Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

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
This response doesn’t engage with the main point about consistency in translation. When a term in Hebrew, such as qanah, has a range of meanings, we should expect ancient translators to reflect those nuances depending on context. In Proverbs 8:22, translators did not universally render qanah as “create”; Philo, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, for example, chose “possessed” to reflect qanah’s meaning in this context as “acquired” or “possessed.” This variance suggests that translators recognized the term’s flexibility and sought to convey what they saw as the appropriate meaning in a context where Wisdom is understood as an eternal aspect of God, rather than a created being.
While you are free to disregard the Nicene Creed, dismissing it without engaging with the historical and theological reasons it was formulated undermines the discussion. The Creed’s purpose was to clarify theological understandings that were consistent with Scripture and traditional beliefs, especially in response to Arianism. The arguments for the eternal generation of the Son and the differentiation between “begotten” and “created” were not "invented" by the Creed; they were based on careful exegesis and long-standing tradition. By dismissing it outright, you miss the depth and reasoning of early Christian thought that clarified doctrines in response to challenges like Arianism, which held that the Son was a created being.
David’s designation as “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27 is a title of rank, not a literal chronological placement. The idea of being “begotten” by God refers to a chosen status rather than a sequence in time. David was not the first person chosen or “begotten” by God, nor was he the first king. Instead, “firstborn” is used here to denote his special role and preeminence among the kings, which is consistent with how “firstborn” is often used in Scripture. The concept of “firstborn” across biblical usage often emphasizes status and preeminence rather than birth order, as seen in references to Israel, Ephraim, and others.
Ephraim’s designation as “firstborn” does not involve a literal birth order. Ephraim was “firstborn” as a title of preeminence given by God, despite being born after Manasseh. This designation shows that “firstborn” often emphasizes honor, rank, or divine choice rather than literal order of birth. Your argument that “firstborn” must involve some form of temporal priority is not consistently supported by biblical usage, where “firstborn” is used in contexts that clearly denote rank or importance (e.g., Israel as “firstborn” in Exodus 4:22, despite being a later nation compared to others).
While qanah can convey the idea of originating or bringing forth in some contexts, it is very rarely used in the direct sense of “create” as in “making from nothing.” Deuteronomy 32:6 and Psalm 139:13 both imply God’s ownership and care rather than a literal “creation” in the modern sense. Translators in the Septuagint chose ektise ("create") for certain instances, such as Proverbs 8:22, but it does not mean that the Hebrew qanah should be exclusively understood as “create.” Hebrew thought often links possession, acquisition, and origination, but this does not equate to a straightforward act of creating ex nihilo.
In fact, the Hebrew qanah is often used to indicate acquiring, possessing, or obtaining rather than literal creation. For example, in Genesis 4:1, Eve says, “I have gotten (qanah) a man with the help of the Lord,” emphasizing her role in acquiring or obtaining a child, not in “creating” him from nothing. This reinforces that qanah does not universally mean “create” but often relates to acquisition or origin in a non-creationist sense.
The interpretation of passages like John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, and Hebrews 1:2-3, 1:5 as affirming Christ’s eternal generation and divine role in creation is not a matter of “theological motivation” but of careful exegesis. These passages consistently present Jesus as the agent through whom all things were created, explicitly stating that “without him, nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3). This would be an odd statement if Jesus Himself were a created being. The theological implications are drawn from the text itself and are consistent across multiple New Testament writings, reinforcing the traditional Christian understanding of Christ’s divine and eternal nature.
While some early Christian writers referenced Proverbs 8 in relation to Jesus as divine Wisdom, they often did so typologically, not literally. For example Dionysius of Rome and other early church leaders defended the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, countering interpretations that implied the Son was created in time. Athanasius argued that Proverbs 8:22 should not be understood as describing the Son’s creation but rather His role in the incarnation or His involvement in creation. Athanasius emphasized the Son’s eternal generation from the Father, directly countering Arian interpretations.
While qanah can indeed mean "acquire," its semantic range includes "possess" without implying prior non-existence. Proverbs 8:22’s context does not clearly mandate an interpretation of Wisdom as "created" or "begotten" in a temporal sense. In fact, Proverbs frequently uses qanah to imply possession or relationship without implying creation from nothing. For example, Genesis 4:1 uses qanah when Eve says, "I have gotten (qanah) a man with the help of the Lord," referring to her child Cain as something she “acquired,” not “created” ex nihilo.
Burney’s reliance on cognate languages (e.g., Aramaic, Arabic) to argue for “acquisition” is insightful but not definitive. Hebrew, while related, has its own nuances, and interpretation must prioritize context over potential meanings in other languages. Hebrew usage allows qanah to mean “possess” or “own” without the implication of a prior time when the object did not exist. This flexibility is significant, particularly in a passage about divine Wisdom, where a strictly temporal creation sense may not apply.
If qanah were meant to imply creation ex nihilo, it would conflict with the broader biblical portrayal of Wisdom, traditionally seen in Jewish and Christian interpretations as an attribute of God’s eternal nature. The early church Fathers who debated Arian interpretations of Proverbs 8 emphasized that qanah here does not indicate a created origin of the Son but points to His eternal relationship with the Father as divine Wisdom.
In Colossians, prototokos (πρωτότοκος, "firstborn") is a term denoting rank and preeminence, not temporal sequence or creation. Paul emphasizes that “all things were created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16), indicating that Christ is the agent of creation, not part of it. Calling Christ the "firstborn" of all creation thus speaks to His sovereignty and status over creation rather than suggesting He is a created being.
When Revelation refers to Christ as the "arche of God's creation," this can be understood as denoting Christ as the "source" or "origin" of creation rather than the "first created." The early Church Fathers frequently interpreted arche as indicative of Christ’s authority and primacy in creation, which is consistent with John 1:3, where all things are said to come into being “through” the Word. Arian interpretations that take arche to mean “first created” are at odds with this understanding and the theological implications of John's prologue.
The Midrashic association of reshith with divine Wisdom aligns with viewing Wisdom as eternally present with God, an agent in creation rather than a part of creation. This interpretive tradition supports a non-temporal reading of “beginning,” where Wisdom/Christ exists with God eternally rather than having a created origin.
Athanasius argued that “created” terms applied to the Son should not be understood in a literal sense that would imply temporal origin. He recognized that Proverbs 8:22’s language was figurative, affirming that Christ, as divine Wisdom, was eternally begotten, not created. This distinction was vital in refuting Arian claims that Christ was a created being.
Basil of Caesarea acknowledged alternative Greek renderings (like ektesato rather than ektisen) to avoid implying that Christ was a created being. He argued that the Son was "begotten, not made," thus rejecting any interpretation of qanah that would suggest temporal origination.
Early interpreters often viewed Proverbs 8’s Wisdom as a prefiguration of Christ, not as a literal account of Christ's creation. By seeing this as prophetic of the Incarnation or metaphorically ascribing divine attributes, they did not see qanah as a straightforward act of creation. They emphasized that Wisdom, like the Logos, is an eternal attribute of God, present from the beginning.
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 qanah does imply “creation” and cite several sources suggesting that it can mean “creator” or “framer,” such as Pulpit, Elliot, Cambridge, and Benson. However, these sources, while helpful, do not prove that qanah definitively means “create” in Proverbs 8:22.
The primary meaning of qanah across the Old Testament is “acquire,” “buy,” or “possess,” as seen in Genesis 4:1, where Eve says, “I have acquired a man with the help of the Lord.” It is rarely used to mean “create” directly. Although poetic and metaphorical usage can broaden a word’s meaning, the primary and most frequent usage of qanah is not creation. Scholars often interpret qanah in Proverbs 8:22 as “possess” because it aligns with the typical use of the word in other contexts.
Even when qanah appears in texts related to creation, such as in Proverbs 8:22, it often has the meaning of possessing or acquiring rather than creating out of nothing. This aligns with the ancient understanding that God’s wisdom is eternally present with Him and not something He “created” as He created the world. The Jewish tradition, which views Wisdom as a personification of an eternal attribute of God, supports this non-creation interpretation.
Jewish translators, including Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, chose words that emphasize possession or acquisition rather than creation in their translations. This reflects a consistent interpretation that qanah in Proverbs 8:22 means “possessed” rather than “created.” If “created” were the definitive meaning, we would expect all ancient translations to agree on this point, which they do not.
So, while qanah might be interpreted to imply creation in a very loose sense, the overwhelming evidence from ancient translators, as well as its frequent use in Hebrew, supports the interpretation as “possess.”
You dismiss the relevance of the Nicene Creed by saying it is from the fourth century and therefore “irrelevant”. However, the significance of the Creed cannot be ignored in this discussion. The Nicene Creed represents a formalized response to theological disputes within early Christianity, particularly addressing interpretations like Arianism that challenged the eternality of the Son. It reflects a consensus developed over centuries among early Christians and is built on scriptural foundations.
The Creed’s language, such as “begotten, not made,” is derived from interpretations of passages like John 1:1, John 1:14, Hebrews 1:5, and Colossians 1:15-16. Dismissing the Creed entirely overlooks the scriptural and theological efforts of early Christians to articulate Christ’s relationship to the Father in a way that avoids misunderstandings, like viewing Him as a created being.
The Council of Nicaea did not invent the interpretation of Christ as eternally begotten but rather clarified and formalized it. Even prior to the fourth century, theologians like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus expressed ideas that aligned with the Nicene understanding of the Son’s eternality. Ignoring this historical context leaves a gap in understanding how the early church approached these complex issues.
You argue that “firstborn” always implies a temporal element, suggesting that David was “temporally first in some sense” and therefore should be understood literally. In Psalm 89:27, David is called “firstborn” not because he was literally the firstborn son or the first king, but because he holds a position of preeminence among kings. In ancient Near Eastern culture, “firstborn” often signified rank, authority, or special privilege rather than literal birth order. This is why Israel, as a nation, is called God’s “firstborn” in Exodus 4:22, despite not being the first nation.
The term “firstborn” (Hebrew: bekor) is used in multiple contexts throughout the Bible to denote status. For example, Ephraim is called the “firstborn” over Manasseh in Jeremiah 31:9, though Manasseh was born first. Similarly, David’s “firstborn” status in Psalm 89 reflects his exalted status in God’s plan, not a temporal sequence.
Paul uses the term “firstborn” to describe Christ’s preeminence over creation, not His inclusion in creation. If “firstborn” simply meant chronological order, then it would contradict Paul’s portrayal of Christ as the Creator of all things (Colossians 1:16). Instead, “firstborn” here highlights Christ’s authority and supreme position over creation.
Thus, David’s title of “firstborn” serves as a typological foreshadowing of Christ’s preeminence and does not necessarily imply temporal priority.
You reference BDAG’s citation of Job 40:19 as a grammatical parallel for arche in Revelation 3:14 and assert that genre should not influence interpretation. While BDAG lists “first created” as a “probable” meaning for arche in Revelation 3:14, it does not present this as definitive. Lexicons list possible meanings, and the final interpretation depends on contextual factors, including the genre, theological context, and broader biblical witness. Revelation is an apocalyptic text rich with symbolic language, which makes it challenging to impose a literal interpretation without considering context.
In Job 40:19, Behemoth is described as the “first of the ways of God,” which linguistically could imply a temporal beginning. However, Revelation 3:14’s theological and Christological emphasis presents arche in a different light. Christ is described as the Creator and sustainer of all things in John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, which supports an interpretation of arche as “origin” or “source” rather than “first created.”
Apocalyptic literature, such as Revelation, frequently employs symbolic language. For example, terms like “Lion of Judah” or “Lamb of God” are not literal but convey theological truths. Interpreting arche in Revelation 3:14 without considering genre risks imposing a rigid meaning that may not align with the text’s symbolic nature.
You clarify that you do not adhere to Arian theology because you believe the Logos was created “from something,” not from nothing. However, this still implies a temporal beginning, which conflicts with traditional Christian doctrine. The orthodox Christian teaching, based on scriptural interpretation and the consensus of the early church, is that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father, meaning there was never a time when He did not exist. This does not mean He was created from something pre-existing, as that would still imply a beginning. Rather, it affirms that the Son has always existed in relation to the Father.
The Son’s generation is a unique aspect of His divine relationship with the Father, which goes beyond human concepts of “created from something.” Traditional Christian teaching on the Trinity emphasizes that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal, each fully God, without any temporal sequence or material cause.
Suggesting that the Logos was created “from something” still implies that the Son had a temporal point of origin. This view, though not identical to Arianism, contradicts the doctrine of the Son’s eternal nature. Even if you avoid the term “apostate,” this interpretation diverges from orthodox Christian belief and aligns with non-Trinitarian theologies.
@slimboyfat
The argument that early Christian writers "were perfectly happy" to apply Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord ektisen me") to Jesus and only in the fourth century began to reinterpret it due to the developing doctrine of the Trinity overlooks several important historical and theological nuances. It is not accurate to say that pre-Nicene Christians universally accepted Proverbs 8:22 as proof that Jesus was created. In fact, the application of Proverbs 8 to Jesus as Wisdom was often typological or symbolic rather than a literal endorsement of His creation.
Origen, one of the most prominent pre-Nicene theologians, addressed Proverbs 8:22 in his writings. Although he occasionally used the language of “creation,” he explicitly taught that the Son was eternally begotten, not temporally created. He distinguished between the eternal generation of the Son and the temporal creation of the universe. Origen’s position was not that Jesus was created ex nihilo but that He eternally derived from the Father, much as light derives from a source without a beginning.
Dionysius, bishop of Rome in the mid-3rd century, was among the earliest Christian leaders to defend the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Dionysius strongly opposed any notion that the Son was created in time, countering misunderstandings that implied any form of subordinationism or created status for the Son. In his letter to Dionysius of Alexandria, he rebuked interpretations that suggested the Son was a creature, advocating instead for an understanding that upheld the unity and co-eternity of the Father and Son. Dionysius of Rome’s writings predate the fourth century and already contain a defense of the Son’s eternal relationship with the Father, independent of any “Trinity doctrine” formalized at Nicaea.
But neither are they less to be blamed who think that the Son was a creation, and decided that the Lord was made just as one of those things which really were made; whereas the divine declarations testify that He was begotten, as is fitting and proper, but not that He was created or made. It is therefore not a trifling, but a very great impiety, to say that the Lord was in any wise made with hands. For if the Son was made, there was a time when He was not; but He always was, if, as He Himself declares, He is undoubtedly in the Father. And if Christ is the Word, the Wisdom, and the Power — for the divine writings tell us that Christ is these, as you yourselves know — assuredly these are powers of God. Wherefore, if the Son was made, there was a time when these were not in existence; and thus there was a time when God was without these things, which is utterly absurd. But why should I discourse at greater length to you about these matters, since you are men filled with the Spirit, and especially understanding what absurd results follow from the opinion which asserts that the Son was made? The leaders of this view seem to me to have given very little heed to these things, and for that reason to have strayed absolutely, by explaining the passage otherwise than as the divine and prophetic Scripture demands. "The Lord created me the beginning of His ways." For, as you know, there is more than one signification of the word "created;" and in this place "created" is the same as "set over" the works made by Himself — made, I say, by the Son Himself. But this created is not to be understood in the same manner as made. For to make and to create are different from one another. "Is not He Himself your Father, that has possessed you and created you?" says Moses in the great song of Deuteronomy. And thus might any one reasonably convict these men. Oh reckless and rash men! Was then "the first-born of every creature" something made?— "He who was begotten from the womb before the morning star?" — He who in the person of Wisdom says, "Before all the hills He begot me?" (Proverbs 8:25) Finally, any one may read in many parts of the divine utterances that the Son is said to have been begotten, but never that He was made. From which considerations, they who dare to say that His divine and inexplicable generation was a creation, are openly convicted of thinking that which is false concerning the generation of the Lord.
This indicates that there were early theological efforts to articulate the Son’s eternal, divine nature well before the fourth century, suggesting that interpretations of Proverbs 8 were not universally accepted as literal descriptions of Christ’s creation.
The Greek verb ktizo used in the Septuagint translation of Proverbs 8:22 has a broad semantic range, which can support meanings beyond “create” in the sense of bringing something into existence for the first time. In Greek literature, ktizo can mean “to appoint” or “to found” (as in establishing a city or institution). This usage aligns with the understanding of Wisdom being “established” or “appointed” as the means through which God ordered creation, rather than a literal creation of Wisdom as a separate entity. Early interpreters, including Jewish translators of the Old Testament, often understood Wisdom as an attribute or an aspect of God rather than a separate being created in time.
Wisdom in Proverbs is widely understood as a personification—a poetic figure representing an aspect of God’s nature. Ktizo in this context can be understood as referring to God’s ordering or structuring of creation through divine Wisdom, rather than implying a literal act of creation. This metaphorical or poetic usage fits the genre of Proverbs, where personification is common. Later Christian interpreters, particularly Athanasius, argued that the verse should not be read literally as indicating Christ’s creation but typologically, as pointing to His role in creation.
The translators of the Septuagint used ktizo to convey various meanings, not just the creation of something entirely new. They could have used poieo (to make) if they intended a straightforward “creation” meaning, but instead, ktizo often serves in Greek literature to denote establishment or ordering, especially in philosophical contexts. This choice highlights that the translators may have intended ktizo to imply God’s appointment of Wisdom in creation rather than a literal temporal beginning.
It is a common misconception that the fourth-century debates around the Trinity “invented” new interpretations of Proverbs 8:22. Rather, these debates formalized responses to various heretical teachings that had arisen, particularly Arianism, which denied the Son’s co-eternity with the Father. Athanasius’s response to the Arians was not an invention of a new doctrine but a defense of what he saw as the consistent teaching of the Church. Athanasius argued that if Proverbs 8:22 was applied to Jesus, it should be understood in terms of His incarnation or His role in creation, not as a statement of ontological origin. He emphasized that the Son was begotten, not made, a formulation that preserved the Son’s divine nature while clarifying that He was distinct from created beings.
The strategies you mention—interpreting Proverbs 8:22 as referring to Jesus’ humanity, reading qanah as “possess,” or viewing the passage as a personification—were not created in the fourth century but were clarifications in response to Arian arguments. These interpretations already had roots in earlier Christian thought and were part of the theological vocabulary that early Christians used to understand Jesus’ relationship with the Father.
While some early Christians did apply Proverbs 8:22 to Jesus as divine Wisdom, they often understood this application in a typological sense rather than as a literal statement about His being created. Early Christian thought generally viewed Jesus as the eternal Logos (Word) of God, pre-existing all creation and integral to God’s nature. This understanding is seen in John 1:1-3, which portrays the Word as both with God and as God, and involved in creation itself.
Early Christians frequently used typology to interpret Old Testament passages. This method allowed them to see Christ in the Scriptures without implying that every description or characteristic applied in a literal sense. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom is seen as typologically foreshadowing Christ’s role, but this does not mean that Wisdom’s “creation” or “beginning” in a metaphorical sense equates to Jesus being a created being.
If Proverbs 8:22 were taken as a literal description of Jesus’ creation, it would conflict with other New Testament passages that present Jesus as eternal and uncreated (e.g., John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16-17, Hebrews 1:2-3, Hebrews 1:5). The consistent scriptural portrayal of Jesus as preexistent and divine supports a non-literal, typological reading of Proverbs 8:22, where Wisdom is a poetic way of expressing an eternal aspect of God’s nature.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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

@peacefulpete
First, it’s essential to recognize that the early Church’s discernment process for the canon was about preserving apostolic teaching rather than constructing a uniquely “Catholic” doctrine. The Church Fathers and bishops of the fourth century were focused on maintaining the teachings that had been handed down from the apostles—a teaching common to all Christians of that time, not just “Catholics” in the sense of a single institution. Terms like “Apostolic tradition” and “Christian community” reflect this shared commitment to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles as handed down consistently within the Church.
The Church’s rejection of certain texts was not about suppressing diversity for its own sake, but rather preserving doctrinal purity based on what the apostles taught. The Gnostic and other heretical texts presented ideas that were incompatible with core Christian beliefs (such as the physical resurrection of Christ, the goodness of creation, and the incarnation). These texts often contradicted the universally held doctrines taught by the apostles and retained in the earliest Christian writings. The purpose of the canon wasn’t to eliminate alternative voices but to ensure that what was passed down as Christian teaching truly aligned with the apostolic message.
The term “contradictory forms” isn’t about suppressing diversity in a general sense. Rather, it refers to teachings fundamentally at odds with the Christian message as received from the apostles. The early Church valued diversity in terms of local traditions and liturgical expressions, yet it also recognized that certain beliefs were incompatible with the faith handed down by the apostles. For example, Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Judas, often presented a different understanding of salvation, the nature of Jesus, and the purpose of creation—concepts that contradicted core elements of the Christian faith.
Many early Christian communities naturally gravitated towards a core group of writings they found reliable and consistent with apostolic teaching long before the fourth century. While some variation existed regarding a few books, the core of the New Testament was already in place by the second century. Fourth-century councils like Hippo and Carthage did not impose an entirely new canon; rather, they formally recognized a consensus that had already been forming within the Christian community. This consensus was rooted in apostolic tradition rather than the unilateral decision of the Catholic Church.
It’s worth noting that Protestants today accept the same New Testament canon determined by the early Church. This canon wasn’t chosen to fit a “Catholic agenda” but was recognized for its authenticity and apostolic origins. If the early Church had simply sought to suppress dissent, we wouldn’t see the high level of historical and theological rigor that went into discerning the canon over centuries. Instead, we see a careful and deliberate process aimed at preserving what was genuinely apostolic and essential to the Christian faith.
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
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

@Blotty
When I wrote that early thinkers like Philo, Origen, and Justin referred to “second gods” or beings “called gods by participation,” I emphasized that their intent was not to classify these beings as truly divine in the same sense as the one true God. Instead, these early theologians were attempting to reconcile the concept of the Logos or angelic beings within a strictly monotheistic framework. They used "qualitative" language to indicate that while these beings share certain attributes, they do not possess the divine essence as God does. This is distinct from John 1:1’s qualitative use of "theos" in reference to the Word.
When we say "qualitative" in John 1:1c, the term is employed to communicate that the Word (Logos) shares fully in the nature of God, not merely a set of divine-like attributes or participatory qualities. Philip Harner’s and Dan Wallace’s research in Greek grammar and syntax reinforce this interpretation by showing that, in Greek, the placement of "theos" without the definite article before the verb emphasizes the divine nature of the Word as fully God, rather than suggesting a secondary or participatory god.
In contrast, Philo and Origen refer to other beings as “gods” in a metaphorical or functional sense, not in the ontological sense of possessing the full, unshared divine essence. Their terminology did indeed serve to distinguish between the true God and other beings who, while highly esteemed, did not partake of God's undivided, essential nature.
When Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 (“You are gods”), He referred to human judges or rulers as "gods" (in Hebrew, Elohim) to emphasize their roles as representatives of divine justice. The use of plural nouns here (like Elohim) does not imply these beings are divine in essence. Rather, it highlights the role or office they held as judges, functioning under God’s authority.
In John 1:1, however, there is a clear qualitative assertion about the divine essence of the Word: the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This assertion does not place the Word in a category of beings who participate in divine authority but in the very nature of God. It is qualitatively distinct from any mention of “gods” in Psalms, where a plural noun denotes authority or office, not essence.
In conclusion, while phrases like “gods by participation” denote beings with certain divine attributes or roles, they do not equate to the qualitative sense of "theos" in John 1:1c, where the Word is shown to possess the same divine essence as God. Therefore, this qualitative understanding of the Word as fully divine aligns with Christian monotheism, whereas interpreting John 1:1c as “a god” would undermine the singular, unified nature of God by implying multiple deities, which is not consistent with the biblical text.
@peacefulpete
When discussing the New Testament canon, it’s essential to recognize that the Church’s role was not to arbitrarily choose a list of books but to discern which texts were genuinely apostolic and inspired. While early Christian communities might have had various texts circulating among them, by the fourth century, a broad consensus had formed about which books were genuinely inspired and apostolic. This process wasn’t a case of “Catholic domination” but rather a necessary response to the need for a clear, consistent set of Scriptures in the face of heretical movements.
The Church fathers—such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Athanasius—were instrumental in this discernment process. They appealed not just to “proto-orthodox” authority but to apostolic tradition and historical continuity. The books included in the canon were recognized because they had been widely used in liturgy, teaching, and theological formation. Claims of “lost forms” of Christianity ignore that many texts not included in the canon either lacked apostolic authorship, doctrinal consistency, or widespread acceptance within the unified Christian community.
The discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts provides insight into various heretical movements, particularly Gnosticism, but it doesn’t imply that these writings represent legitimate Christian teaching. The Church’s rejection of these texts was not a matter of suppressing diversity but maintaining doctrinal purity. Gnostic texts often contain beliefs that are incompatible with the foundational teachings of Christ and the apostles. For instance, they often reject the physical resurrection of Christ, a core doctrine of Christianity. The Gnostic writings diverge significantly from the theology of the New Testament, particularly regarding the nature of God, creation, and salvation.
The Muratorian fragment, though redacted in the eighth century, reflects an earlier understanding of which books were deemed authoritative. Many scholars do support a second-century origin for the list, even though the extant version we have is from later. The Muratorian fragment’s general agreement with the later canonical list, despite some differences, indicates that there was a significant consensus on the core books of the New Testament by the second century.
Moreover, while there was no universal decree in the second century, the major components of what would become the New Testament canon were already in widespread use. The fact that there were some disputed books (such as Hebrews or Revelation) does not mean there was no consensus at all but rather shows the rigorous process of discernment that the early Church engaged in. The fourth-century councils of Hippo and Carthage simply affirmed the canon that had already emerged from this process.
The Church did not “create” the canon out of thin air in the fourth century. Instead, it recognized and formally affirmed the texts that had been considered authoritative and inspired within the Christian community for centuries. This was not an exercise in imposing power but rather a means of safeguarding apostolic teaching against heretical ideas. The councils that affirmed the canon did so with the intent of preserving the teachings passed down by the apostles, not with an agenda of suppressing alternative viewpoints.
The New Testament canon as recognized by the early Church reflects a consistent, unified message that aligns with the apostolic tradition. Early councils and Church fathers prioritized continuity with apostolic teaching to prevent doctrinal fragmentation. The early Christians sought to remain faithful to the apostles' teachings and not allow Christianity to splinter into disconnected or contradictory forms. The decision to exclude certain texts (like Gnostic writings) was based on this fidelity to apostolic teaching, rather than a mere power play by the “Catholic” form.
In conclusion, the process of canon formation was lengthy and involved careful discernment, rather than hasty selection or suppression of dissenting texts. The Church’s role in establishing the canon was not an act of “domination” but rather a necessary safeguard to ensure that the Christian faith remained true to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. To accept the New Testament canon without acknowledging the Church’s role in discerning and preserving it is inconsistent, as the same Church preserved the apostolic faith through its teachings, councils, and liturgy.
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.