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
I clearly live rent free in your head, maybe you should deal less with my person and much more with the content of what I have to say for its merit.
Your accusation that I "fabricated" sources simply because I didn’t provide a title and page number in another language is misplaced. In academic discourse, if a source is not accessible to the reader, it is common practice to translate or paraphrase relevant sections to facilitate understanding. This practice is standard, especially if a source’s language poses a barrier to comprehension. But if you're so insistent, feel free to check it out on page 110 (or 64), you won't get very far without my translation. The cited sources, such as The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB) and The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), are standard references in biblical Hebrew studies, used universally. Suggesting that I “made up” these sources is a baseless attack and avoids addressing the actual content and linguistic evidence presented. These lexicons confirm that qanah has multiple meanings, including “acquire” and “possess,” which is entirely relevant to the context in Proverbs 8:22.
Your distrust of my translation is understandable if you question its accuracy; however, this skepticism does not invalidate the arguments presented. The translation of non-English sources into English is a regular academic practice, and translations are vetted by established experts in the field. Furthermore, I am open to providing additional citations upon request, but dismissing my translation without engaging with the argument itself demonstrates an unwillingness to engage with the substantive points about th semantic range qanah or arkhe.
Your interpretation of David as “firstborn” seems to hinge on the idea that he was the first in the “messianic line,” thus holding a unique status over Saul. However, “firstborn” in Psalm 89:27 clearly denotes a position of preeminence rather than a temporal sequence. Saul’s anointing by God is undeniable (1 Samuel 10:1), and his removal from kingship does not retroactively make him any less the first king anointed. The term “firstborn” is consistently used throughout Scripture to indicate preeminence or favored status, as seen in Israel’s designation (Exodus 4:22) and Ephraim’s (Jeremiah 31:9), rather than a literal or genealogical “first.” David’s designation as “firstborn” refers to his preeminent role in God’s covenantal plan, not a temporal “first.”
You argue that Israel’s designation as “firstborn” is “temporal” in the sense that they were the “first nation to enter into a unique relationship with God.” While this argument has some merit, the temporal sense is secondary to the primary theological meaning: Israel’s favored status and covenantal role among nations. In Exodus 4:22, “firstborn” is used metaphorically to show Israel’s special relationship with God, not literal birth order. The usage of “firstborn” across various biblical passages demonstrates that it often signifies rank and privilege, emphasizing Israel’s unique position rather than a purely chronological designation.
Your assertion that I cite sources only when “backed into a corner” is simply incorrect. I have consistently referenced standard lexicons, such as BDB and HALOT, and reputable scholarly sources, including The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (AYBD). Dismissing these sources without engaging with the arguments or examining their content undermines the scholarly nature of this discussion. If you are genuinely interested in scholarly engagement, I encourage you to review these sources yourself rather than rejecting them without examination.
Your interpretation of Origen’s understanding of the Son’s divinity appears selective and out of context. Origen did distinguish between the Father as autotheos (that is unbegotten God) and the Son, yet he did not deny the Son’s divinity. In Contra Celsum and other writings, Origen explicitly maintains the Son’s eternal generation, affirming that the Son shares in the Father’s divine essence. While Origen’s vocabulary predates later Trinitarian definitions, he clearly upheld the Son’s unique relationship with the Father, which is distinct from created beings. Accusing me of “helping” Origen or misrepresenting his words does not align with Origen’s well-documented position on the Son’s divinity, which is acknowledged by reputable Origen scholars like Joseph W. Trigg and Ronald Heine.
You suggest that Origen’s use of “divine” applies equally to angels and to Christ, thereby reducing the Son’s status. However, Origen made a clear distinction between the Son and created beings, even if he used the term “divine” more broadly than later theology. He recognized the Son as uniquely begotten and co-eternal with the Father, while angels and other beings are created. Your failure to recognize this nuance distorts Origen’s theological intent. Origen scholars frequently discuss how his use of “divine” aligns with his understanding of the Son’s unique generation and distinction from creatures.
Your reference to Jerome’s critique of Origen does not substantiate your argument. Jerome’s relationship with Origen’s work was complex; while Jerome respected Origen’s scholarship, he also criticized some of Origen’s views, especially in light of the Arian controversy. Jerome’s comparison of Origen to Arius is not definitive proof that Origen shared Arian beliefs. Rather, it reflects the post-Nicene sensitivity to any theological statements that could be interpreted as subordinationist. Origen’s theology predates Arianism, and he did not conceive of the Son’s “creation” in the Arian sense. As scholars such as Elizabeth A. Clark have noted, Origen’s theology was later misinterpreted and criticized due to doctrinal developments that postdated his writings.
Origen’s usage of terms like "firstborn" or "created" reflects a different theological framework than Arius. Origen, as a third-century theologian, uses the term "firstborn" to denote relational primacy, not chronological or ontological inferiority. His concept of the eternal generation of the Son illustrates that the Son is derived from the Father without implying a created status, an idea distinct from Arianism, which posits that the Son has a temporal beginning. So the fact that Jerome linked Origen to Arianism does not mean Origen actually held Arian views; rather, it reflects later theological polemics and misinterpretations of Origen's language. Even within Jerome’s criticisms, historical context is essential: Jerome’s views were partly influenced by theological controversies of his own time, and Jerome himself acknowledged that many writings attributed to Origen were tampered with over the years.
You argue that Origen’s language implies a “temporal” eternity for the Son, implying a beginning. This interpretation contradicts Origen’s concept of eternal generation, where the Son is continuously begotten by the Father without a starting point in time. Origen’s use of terms like “most ancient” refers to the Son’s primacy and role as the Logos, not a finite origin. Suggesting that Origen’s view aligns with Arian beliefs about the Son’s temporality misreads Origen’s statements. Scholars such as John Behr and Mark Edwards clarify that Origen saw the Son’s generation as an eternal act, not one bound by temporal limitations.
Your claim that I rely on “theologically motivated friends” like Trevor R. Allin without checking their credibility is unsubstantiated. While Allin and others may have differing interpretations, dismissing a source solely on hearsay without addressing the specific arguments presented reflects an ad hominem approach. Biblical exegesis requires examining arguments on their own merit, not discounting them based on personal opinions about the author. For instance, Colossians 2:9 has been widely debated, and both Allin’s and others’ interpretations should be considered carefully. Broadly rejecting sources without engagement limits meaningful discourse.
Your response reflects frustration rather than substantive engagement with scholarly arguments. Rather than addressing the points I have made, your approach relies on personal accusations, dismissive comments, and misrepresentations. I have repeatedly provided standard scholarly sources, carefully contextualized Origen’s theology, and clarified the semantic nuances of terms like qanah, arkhé and “firstborn.” If you are open to continuing this dialogue in a civil andd scholarly manner, I encourage you to engage with the specific arguments and sources I have presented rather than focusing on ad hominem attacks and generalizations.
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 claim my dictionary citation is fabricated because I haven’t provided a title. This accusation is unwarranted, as I have repeatedly used standard lexicons and reputable biblical dictionaries. Here is a direct citation: The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (BDB), which is widely recognized in academic settings, lists qanah with meanings such as “acquire,” “possess,” and “create” in certain contexts. You can refer to BDB under the entry for qanah for verification. Additionally, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) provides similar definitions, confirming the range of meanings and context-dependence of qanah. Accusing me of fabricating sources is an ad hominem attack that does not engage with the linguistic evidence I presented. I didn't mark the other dictionary because it's not in English, so obviously you wouldn't understand it, I translated the important part into English.
You claim that David was the “first” king “chosen” by God because he was from the Messianic line and not a direct descendant of Saul. However, this is not how “firstborn” is used in biblical contexts. “Firstborn” in Psalm 89:27 refers to David’s preeminence, not his chronological order or bloodline relation to Saul. Saul’s disqualification as king due to disobedience doesn’t alter the fact that he was the first king anointed by God for Israel. David being “firstborn” is about covenantal prominence, not temporal sequence, as demonstrated by similar symbolic uses of “firstborn” (e.g., Israel in Exodus 4:22 and Ephraim in Jeremiah 31:9).
You assert that “firstborn” has a temporal meaning in both Israel’s and Ephraim’s cases, citing Deuteronomy 32 and Jeremiah 31:9. However, these examples do not align with a strict chronological firstborn status. “Firstborn” for Israel signifies their unique covenantal relationship with God among the nations, not that they were literally the first nation. Likewise, Ephraim, though not literally the firstborn of Joseph’s sons, is given preeminence over his older brother, Manasseh, illustrating that “firstborn” often denotes rank or honor, not birth order. This is consistent with the non-literal use of “firstborn” for David in Psalm 89:27.
You requested reputable sources that support “firstborn” as a title of preeminence. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (AYBD) under the entry for “Firstborn” provides ample scholarly context showing that the term denotes preeminence or favored status in many biblical passages. Richard S. Hess’s commentary on “firstborn” also discusses its symbolic and covenantal uses. These are reputable sources widely accepted in scholarly circles, not works by “theologically motivated friends.”
You argue that Burney and the NET Bible favor “created” for qanah in Proverbs 8:22 based on the context of verses 23-25 and passages like Genesis 14:19, 20, and Deuteronomy 32:6. While some scholars, including Burney, interpret qanah in Proverbs 8 as “created,” others support “possessed” or “acquired,” arguing that the context refers to Wisdom’s eternal relationship with God rather than temporal creation. For example, The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE) suggests that qanah here implies acquisition in an eternal sense rather than creation in time. The NET Bible and Burney’s interpretation are valid, but they are not the only views among scholars.
In my previous point, I clarified that Eve’s use of qanah in Genesis 4:1 does not imply creation ex nihilo but rather acquisition with divine help. You misinterpret this by suggesting that I missed your point. My argument is that qanah denotes receiving or acquiring something with God’s assistance, aligning with the concept of procreation rather than the theological notion of ex nihilo creation. This example illustrates qanah’s flexibility and supports that Proverbs 8:22 could convey a relationship rather than an act of creation.
Your response accuses me of relying on “theologically motivated friends,” selective use of terms, and cherry-picking church fathers. However, my approach has consistently been based on recognized linguistic and exegetical methods. Biblical interpretation involves understanding linguistic, cultural, and historical contexts, which scholars across denominations apply. Accusations of bias without addressing the actual arguments are unproductive. If you prefer scholarly sources free of denominational influence, I recommend consulting works like The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, and the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, which reflect broad academic consensus.
Your latest response reflects frustration rather than substantive engagement with the textual and scholarly arguments provided. Addressing theological topics requires patience, thoroughness, and respect for different perspectives. I have repeatedly demonstrated a consistent approach based on reputable scholarship and linguistic analysis. If you are open to scholarly dialogue rather than personal attacks, I would be glad to continue our discussion and further explore the nuances of qanah and “firstborn” in the context of biblical theology.
Origen's passage in Against Celsus is often misunderstood in terms of its Christology, especially in light of Arius's later teachings. Although Origen describes the Son as “the First-born of all creation,” this phrase should not be interpreted in an Arian sense that places the Son among created beings, as a creature with a definitive beginning in time. Here’s why this passage does not support an Arian interpretation and how it should be properly understood within Origen’s theological framework.
When Origen uses the phrase "First-born of all creation," he does not mean that the Son is merely the foremost creature, as Arius would argue. Instead, in Origen’s theology, the term prototokos (πρωτότοκος) implies a unique and singular relationship between the Father and the Son, signifying the Son’s eternal generation. Origen saw the Son as eternally generated by the Father, meaning that the Son's "begottenness" is without beginning or end, a continuous, timeless act of the Father.
In the Greek text, the word πρεσβύτατον (presbyteros), meaning "most ancient," emphasizes the Son's existence before all creation, positioning the Son outside of the created order. Origen argues that the Son "is not recent," which directly counters any interpretation suggesting that the Son's existence had a beginning in time or that He could be classified among created beings.
Origen consistently differentiates between the eternal generation of the Son and the temporal act of creation. The Son’s “generation” from the Father is an eternal, ongoing relationship, not a moment in time like the creation of the world. This distinguishes the Son from creatures, who come into existence ex nihilo (from nothing) and at a distinct point in time. For Origen, the Son is begotten, not made, and He participates fully in the Father’s divine nature, which is an uncreated nature.
The phrase “the most ancient of all the works of creation” could be misleading without the broader context. Origen likely uses “works of creation” (δημιουργημάτων) not to imply that the Son is a creation, but to place the Son in a relation to creation as its divine origin. By saying the Son is “the most ancient,” Origen points to the Son’s primacy and role in creation, not His inclusion within the category of created things.
Additionally, in other writings, Origen makes it clear that while the Son has a “primacy” in relation to creation, He remains qualitatively different from it, sharing the Father’s divine essence in a way creatures cannot. Thus, when Origen refers to the Son in relation to creation, he emphasizes the Son’s distinction as the origin and sustainer of creation rather than as part of it.
Origen cites the Genesis account, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness," to show the Son’s presence with the Father before the act of creation. By associating the Son with the Father in the creative act, Origen reinforces that the Son is co-eternal with the Father and shares in the divine essence, acting as an agent of creation rather than as a created being.
This distinction aligns with Origen’s understanding that the Son is the divine Logos, who participates in the Father’s work as a unique, uncreated expression of God’s wisdom and power.
Origen’s theology as a whole clearly rejects the idea that the Son is a created being. Although Arius later attempted to use similar language to argue for the Son's subordination and created nature, Origen’s understanding of the Son’s eternal generation inherently contradicts any suggestion of temporal creation. Origen sees the Son’s divinity as fully participating in the Father’s essence, precluding any interpretation that would reduce the Son to the status of a creature.
Origen’s understanding of the term "created" (ktistós) in relation to the Son must be carefully contextualized to avoid confusion with later Arian interpretations that emerged in the 4th century. In Origen’s time, during the 3rd century, the vocabulary of "creation" and "creature" (ktisma) had a broader and less rigid theological application. The use of these terms did not automatically imply an inferior or ontologically separate nature from God, nor did it suggest that the Son was a creation in the Arian sense, as something entirely distinct from the Father’s essence or subordinate in divinity.
For Origen, "created" could refer to the Son’s role in relation to the created order, highlighting the Son's unique function as the "First-born of all creation," who mediates between God and creation. This expression emphasizes the Son's primacy and preeminence, and it aligns with Origen's conception of the Son as eternally begotten by the Father—an idea fundamentally different from the Arian notion of a created, finite being. Origen understood the Son to exist eternally with the Father, derived from the Father’s essence in a way that maintained full divinity, while also being distinct as a "hypostasis" or person.
Before the Arian controversy, the term "created" did not imply, as it did later under Arian influence, a clear subordinationist position or a denial of the Son’s divinity. Origen’s use of "created" thus reflected a flexible and nuanced approach, which was neither literal in the sense of a temporal beginning nor implying inferiority, but rather a metaphorical language to express the Son’s relationship to creation and the Father. In the 4th century, however, Arian theology rigidly reinterpreted "creation" to argue that the Son had a beginning in time and was of a different substance from the Father, which fundamentally departed from Origen’s theological framework.
Thus, Origen’s language regarding the Son as "created" or "first-born" should be understood within his context, where it did not denote the same implications that Arian thought later imposed. Instead, it was part of a rich, symbolic language used to affirm the Son’s role in creation while upholding his eternal and divine relationship to the Father.
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
Terms like qanah, which have multiple meanings (e.g., “acquire,” “possess,” “create”), are context-dependent. Your answer, “actually it does,” doesn’t provide specific evidence or a clear engagement with this principle of nuanced translation. Instead, you shift to discussing Aquila’s translation of Genesis 1:1 and the Septuagint (LXX). Aquila's and the LXX's translations may differ because they had different theological motivations and linguistic approaches. The Septuagint translators, for example, rendered Proverbs 8:22 with ektisen (created), likely influenced by a philosophical view of Wisdom’s relationship to God, not because qanah universally means “create.” Aquila, conversely, often emphasized literalism. This divergence doesn't invalidate your point that translators adapt meaning based on context; it actually supports it, highlighting the interpretive flexibility within the translation tradition.
You claim that David was the first king “begotten” or chosen by God, dismissing my argument about his non-literal “firstborn” status. To clarify, David was not the first king; Saul was. While David is called the “firstborn” (Psalm 89:27), this denotes his preeminence among kings, not a literal first in temporal order. The designation “firstborn” is often used symbolically in Scripture to denote preeminence or favor, as in the cases of Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9) and Israel (Exodus 4:22), neither of whom were literally firstborn. David’s status as “firstborn” underscores his preeminent role in God’s covenant, not a chronological birth order or literal first kingship. This argument is well-supported in biblical scholarship.
You accuse me of misrepresenting their view, stating that you never claimed Ephraim’s designation was about “birth” in a literal sense. I was correct in addressing the non-literal use of “firstborn.” In biblical contexts, the term “firstborn” often conveys priority in status rather than actual birth order. While you may not have directly stated a belief in literal birth order, their point about “pre-eminence” could imply a misunderstanding. Biblical usage shows that “firstborn” can denote a unique relationship or role (as with Ephraim) without implying that Christ was a part of creation as the Arians argued. This affirms the theological distinction between Christ as eternally begotten, not created or temporally first.
The Hebrew verb qanah indeed has a range of meanings that include “acquire,” “possess,” and in some cases “create,” depending on context. However, there is no inherent implication of “creation from nothing” (ex nihilo) in qanah. The fact that qanah can refer to acquiring or possessing something emphasizes a relationship rather than creation out of non-existence, especially in Proverbs 8:22, where Wisdom is traditionally understood as co-eternal with God in many interpretations. Your argument does not assume that they believe in ex nihilo creation but simply clarifies that qanah does not necessarily denote such an idea.
The appeal to cognate languages is standard in linguistic studies to understand potential meanings, but context in Hebrew is crucial. Burney uses Aramaic and Arabic cognates to illustrate possible meanings, yet he acknowledges that Hebrew usage must guide interpretation. The examples in Hebrew where qanah is translated as “create” do not inherently support an Arian interpretation of Proverbs 8:22. Each instance must be understood within its literary and theological context, which Burney and others do, without assuming a single, rigid meaning. Therefore, reliance on cognate languages does not detract from my point that qanah can mean “possess” in Proverbs 8.
You state, “Babies are technically ‘created.’” This is a misunderstanding of the argument. Eve’s use of qanah does not imply “creation out of nothing” but rather acknowledges God’s assistance in her ability to bear Cain. The point here is that qanah does not inherently imply “creation from nothing”; rather, it indicates acquisition or possession. Eve didn’t create Cain independently; she received him. Likewise, Proverbs 8:22’s use of qanah does not necessitate a literal creation but can imply the eternal relationship between God and Wisdom, understood in Christian theology as an attribute eternally “possessed” by God, not created.
Theological “motivation” may play a role in interpretation, but my approach here is exegetical, focusing on the text’s linguistic and historical context. Accusations of theological bias or trolling do not engage with the substance of my argument, which relies on recognized principles of exegesis and interpretation rather than doctrinal presuppositions. A respectful and reasoned dialogue about different interpretations could allow both parties to explore the text more deeply.
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.
167
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.
167
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.