Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

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

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
aqwsed12345
@Duran
I don't know where you saw any kind of "Jehovah" in the New Testament, and where you got that the Tetragrammaton equates with the person of the Father. I also don't know where you got that the Father "made" or "created" the Son, when the terminology the Bible uses for the Son's origin from the Father is consistently begotten or born, and never " created' or "made".
Your interpretation assumes that Jesus, as the "firstborn" of God, is a created being, specifically the highest-ranking angel. This interpretation conflicts with multiple Scriptural assertions about Jesus' unique, uncreated nature and divine identity. The phrase in Hebrews 1:5, “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’?” (see? not "created"!) underscores that no angel holds the unique Sonship that Jesus possesses. Hebrews 1 differentiates Jesus from angels, making clear that His relationship with the Father is fundamentally different from that of created beings, including Michael.
The rhetorical question in Hebrews 1:5 implies a negative answer—God did not say these words to any angel. This establishes that Jesus’ Sonship is unique and is not equivalent to being a created “spirit being.” The text deliberately emphasizes Jesus’ superiority over angels, reinforcing that He is more than just a "high-ranking angel."
The term "firstborn" used in Colossians 1:15 does not mean “first created.” In biblical context, “firstborn” often signifies preeminence, supremacy, and authority rather than temporal sequence or creation. For example, David is called the “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27, although he was not the first son in his family. Here, “firstborn” signifies his preeminent status as king.
In Colossians 1:16-17, it says, “all things were created through him and for him.” This includes everything in heaven and earth, making Jesus the agent of creation, not part of it. Jesus cannot be a created being if all creation came into existence through Him. This text establishes His role as Creator, not as a member of the created order.
While it is true that Jesus, in His incarnate form, was given authority in heaven and earth after His resurrection (Matthew 28:18), this does not imply He became divine or gained His authority for the first time. Philippians 2:6-11 explains that Jesus “emptied himself” and took the form of a servant, only to later be exalted in His human nature. This exaltation is a recognition of His completed mission on earth, not a new status conferred upon a previously created being.
Colossians 2:9 declares that “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” This statement shows that Jesus embodies the full divine essence. If Jesus were merely an exalted angel, such a statement would be blasphemous within a monotheistic framework, as the fullness of Deity is an attribute reserved solely for God.
The role of Michael in Scripture is consistently depicted as that of a powerful angelic leader, particularly in spiritual battles (Daniel 10:13, 12:1; Jude 1:9; Revelation 12:7). However, Michael is never shown as the Creator, nor is he worshiped, nor is he referred to as God’s unique Son. Michael’s role is to lead angelic hosts, not to command creation as the divine Logos (Word).
The claim that Jesus and Michael perform the same role at the end times ignores their distinct identities and functions in Scripture. Daniel 12:1 describes Michael standing up for God’s people during a time of distress, consistent with his role as a guardian. However, when Jesus returns in Matthew 24:30 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7, He comes as the judge of all creation, a role reserved for God alone.
In Revelation 19:11-16, Jesus is depicted as “King of kings and Lord of lords” who returns in divine judgment, an authority He possesses as the eternal Son of God, not as a created being. This supreme role aligns with His unique divinity, not with the role of Michael, who is depicted as a servant leader within the angelic hierarchy.
The idea that Jesus’ reign is limited to a literal thousand years, during which time he will rule with the chosen ones, is a specific interpretation based primarily on Revelation 20:4-6. However, many biblical scholars and Christian traditions view the thousand years symbolically, representing the entirety of the age between Jesus' first and second coming. This amillennial perspective suggests that Jesus' rule began with His resurrection and ascension, and it continues until His final return, at which point He will establish the new heaven and new earth permanently (Revelation 21:1-4).
Revelation 20 describes this "thousand-year" period as a time when Satan’s power is restricted, allowing for the spread of the gospel and the reign of believers with Christ. However, this is not a separate kingdom but the continued extension of Christ’s kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. Rather than limiting Jesus’ rule to a literal thousand years, the New Testament teaches that He reigns eternally, and His dominion is everlasting (Daniel 7:14, Luke 1:33).
1 Corinthians 15:24-26 does indeed describe Jesus handing over the Kingdom to the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power, culminating in the defeat of death itself. This passage, however, does not imply that Jesus’ reign or authority comes to an end; instead, it signifies a unification under God’s ultimate sovereignty. The expression of “handing the kingdom back” reflects the submission of the Son to the Father in His role, fulfilling God’s redemptive plan. Importantly, it does not mean that Jesus will cease to reign, as He shares eternal authority with the Father (Hebrews 1:8).
The phrase “until the last enemy, death, is destroyed” signals the completion of Christ’s redemptive work, yet Jesus remains King alongside the Father. The Son’s kingship endures as part of the Trinity’s unified reign.
The idea that the “chosen ones” will have life within themselves mirrors the concept of believers sharing in eternal life, which is a gift from God through Christ (Romans 6:23, John 10:28). However, the Bible does not indicate that believers attain life as an intrinsic possession independent of God. Eternal life remains a gift granted by God's grace, not something believers possess autonomously.
Further, the believers, often referred to as saints or those who “reign with Christ” (2 Timothy 2:12, Revelation 5:10), are understood in the New Testament as participating in Jesus' victory over sin and death. However, their role is that of service and worship, not as sovereign rulers with life “within themselves.” This understanding highlights the relational and dependent nature of eternal life rather than an autonomous or self-sustained existence.
Scripture repeatedly affirms the eternal nature of Jesus' kingship. Passages such as Daniel 7:14 and Luke 1:32-33 describe Jesus’ kingdom as one that will never end. Hebrews 1:8 further supports this, stating, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” The Kingdom of God is not a temporary arrangement but an everlasting reality.
While 1 Corinthians 15 does discuss the handing over of the kingdom, this passage should be understood within the context of Jesus' earthly redemptive work reaching its consummation. It does not negate His eternal authority or kingship. The “chosen ones,” therefore, are not participating in a temporary kingdom but are part of the eternal reign of God with Christ.

The phrase "handing over the kingdom to the Father" does not imply Jesus’ rule ends or that He will no longer exercise authority. Instead, it reflects the culmination of His work in fully subjecting all things under God's sovereignty. Jesus' earthly mission, culminating in His death, resurrection, and eventual subjection of all enemies, is completed when death is finally defeated. This act of “handing over” signifies the accomplishment of God’s ultimate purpose, yet Jesus remains in an eternal, glorified state alongside the Father.
But since you mentioned "the chosen ones", and I know that JWs apply this to a separate "class" of salvation (the 144k), so I will briefly touch on the refutation of this as well. Scripture repeatedly emphasizes the unity of all believers as one body in Christ, without distinction in their access to salvation and their relationship with God. Ephesians 4:4-5 states, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” This passage highlights that all Christians share a single hope, a unified calling, and one destiny in Christ.
Similarly, Galatians 3:28 reinforces this unity by stating, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” In context, Paul’s message is clear: believers are equal participants in salvation through Jesus, and no distinctions exist regarding class, status, or destiny within the redeemed community.
The New Testament uses the term “chosen” or “elect” (Greek: ἐκλεκτοί, eklektoi) to refer to believers in general, rather than a subset with distinct privileges or destiny. For instance:
- 1 Peter 2:9 addresses all Christians as a “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession,” emphasizing their shared identity and collective purpose as God’s people.
- Romans 8:29-30 speaks of those “predestined, called, justified, and glorified,” implying a single journey to glorification for all who are in Christ, rather than dividing believers into distinct classes.
The New Testament does not restrict the hope of heaven to a small group of chosen individuals. Instead, the promise of eternal life and unity with Christ in heaven is extended to all who believe:
- John 14:2-3: Jesus promises, “In my Father’s house are many rooms… I will come again and take you to myself, that where I am, you may be also.” Here, Jesus offers heavenly fellowship to all his followers, not a select group.
- Philippians 3:20-21 confirms this, saying, “Our citizenship is in heaven, and we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.” The use of “our” indicates the shared nature of this hope among all believers.
The number 144,000 in Revelation (Rev. 7:4, 14:1) is often interpreted symbolically, representing the completeness of God’s people rather than a literal, exclusive class. The number is formed from 12 tribes multiplied by 12 apostles, signifying the entire church (Old and New Covenant believers), rather than suggesting a limited number or separate class with unique privileges. This understanding aligns with the later description of “a great multitude that no one could count” (Revelation 7:9), showing that the vision of salvation is expansive and inclusive, extending to all nations, tribes, and peoples.
The Bible teaches that all believers are “co-heirs” with Christ, sharing in his inheritance and reign. Romans 8:17 says, “If we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.” This co-heir status applies universally to believers, without distinction of class or separate redemption.
Additionally, Revelation 5:9-10 describes a universal priesthood, stating that Jesus “purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation” and made them “a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.” This priestly role and reign are not limited to a specific class; instead, it applies broadly to all who are redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice.
51
Searching
by Striker in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
aqwsed12345
@Duran
You claim that Michael the archangel was an early form or role of Jesus before Jesus' earthly incarnation, and that Jesus' later authority over creation is a separate, post-resurrection exaltation by God. The term “archangel” means “chief angel” or “leader of angels”, which suggests a high rank among angels, but it does not imply divinity. Jesus, however, is depicted in Scripture as distinct from angels and as God’s unique Son. Hebrews 1:5 states clearly that God never called any angel His Son, underscoring that Jesus holds a unique, divine status far above that of an archangel.
Hebrews 1:3-4 describes Jesus as “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his nature.” This language distinguishes Jesus as sharing God’s nature itself, not as a mere created being, including any angelic beings. Furthermore, Hebrews 1:6 commands all angels to worship Jesus. If Jesus were Michael, another created being, such worship would be inappropriate within the context of biblical monotheism, which reserves worship solely for God.
While Philippians 2:9-11 speaks of God exalting Jesus after His resurrection, this exaltation is a public recognition of the authority and divine status Jesus already held by nature. Philippians 2:6 explicitly states that Jesus, “being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage.” This underscores Jesus’ pre-existing divine status, not a mere elevated role granted to Him after His resurrection.
Colossians 1:16-17 further clarifies that Jesus is the agent through whom all things were created, which inherently places Him above all creation, including angelic beings. Creation itself cannot be sustained without His power, as verse 17 says, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” This surpasses any role of an archangel and places Jesus uniquely in the position of Creator and Sustainer.
Hebrews 1:13-14 explicitly differentiates Jesus from angels, stating, “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’?” This passage is crucial as it emphasizes Jesus’ unique position at the right hand of God, a position of divine authority and honor that no angel, including Michael, ever holds. Michael’s role as an archangel, or chief messenger, does not imply equality with God, while Jesus, as God’s Son, holds this position by nature, not by role.
The argument that Michael is simply a former role of Jesus ignores that Jesus’ identity as the divine Son of God is eternal. John 1:1-3 reveals Jesus’ pre-incarnate identity as the Logos (Word) who was with God and was God, meaning He existed with the Father from eternity and was active in creation. This eternal identity contrasts sharply with Michael’s temporary role as an angelic leader.
The text in Matthew 28:18, where Jesus says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” confirms Jesus’ authority over all creation. This authority, however, does not imply that He ever was an angel. The language of “giving” here reflects the completion of Jesus’ salvific work on earth, rather than a shift in His inherent nature. This does not demote Jesus to a former angelic being but confirms His divinity and His fulfillment of divine roles within the Trinity.
The Trinity doctrine explains that Jesus’ authority and relationship with the Father exist within a unity of divine nature, not in a hierarchy among created beings. Jesus, as the “Lord of lords and King of kings” (Revelation 19:16), holds supreme authority that includes all powers in heaven and earth. This authority surpasses that of any angel, including Michael.
Worship is exclusively directed toward God in Scripture. Yet, angels are commanded to worship Jesus (Hebrews 1:6). If Jesus were merely an archangel, He would be a created being, and such worship would contradict biblical monotheism. The fact that Jesus receives worship—an act reserved only for God—reinforces His divinity and distinguishes Him fundamentally from any angelic being, including Michael.
Revelation 5:13-14 emphasizes that “every creature in heaven and on earth” worships “the One on the throne and the Lamb,” signifying that Jesus shares in God’s divine worship, honor, and glory. This dual worship of the Father and the Son aligns with Trinitarian theology, underscoring Jesus’ divine nature as equal with the Father rather than as an exalted angel.
The argument that Michael the archangel is a prior form or role of Jesus is unsupported by Scripture. Key points include:
- Hebrews 1 clearly distinguishes Jesus from all angels and affirms His unique Sonship, declaring that no angel has been given this status.
- Jesus’ divine authority is inherent and existed before His earthly ministry, with His post-resurrection exaltation being a public recognition of His divine role.
- Worship and authority unique to God are directed toward Jesus, confirming His divinity and eternal Sonship, not an angelic status.
In conclusion, Scripture provides strong evidence that Jesus and Michael are distinct. Jesus is the eternal Son, fully divine and co-equal with the Father, whereas Michael remains an angelic being, created and subordinate to God.
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

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

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
aqwsed12345

@Blotty
You argue that Aquila’s “hyper-literal translation style” would require him to render the Hebrew qanah in Proverbs 8:22 literally, meaning that ektise ("created") in the Septuagint was more accurate. The Hebrew word qanah generally means "acquire," "possess," or "buy" rather than "create." It never definitively means "create" in any of its 85 uses in the Old Testament. This is evident in Genesis 4:1 (where Eve says she "acquired a man with the help of the Lord") and other instances where it denotes possession or acquisition, not creation. Therefore, even if Aquila adhered to a literal translation style, rendering qanah as "possessed" accurately reflects its primary meaning in Hebrew.
Additionally, Britannica and other sources emphasize Aquila's literal translation approach, but this does not imply that he ignored the actual meanings of Hebrew words. His literalism aimed at capturing the precise semantic range of Hebrew words in Greek. So, using possessed (Greek ektēsato) aligns with qanah’s primary meaning rather than imposing a creation concept foreign to the Hebrew text. Nor does it explain why Philo of Alexandria, Theodotion, and Symmachus likewise ordered it as "ektēsato."
You ask whether there’s a specific reference where Origen calls the LXX translation a "mistranslation" and whether I can provide a quote. Origen’s Hexapla includes multiple Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, such as those by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Origen meticulously placed the translations side by side to allow for comparison. In this way, Origen highlights the differences in translation and shows where the LXX deviated from the Hebrew, even if he does not explicitly label it a “mistranslation” in every case. The fact that Origen included ektēsato (possessed) from Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion alongside the LXX’s ektise suggests that he recognized a meaningful discrepancy.
Many scholars agree that Origen's inclusion of alternative translations indicates his awareness that ektise may not fully capture qanah's meaning. Origen’s own theological writings, which affirm the Son’s eternal relationship with the Father, further support that he did not interpret Proverbs 8:22 as a literal creation but understood it in line with eternal generation theology.
You assert that you never literally claimed mainstream Christianity is apostate or denied that the Son was "begotten, not made." While you may not have used the term “apostate,” your arguments appear to align with Arian interpretations, which deny the eternal generation of the Son. This position, while not necessarily calling Christianity “apostate,” does conflict with traditional Christian theology upheld by mainstream Christianity since the Nicene Creed, which distinguishes between "begotten, not made."
If you are indeed challenging the eternal generation of the Son, as upheld in mainstream Christianity, it naturally follows that you are diverging from orthodox Christian theology. Mainstream Christian teachings, based on Scripture and the Church Fathers, affirm that Jesus is eternally begotten, not created in a temporal sense.
You claim that David was “temporally first in some sense,” and therefore “firstborn” has a temporal aspect. However, David was not the firstborn in his family nor the first king of Israel, so his designation as "firstborn" in Psalm 89:27 is about preeminence and authority, not chronological order. “Firstborn” here is an honorific title rather than a literal statement about birth order. This aligns with the biblical use of “firstborn” to signify rank and privilege, as it does in Colossians 1:15 regarding Jesus.
In Psalm 89:27, "firstborn" signifies David’s exalted position among kings, establishing his lineage as the chosen royal line. This typological use of “firstborn” reflects an established biblical pattern where "firstborn" denotes rank and privilege rather than literal sequence.
You mention having more evidence than just a lexicon entry. Lexicons like BDAG provide definitions based on usage but do not claim theological finality. While arche can mean "first created" as one possibility, the context of Revelation 3:14 and the broader New Testament depiction of Jesus support interpreting arche as "origin" or "source." Additionally, while Behemoth is called "the first of the works of God," (Job 40:19) the language and genre of Job differ significantly from Revelation. Revelation is a theological text within an apocalyptic framework, which often uses symbolic language. Thus, the interpretation of arche as "origin" is contextually consistent within the framework of Christ’s eternal role in creation as presented in the New Testament. The apocalyptic and symbolic nature of Revelation favors understanding arche in a way that upholds the theological consistency of Jesus as Creator, not created.
Your position assumes that Proverbs 8:22 explicitly implies temporal creation, but this interpretation is not universally accepted. Proverbs 8:22-25 uses poetic language to personify Wisdom, presenting it as an attribute of God integral to creation rather than a literal created being. Wisdom literature often employs figurative language, so interpreting qanah as indicating a “created” Wisdom misses the literary style. Early Christian thought frequently saw this passage as typologically pointing to Christ, not as a literal description of His origin.
Church Fathers like Athanasius and Augustine interpreted this passage as referring to the eternal nature of the Son, who is "begotten, not made." They viewed the personification of Wisdom as a literary device that prefigures Christ’s role, rather than a statement about His temporal creation. The Church Fathers, including Origen, Athanasius, and others, provide a rich context for understanding Proverbs 8:22 and Revelation 3:14. Their works form the foundation of orthodox theology regarding Christ’s eternal nature. Stafford’s views, while interesting, do not carry the same historical weight or continuity with traditional Christian doctrine. Engaging with mainstream Christian scholarship, which includes a wide array of interpretations rooted in historical theology, strengthens the understanding that Christ is eternally begotten and fully divine, consistent with the scriptural witness.
51
Searching
by Striker in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
aqwsed12345

@Duran
Your line of reasoning assumes that all "sons of God," including Jesus, must be created beings simply because they are described as "sons." However, this conclusion misses the significant distinctions in biblical language and context when referring to Jesus' unique Sonship. While it’s true that angels like Michael and Satan are referred to as "sons of God" due to their status as created spiritual beings, this doesn’t automatically place Jesus in the same category. The Bible differentiates Jesus as the "only-begotten Son" (John 3:16), or monogenēs in Greek, which signifies His unique, one-of-a-kind status. The term monogenēs implies a singular, unshared Sonship, distinct from that of created beings. Hebrews 1:5 also emphasizes this distinction by asking, "To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’?" Here, the author clearly separates Jesus from created beings.
Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus as the "firstborn of all creation," which often leads to confusion. However, the term "firstborn" (Greek prototokos) traditionally denotes preeminence or supremacy in rank, not temporal origin. This title signifies that Jesus holds authority over creation, not that He is part of it. Psalm 89:27, for instance, describes David as the "firstborn," despite David not being the first son. Here, "firstborn" indicates priority and sovereignty, not sequence of creation.
Colossians 1:16 states that "all things were created through him and for him." This statement is incompatible with the idea of Jesus being a created being. If He were created, He could not logically be simply an instrument "through whom all things were created," since He would have to create Himself—a philosophical and theological impossibility.
John 1:1-3 affirms that "in the beginning was the Word...and the Word was God." This passage establishes the eternal pre-existence of Jesus (the Word) as God, distinct from created beings. Furthermore, Philippians 2:6 reveals that Jesus "was in the form of God" before His incarnation, underscoring His divine nature before taking on human flesh.
Jesus’ relationship with the Father is described in terms far exceeding those applied to angels. Jesus declares in John 10:30, "I and the Father are one," affirming an intimate unity with God that no angel or created being possesses. Furthermore, in John 5:18, the Jewish leaders understood Jesus’ claim of God as His Father as making Himself "equal with God," indicating His divine status rather than a mere creaturely sonship.
So angels are indeed "sons of God" in the sense of being created beings, but Jesus’ Sonship is of an entirely different nature. Scripture sets Him apart as the "only-begotten" and identifies Him as the agent of creation rather than a part of it. Therefore, while angels like Michael and Satan were created as "sons of God," Jesus’ Sonship signifies His divine essence, eternal existence, and unity with the Father, distinguishing Him entirely from the angelic order.
In summary, applying the term "created" to Jesus based on the title "Son of God" is a category error, as it disregards the biblical and theological nuances that portray His unique and eternal relationship with the Father. The Scriptures affirm that Jesus is not the first created being but the eternal Son, sharing fully in the divine essence with the Father and the Spirit.
51
Searching
by Striker in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
aqwsed12345
@Duran
Are the "Sons of God" in Job 1:6 Angels?
Yes, the "sons of God" mentioned in Job 1:6 refer to angels, but they are a general category of created beings. They are spiritual beings created by God and, as such, can be referred to as "sons of God" because they derive their existence from Him. However, this designation does not imply equality or equivalence with Jesus.
Jesus is uniquely called "Son of God" in a way that surpasses all other beings. Hebrews 1:5 specifically says, “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’?” This shows that God’s declaration of Jesus as "Son" is unique and does not apply to any created angelic beings, including Michael. The Greek term “huios” (son) in relation to Jesus is used in a unique context that denotes relational and ontological unity with God, not merely created status.
Is Satan an Angel?
Yes, Satan is a fallen angel. Originally created as a spirit being, Satan later chose to rebel against God. While angels like Satan are called "sons of God" in the Old Testament due to their created nature, this does not imply sonship in the same way as Jesus, who is the “only-begotten Son” (John 3:16).
Satan’s status as an angel underscores that he, like other angels, is a created being and falls under God’s authority, unlike Jesus, who is “over all” (Colossians 1:15-20) and worshiped by angels (Hebrews 1:6).
Is Michael an Angel and a "Son of God"?
Michael is indeed an angel, specifically designated as an "archangel" in Jude 1:9, which refers to him as the chief or leader of the angels. The term "archangel" (Greek: archangelos) means "chief angel," indicating a high-ranking role among angelic beings.
Michael, like other loyal angels, is a "son of God" in the sense that he is a created spiritual being, but this does not equate him with Jesus. As Hebrews 1:4-5 shows, Jesus’ sonship is entirely unique and does not apply to any angelic beings, even the archangel Michael.
The phrase "with the voice of an archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) does not imply that Jesus Himself is the archangel. It instead emphasizes the authoritative nature of His return. Just as a commanding officer may issue orders with a commanding voice, Jesus returns with authority that resonates like that of a leader over angelic forces.
Saying that Jesus returns "with the voice of an archangel" does not mean He is an archangel any more than calling Jesus the "Lion of Judah" makes Him a literal lion. This language illustrates the magnitude of His authority over creation, which includes angels.
Is Jesus Merely a First-Created Angel or Something Greater?
Colossians 1:16-17 clearly distinguishes Jesus as the one through whom all things were created, "in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him." This includes all angelic beings, indicating that Jesus is not part of creation but rather the divine agent through whom creation came into existence.
Describing Jesus as the “Firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) does not imply that He was created. The term “firstborn” (Greek: prototokos) here signifies preeminence or supremacy, not chronological order. As “firstborn,” Jesus holds the position of authority and inheritance over all creation, which would be inappropriate if He were a created being. He is distinct from all creation and the source of it.
Michael is consistently portrayed as a protective angelic figure, particularly in Daniel 10:13, Daniel 12:1, and Revelation 12:7, where he contends with evil forces but is never described as the Creator, Sustainer, or Savior. Michael’s role is that of an angelic defender of God’s people, not as the Son of God.
Jesus’ role goes far beyond that of an angel. Hebrews 1:3 describes Jesus as “the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature,” a description that is never applied to any angel, including Michael. Jesus is the One who sustains “all things by the word of His power,” indicating that He possesses divine attributes and authority.
Hebrews 1:6 states, “Let all God’s angels worship him [Jesus].” If Jesus were simply an angel, it would be contradictory for God to command all angels, including archangels, to worship Jesus. This worship is directed solely toward the divine in Scripture, underscoring Jesus’ divine identity rather than angelic status.
Additionally, in Revelation 5:13-14, Jesus (the Lamb) receives worship alongside the One on the throne (God the Father). This dual worship aligns with Trinitarian theology, which teaches that Jesus shares in the divine essence with the Father, rather than being a separate created being. If Jesus were merely an archangel, such worship would be inappropriate and inconsistent with monotheistic worship.
In Revelation 12:7, Michael is described as leading “his angels” in a heavenly battle. Similarly, Jesus is described in Matthew 13:41, 16:27, and 24:31 as sending “his angels” to gather His elect. However, this does not imply they are the same being; rather, it emphasizes that both Jesus and Michael operate under divine command but in distinct roles.
Jesus’ authority over angels is absolute (Matthew 28:18), whereas Michael’s role as “one of the chief princes” (Daniel 10:13) implies a level of hierarchy under divine authority rather than supreme authority. Michael is a commander within the angelic ranks, whereas Jesus is “Lord of lords” and “King of kings” (Revelation 19:16), over all creation.
Summary
- While angels can be termed “sons of God,” Jesus holds a unique status as the “only-begotten Son,” a term that indicates a unique, divine relationship with the Father, distinct from that of any created being.
- The term “archangel” is a title indicating a high-ranking angel but does not apply to Jesus, who holds authority above all angels. Describing Jesus as having a “voice of an archangel” signifies His commanding authority, not identity as an archangel.
- Michael and Jesus have different roles, with Michael serving as a defender within the angelic order, while Jesus exercises divine sovereignty over all creation, including angels.
- Jesus is worshiped by angels, indicating His divine nature, while Michael is never depicted as receiving worship.
In conclusion, Scripture makes clear distinctions between Jesus and Michael. Jesus is God’s unique Son, worthy of worship and possessing divine authority over all creation, whereas Michael serves as an archangel within the created order. This difference in roles, worship, and authority underscores that Jesus is not an angelic being but rather the eternal Son of God.
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

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

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
You argue that Aquila’s choice of “possessed” in Proverbs 8:22 was not due to theological intent but rather his literal translation style, as Britannica suggests. However, the translation style alone doesn’t negate the fact that “possessed” is a legitimate rendering of qanah. Aquila’s translation reflects an understanding in Jewish thought that qanah in this context could mean “possessed” or “acquired,” especially when referring to Wisdom as an attribute of God. The translators of the Septuagint understood that qanah did not imply Wisdom was created in the same sense as other creatures, but rather that Wisdom was integrally part of God’s work from the beginning. Aquila’s literal approach reflects fidelity to Hebrew meanings, not a departure from theological implications. Quote from HERE:
This Arian attempt to support the doctrine of the Son’s creation is demolished by the fact that the Hebrew text simply does not say “created,” as the Greek translation does, but “possessed,” qanah. No Hebrew manuscript reads “created” (bara) in Proverbs 8:22. The semantic range of qanah in the OT includes “acquire,” “buy,” and “possess,” but it never means “create” in any of its 85 appearances in 75 OT verses. It is possible that the rather unusual mistranslation of Proverbs 8:22 in current copies of the LXX is a scribal error arising from Sirach 24:9 in the Apocrypha, where wisdom, the personified representation of “the book of the covenant of the most high God, even the law which Moses commanded for an heritage unto the congregations of Jacob” (24:23), said “[God] created me from the beginning before the world, and I shall never fail.” Origen’s Hexapla gives strong evidence for the Hebrew “possessed” instead of “created.” The Greek word ektesato, the correct translation for the Hebrew qanah, “possessed,” is the translation given by the Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian, and therefore appears in every column of the Hexapla except that for that of the Seventy. Origen also takes the unusual step of commenting on the LXX translation ektise, “created,” that the Hebrew has qanah, supporting the view that he also knew that create was a mistranslation in the LXX of his day. The inspired text of Scripture simply does not say that the Son was “created” in Proverbs 8:22.
You mention that I didn’t answer your question about Matthew 1:22 and the use of “through” (διά). The angel in Matthew 1:22 indeed serves as a messenger, acting as a medium through whom God’s message is conveyed, much like how Jesus is described as the means “through” whom creation occurs. However, Jesus’ role as “through whom” all things were made (Colossians 1:16) and “through whom” God spoke (Hebrews 1:2) differs significantly because Jesus is described as actively involved in creation, not as a passive intermediary. The context in these verses presents Jesus as preexistent and directly engaged in creation, rather than merely passing along God’s actions like a messenger. This is why Hebrews 1:10 and other passages directly attribute creation to Jesus, not in a secondary or passive way, but as an essential agent in creation.
You emphasize that BDAG lists “first created” as a “probable” meaning for arche in Revelation 3:14 and notes Job 40:19 as a comparable usage. However, while BDAG mentions this interpretation as “probable”, it does not present it as definitive, and interpretation depends on context. Revelation’s apocalyptic genre, combined with the consistent New Testament portrayal of Jesus as Creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), supports understanding arche as “origin” or “source” of creation rather than “first created.” Job 40:19 describes Behemoth as “the first of the works of God,” which linguistically might suggest a temporal priority, but contextually it’s different from Revelation 3:14’s theological and Christological context. Thus, while Job 40:19 may serve as a linguistic parallel, it does not necessarily determine the theological meaning in Revelation.
I don't know if you have heard of the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof, well, a prosecutor would not be able to successfully argue in favor of the defendant’s guilt if his main evidence was a simply "probable". You claim that mainstream Christianity is "apostate" when it claims that the Son was "begotten, not made" because He was actually made and not begotten. And the strongest argument in your hand is a lexicon that says nothing more than "probable"?! Well, you came into the battle pretty empty-handed then.
You argue that David’s family context is irrelevant to the title “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27, which describes his preeminence among kings. However, the point here is not David’s family per se, but rather that “firstborn” conveys a title of rank and authority rather than birth order. David was neither the firstborn in his family nor the first king of Israel, yet he is designated “firstborn” to signify his special status as the exalted king. In a similar way, Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus as “firstborn over all creation” not to indicate that He was created, but to emphasize His supreme authority over creation.
You mention that Greg Stafford “beat” my “master.” To clarify, I don’t have a “master” in theological debate, nor am I beholden to any particular apologist’s views. My arguments are based on the weight of biblical evidence, historical theology, and scholarly sources. Citing a scholar’s expertise or debating their interpretations is not about “picking on” people; it’s about examining the soundness of arguments. Greg Stafford, while knowledgeable, does not possess an infallible interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 or Revelation 3:14. His views represent one perspective among many in the academic field, and his conclusions are not definitive in the wider context of Christian scholarship.
You claim that Stafford has “debunked” my interpretation of Proverbs 8:22, particularly regarding typology and the double accusative. While Stafford may argue that Proverbs 8:22-25 refers to a literal creation of Wisdom, other reputable scholars and Church Fathers interpret this passage as metaphorical or typological, pointing to Christ’s unique relationship with the Father without implying that He is a created being. The double accusative in the Hebrew structure does not inherently imply temporal creation, and many Church Fathers interpreted this verse as a poetic depiction of Wisdom’s role in creation rather than a statement of ontological origin. Wisdom literature, by nature, uses figurative language to express complex theological ideas, which is why traditional Christian interpretation often views this passage typologically.
You argue that verses 23-25 establish Wisdom as “beginning” God’s ways, suggesting a temporal creation. However, the Hebrew phrasing in these verses can be understood as a poetic device illustrating Wisdom’s foundational role in creation, not necessarily a literal creation in time. Even if Proverbs 8:22-25 suggests that Wisdom was “established” or “appointed” from the beginning, early Christian interpretation often views this as an eternal “begotten” relationship, reflecting the Son’s role alongside the Father without implying that the Son came into being. Traditional Christian doctrine holds that Jesus, as divine Wisdom, is eternally begotten, not temporally created, and this interpretation has strong historical and theological support.
@Duran
Some resources for you:
In Revelation 3:14, when Jesus is referred to as the "beginning of the creation by God," the Greek word used here is "archē", which can mean "beginning" but also denotes "origin," "source," or "ruler." Interpreting "archē" as "the source" or "the origin" aligns well with the New Testament's consistent portrayal of Jesus as the agent of creation.
For example:
- In John 1:3, we read, "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made."
- Colossians 1:16-17 also confirms, "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible... all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
If Jesus were merely the "first created being," it would be contradictory to say that "all things" were created through Him, as this would require Jesus to create Himself—an illogical conclusion. The term "archē," in this case, does not imply that Jesus is a created being but rather indicates His role as the origin and ruler of creation. In the context of Revelation, "archē" implies that Jesus is the supreme authority and source of all creation, not a created part of it.
Hence the Greek word archē does not imply “first in order of creation.” Instead, it often refers to “origin,” “source,” or “ruler.” In the context of Revelation and the rest of the New Testament, archē implies that Jesus is the “source” or “origin” of all creation. As John 1:3 clarifies, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” This statement explicitly excludes Jesus from creation, indicating that He is the agent through whom creation itself was brought into existence.
So, in Revelation 3:14, “beginning” should be understood as a title of authority, meaning the source or originator of creation, not a part of creation itself. The Nicene Creed echoes this, stating that Jesus is “begotten, not made,” which reaffirms that His being is fundamentally different from created beings.
In John 10:30, Jesus states, "I and the Father are one." The context here is crucial: Jesus has just discussed His authority and power, stating that no one can snatch His sheep from His hand, a divine claim of protection that parallels God’s power. The Jewish listeners understood this as a claim to divinity because they immediately accused Him of blasphemy for “making Himself God” (John 10:33). If Jesus were merely claiming unity of purpose or action, this reaction would not make sense, as Jewish leaders would not accuse a person of blasphemy for merely aligning themselves with God's will.
Furthermore, the Greek word "one" (hen) used in John 10:30 denotes unity of essence or nature, not just agreement in will. This unity suggests an inseparable, ontological connection between Jesus and the Father, consistent with the Trinitarian understanding of one essence shared by distinct persons.
In John 10:30, Jesus states, “I and the Father are one.” This statement was indeed understood by the Jewish audience as a claim to divinity. In the following verse (John 10:31), they attempt to stone Him for blasphemy, saying, “You, a mere man, claim to be God.” This reaction shows that Jesus’ audience understood His statement as a claim of unity in nature, not merely in purpose.
In John 17:22, Jesus prays that His disciples may be "one just as we are one." However, this prayer for the disciples' unity does not mean that the disciples share the same divine essence as the Father and the Son. Jesus is praying for unity among His followers—a unity of purpose, love, and mission. The disciples can never be "one" with the Father in the same sense that Jesus is "one" with the Father, as they do not share the same divine nature.
The phrase "just as" here serves to illustrate a comparison in terms of relational unity, not ontological identity. Jesus’ unity with the Father is unique and fundamentally different, as Jesus is of one essence with the Father, sharing the fullness of the divine nature (Colossians 2:9). In contrast, the unity among the disciples reflects shared purpose and commitment to God’s mission but does not make them equal with God. While it might appear to draw a parallel between Jesus and the Father’s unity and the disciples’ unity, these two forms of unity are not equivalent in nature. Read this: https://justpaste.it/h4pcq
In this prayer, Jesus desires for His followers to be unified in spirit and purpose, just as He is perfectly united with the Father. The oneness that Jesus has with the Father is unique; it speaks to a shared divine essence, as supported by multiple passages, including John 1:1, Colossians 2:9 (“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form”), and Philippians 2:6, which asserts that Jesus existed “in the form of God” before taking on human form.
The unity Jesus desires among His disciples reflects a harmony of purpose and love, but it does not suggest that they share the same divine essence. For humans, being “one” with God means aligning with His will and mission, while for Jesus and the Father, their unity is ontological—it is a unity of being, not merely of purpose.
51
Searching
by Striker in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

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

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
aqwsed12345
@Duran
Revelation 5 focuses on Jesus’ unique role as the Redeemer who opens the scroll, a specific function not related to the Holy Spirit. This does not imply the Holy Spirit’s exclusion from the Godhead. Scripture presents the Trinity in various contexts, where each Person’s role is distinct. For example, Matthew 28:19 includes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Great Commission, showing that each Person has a unique but interconnected role in salvation history.
The absence of the Holy Spirit in this scene does not negate His divinity, just as scenes without Jesus do not negate His divinity (e.g., Genesis 1:1-2, where the Spirit is present at creation). Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 depict the Holy Spirit alongside the Father and the Son, demonstrating their unity within the Godhead without requiring that each be mentioned in every passage.
For example according to the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, in the account described in Acts 7:55-56, when Stephen the martyr receives a vision of heaven and sees Jesus at the right hand of God, the Holy Spirit is not mentioned. From this, they conclude that the Holy Spirit is not a person. However, this reasoning is flawed. The fact that Stephen does not specifically mention the Holy Spirit does not mean it was not present or that it is not a person. The absence of a specific name in a given text does not prove nonexistence. For example, in Stephen’s vision, only Jesus and the Father are mentioned, but the Holy Spirit could still have been present.
The New Testament frequently mentions the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together, as seen in verses such as 2 Corinthians 13:14 and 1 Peter 1:2. In other passages, like Matthew 4:1 and Acts 2:38, the Holy Spirit appears with Jesus without mentioning the Father, yet it is understood that the Father is also present. Additionally, in the Old Testament, there are passages where God and the Holy Spirit are mentioned together without specifically naming Jesus, such as in 2 Chronicles 24:20.
This shows that the three divine persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—do not need to be named together on every single occasion for their existence and personhood to be affirmed. The fact that Stephen does not mention the Holy Spirit in his vision does not prove that the Holy Spirit is not a person; it merely indicates that there was no need to mention it separately in that context. This does not imply that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force; it simply shows that not every biblical text needs to list all three divine persons by name.
Philippians 2:6-11 reveals that Jesus’ exaltation is a return to His prior glory. “Being in very nature God, [Jesus] did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing.” His exaltation after the resurrection does not mean He was inferior by nature but reflects His return to the glory He voluntarily set aside (John 17:5). Jesus’ exaltation by the Father is a confirmation of His divine nature, not a sign of inferiority.
Revelation 5:13-14 shows “every creature” worshiping “the One seated on the throne” and “the Lamb,” with the Lamb receiving the same worship as the Father. In a monotheistic context, this shared worship affirms their equality, as no created being would receive such honor. Additionally, the worship directed to both the Father and the Son is unprecedented in Jewish monotheism unless both are understood as divine.
The term “sons of God” applies generically to all angels as created beings (Job 1:6, Job 38:7) but not in the unique, relational sense given to Jesus. Hebrews 1:5 highlights that Jesus is the only Son begotten, not created. The Father says to Jesus, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father,” a phrase never applied to an angelic being, including Michael. The verse emphasizes that none of the angels, including archangels, are addressed as the Son in this unique way.
The term “firstborn” (prototokos) used in Hebrews 1:6 does not imply creation; rather, it signifies preeminence and rank. In Colossians 1:15-17, Jesus is called the “Firstborn of all creation” because He is the agent of creation, through whom “all things were created.” This includes all angelic beings, indicating Jesus’ superiority and distinctiveness as uncreated and divine.
Describing Jesus’ return “with an archangel’s voice” does not imply that He is the archangel. Rather, it indicates that He arrives with a command, akin to an archangel’s authority. The phrase “voice of an archangel” here signifies Jesus’ commanding role as the Lord of hosts, not His identification as an archangel. Moreover, Jude 9 directly names Michael as the archangel without implying he is divine or equal to God.
Jesus is explicitly portrayed as greater than all angels in Hebrews 1: He is “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (Hebrews 1:3). Angels are just “ministering spirits” (Hebrews 1:14), but Jesus is worshiped by them (Hebrews 1:6). If Jesus were Michael, this distinction would be meaningless, as it would contradict the clear hierarchy established by Hebrews 1.
The Greek word for “worship” (proskuneo) used in Hebrews 1:6 is consistently applied to God in the New Testament (e.g., Matthew 4:10). The angels’ worship of Jesus signifies that He is more than an angelic figure; He is divine. Hebrews 1:6 places Jesus in a unique category above angels, as it directs angelic worship to Him—a form of reverence reserved for God alone in Jewish monotheism. This again affirms Jesus’ divine status distinct from Michael or any angel.
In summary, the biblical evidence consistently distinguishes Jesus from Michael the archangel. Jesus:
- Is worshiped alongside the Father in Revelation 5, receiving divine honor that only God would receive.
- Is presented as superior to angels in Hebrews 1, where He is uniquely called the Son of God, a title not given to any angel, including Michael.
- Returns with authority “with the voice of an archangel” but is never called the archangel Himself.
- Is the agent of creation in Colossians 1:16-17, which includes all angels, positioning Him as Creator rather than a created angelic being.
The identification of Jesus with Michael the archangel fails to account for the consistent biblical teaching that Jesus is the eternal, divine Son of God, distinct from all created beings and supreme over all, including archangels. The worship, titles, and roles ascribed to Jesus in Scripture affirm His full divinity, making any angelic identification incompatible with the biblical portrayal of Christ.
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

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

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
aqwsed12345

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion, the scriptural evidence consistently affirms that Jesus is not a created being but is the eternally begotten Son who shares the same divine essence as the Father. He is "firstborn" in the sense of preeminence and authority, not as the first of God's creation. Jesus’ unique position, divine essence, and relationship with the Father affirm His full deity, setting Him apart from all created beings, including angels.
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

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

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
The interpretation of archē as "first created" must be weighed against the broader context of Scripture and the consistent portrayal of Jesus in the New Testament as the uncreated Creator. Revelation 3:14 needs to be understood within the framework of passages like John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:2, which clearly present Jesus as the agent through whom all things were created. Context, therefore, supports interpreting archē as "origin" or "source" rather than "first created."
Lexicons provide probable meanings based on context, and they often include a range of interpretations without asserting one as definitive. Additionally, BDAG lists archē as "first created" only as one option and does not rule out meanings like "origin" or "source," which are consistent with other New Testament passages describing Jesus' role in creation. It’s also worth noting that other respected lexicons and theological resources interpret archē in Revelation 3:14 as "origin" or "beginning" in the sense of Jesus being the source or initiator of creation, not a created entity.
While Job 40:19 does refer to Behemoth as the "first of God’s works," this is not directly comparable to the use of archē in Revelation 3:14. Behemoth is clearly a created creature, whereas Jesus is consistently depicted as the Creator, not a part of creation (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17). Using a term in a similar way in a different context does not establish equivalence, especially when the contexts are significantly different. Applying the same meaning to archē in Revelation ignores the New Testament’s portrayal of Jesus as preexistent and involved in creation.
Jesus is identified as the divine Logos in John 1:1-3, the agent of all creation, not a created being. Additionally, the term "angel" in apocalyptic literature can be symbolic or descriptive of function (a messenger), not necessarily implying that Jesus is a created being. Early Christian thought and the majority of Church Fathers, such as Athanasius and Irenaeus, firmly rejected the idea that Christ was a created being, affirming instead that He was begotten of the Father, not made.
You ask for a verbatim quote of your statement, specifically that you said Jesus was created “ex nihilo.” I did not mean to imply that you literally claimed "ex nihilo" directly, but rather that your argument seemed to equate Jesus as a created being, which traditionally implies being created out of nothing (ex nihilo) in theological discussions. I acknowledge that you’re arguing Jesus was created from "something" rather than out of nothing. In fact, there is no such thing as a non-"ex nihilo" creation, it’s either a creation and then "ex nihilo", or not "ex nihilo" and then begotten, not made. The central issue here is that Christianity has historically upheld that Jesus is begotten, not created, and shares in the Father’s essence, unlike anything else in creation.
The translation of qanah as “possessed” rather than “created” is an interpretative choice supported by early Jewish and Christian scholarship, which saw Wisdom as an attribute of God rather than a creature. The Septuagint translators were not uniformly consistent, as you pointed out. However, Aquila and other early translators chose “possessed” to convey that Wisdom belonged to God, not as something that came into being later. This interpretation aligns with traditional Christian doctrine, which understands Wisdom as eternal with God, not a temporal creation.
You argue that Solomon is credited with building the Temple even though he didn’t physically do so. However, in passages that describe Jesus as the agent of creation (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16), there is no hint that the Father is the primary builder while Jesus is secondary. Rather, these passages consistently portray Jesus as having direct involvement in creation, emphasizing His divinity. The New Testament does not qualify Jesus' role in creation as being "like Solomon’s role," which would undermine the direct statements about His creative work.
While Origen distinguished between the Father and the Son in their roles, he still affirmed that the Son was involved in creation. Origen described the Father as autotheos (God in Himself), but this was not to deny the Son’s divinity. Instead, he used this distinction to emphasize that while the Son’s divinity is derived from the Father, it is not inferior. He did not describe Jesus as a created being in the same way you suggest, but rather saw Him as eternally begotten.
The passive voice in Greek does not imply inferiority in function or nature. For example, when Jesus' role in creation is described with passive verbs, it highlights the Father’s role as the source, but this does not make Jesus less than fully divine. In Matthew 1:22, the angel functions as a messenger, whereas Jesus is described in Hebrews as the One through whom the universe was made (Hebrews 1:2). These passages serve different theological purposes, and therefore they are not directly comparable.
While some commentaries, like Barnes’, may favor the interpretation of arche as “first created,” this is not a universally accepted interpretation. Many scholars interpret arche in Revelation 3:14 as “origin” or “source” of creation, considering the broader New Testament context. This understanding aligns with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-17, which describe all things as created through Jesus, reinforcing that He is not a created being but rather the agent and origin of creation. The choice of “first created” as a translation must be considered alongside these verses, which support the interpretation of Jesus as Creator, not a creature.
While certain scholars like Clifford or Fox may argue for ktizo to mean "create" in Proverbs 8:22, other scholars and Church Fathers interpret it as metaphorical, understanding Wisdom as personifying God’s eternal attributes. Proverbs 8 uses poetic language, which often employs personification, to illustrate God’s wisdom as present from the beginning. The New Testament writers later applied this understanding of Wisdom to Jesus, but in a way that goes beyond metaphor, ascribing to Him eternal qualities and a unique role in creation, consistent with the idea of the Logos as God (John 1:1).
Debating Greg Stafford or any other apologist is not the point here. This conversation is about examining the textual and theological evidence for the claims you’ve presented. Engaging in ad hominem attacks or suggesting that one needs to “debate a master” to validate an argument misses the point of a fair and reasonable discussion based on Scripture and tradition.
If you feel certain points were omitted, please clarify them specifically. I aim to provide a balanced response based on both historical interpretations and modern scholarship. The argument hinges on interpreting key terms like archē, ktizo, and qanah within their respective contexts. There is no intent to hide information but to present a coherent interpretation aligned with the broader Christian theological tradition.
Personal attacks detract from a productive discussion. The focus should be on scriptural interpretation and evidence, rather than labeling each other as "hypocrites" or "frauds." The goal here is to engage respectfully with the arguments and understand differing perspectives without resorting to insults.
In summary:
- The interpretation of archē in Revelation 3:14 as “origin” or “source” is supported by the broader New Testament witness of Jesus as the agent of creation.
- Proverbs 8’s use of ktizo in relation to Wisdom reflects a poetic personification that was later typologically applied to Jesus, who is understood as eternally begotten, not created.
- The historical Church, including early theologians like Origen and Athanasius, did not view Jesus as a temporal creation but as eternally begotten, distinct from created beings.
Engaging with these points through respectful dialogue will facilitate a deeper understanding of these complex theological issues.