love, but it does not suggest that they share the same divine essence. For
humans, being “one” with God means aligning with His will and mission, while
for Jesus and the Father, their unity is ontological—it is a unity of being,
not merely of purpose.
