Posts by aqwsed12345

posted

28
Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity
by joey jojo in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.
aqwsed12345
@Touchofgrey
Some resources for you:
The pagan triads listed (e.g., Osiris, Horus, Isis; Zeus, Apollo, Athena) are collections of three distinct deities, often grouped together due to familial relationships, shared attributes, or functional roles. These triads do not represent a single, unified Godhead, as in Christian theology, where the Trinity is one God in three co-equal, co-eternal persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). In contrast, pagan triads are polytheistic and lack the ontological unity that defines the Christian Trinity. For example Osiris, Horus, and Isis are three separate deities with individual roles and functions in Egyptian mythology. There is no claim of unity or shared essence among them. This contrasts sharply with the Christian doctrine, which insists on a single divine essence shared among the three persons.

The claim that Christians "copied" pagan trinities is an example of a post hoc fallacy—assuming that because pagan religions had triadic deities first, the Christian Trinity must have been derived from them. Correlation does not imply causation. Many human cultures independently arrived at the idea of groupings of three, as the number three often symbolizes completeness or balance, but this does not establish a causal connection. Even if there are superficial parallels (e.g., groups of three), these do not imply doctrinal borrowing. The Christian Trinity arises from divine revelation and is deeply rooted in Jewish monotheism, which strictly opposed pagan polytheism.

The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from Scripture, not external sources. The Old Testament hints at plurality within God's unity (e.g., Genesis 1:26; Isaiah 48:16), and the New Testament makes it explicit (e.g., Matthew 28:19; John 1:1-14; 2 Corinthians 13:14). While the formal articulation of the Trinity occurred at councils such as Nicaea (325 AD) and Constantinople (381 AD), this was not the “invention” of a new doctrine but the clarification and defense of what the Church had always believed. The apostles' writings already affirm Christ's divinity (e.g., John 20:28; Philippians 2:6-11) and the Holy Spirit's personhood (e.g., Acts 5:3-4).

The claim that the apostles did not subscribe to the Trinity is false. While the term "Trinity" does not appear in the New Testament, the concept is present. Jesus explicitly identifies Himself with the Father (John 10:30) and promises the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). The baptismal formula (Matthew 28:19) invokes the three persons of the Godhead.

Early Christian writers like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus (2nd century) affirmed the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, laying the groundwork for the later Trinitarian formulations. The Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople did not invent the Trinity but responded to heresies (e.g., Arianism) by affirming and clarifying the Church’s belief. The Trinity was implicit in Christian worship and theology from the beginning, as seen in early creeds and doxologies.

The claim that the Babylonians worshipped a Trinity of Venus, the moon, and the sun is misleading. While Babylonian religion included celestial worship, it did not describe these as three persons of a single divine essence. Instead, they represented distinct celestial bodies.

Zeus, Athena, and Apollo are part of a vast pantheon with no unity of essence. The notion that they "agree in one" is an invention with no historical basis.

Jupiter, Mercury, and Venus were local adaptations of Roman gods, again illustrating polytheistic worship rather than a monotheistic tri-unity.
The argument that Christian doctrines, such as the Trinity, were "borrowed" from earlier pagan religions often relies on identifying superficial similarities between Christian beliefs and elements of pagan mythology. This approach, epitomized by Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, assumes without sufficient evidence that any resemblance automatically implies direct influence or "adoption". While this claim may appear persuasive at first glance, it is fundamentally flawed because it commits the genetic fallacy.
The genetic fallacy occurs when someone argues that the origin or source of an idea determines its truth or validity. In essence, the fallacy attempts to dismiss or discredit a belief based on its alleged origin rather than addressing the belief itself on its merits. For example, saying that a moral principle is invalid simply because it was first articulated by a flawed individual is a clear example of the genetic fallacy.
In the case of the "borrowed from paganism" argument, the fallacy lies in claiming that because some pagan religions included triads or other superficially similar concepts, Christian beliefs about the Trinity must be unoriginal, false, or derivative. This reasoning sidesteps the theological, historical, and scriptural basis of Christian doctrines and instead dismisses them purely based on alleged parallels.
Identifying similarities between two belief systems does not prove that one actually influenced the other. Human cultures often develop similar ideas independently due to shared human experiences and reasoning. For example, the concept of a divine triad in pagan religions often reflects attempts to organize their pantheons into groups for philosophical or symbolic reasons, which differ fundamentally from the Christian Trinity as a revealed doctrine.
The argument frequently overlooks significant theological differences between the Christian Trinity and pagan triads. Pagan triads often represent three separate gods with distinct roles, while the Christian Trinity asserts one God in three consubstantial persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Christian Trinity is uniquely monotheistic, grounded in scriptural revelation, and distinct from the polytheistic frameworks of pagan triads.
The claim of direct "borrowing" lacks historical evidence. The early Church Fathers explicitly rejected pagan practices and beliefs, frequently critiquing them as incompatible with Christian theology. If the Trinity were merely an adaptation of a pagan concept, one would expect more explicit acknowledgment or controversy about such “borrowing” in early Christian writings, but no such evidence exists.

Hislop's method exemplifies a predetermined agenda: to portray Christianity as corrupted by paganism. By starting with the assumption that "borrowing" occurred, he interprets every similarity as proof of his thesis, ignoring alternative explanations and evidence that contradict his conclusions.

The claim that "historians of church dogma agree the Trinity was not part of the first-century church" is false and misrepresents scholarship. While the precise terminology developed later, the belief in the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was integral to early Christianity.

So the argument that Christianity borrowed the Trinity from pagan sources collapses under scrutiny. The pagan triads cited are fundamentally different in nature, purpose, and theology from the Christian Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity is uniquely Christian, rooted in divine revelation, and deeply anchored in Scripture and the apostolic faith. Pagan trinities reflect human speculation and polytheism, while the Christian Trinity reveals the mystery of the one true God in three persons.
The "borrowed from paganism" argument is an oversimplification that fails to engage with the substantive theological, historical, and philosophical foundations of Christian doctrines like the Trinity. By committing the genetic fallacy, this argument distracts from the real questions of whether a belief is true or well-founded. Superficial similarities between Christianity and pagan religions do not prove borrowing, and the unique, revealed nature of Christian theology stands as evidence against such claims.
28
Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity
by joey jojo in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.
aqwsed12345

Jesus’ ability to resurrect himself is indeed a demonstration of his deity. The Resurrection is a Trinitarian act: the Father raised the Son (Acts 2:24), the Son raised himself (John 10:17–18), and the Spirit was also involved in the act (Romans 8:11). This reflects the unity of will and essence in the Trinity. Nicene theology affirms that Jesus, being fully God and fully man, acted in concert with the Father and the Spirit. His declaration in John 10:17–18 does not contradict this but rather reveals the intimate cooperation and shared essence of the Trinity.
The claim that Arianism morphed into anti-Trinitarianism much later and that early Arianism rejected Christ’s divinity outright is misleading, The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD convened to address the Arian controversy, specifically whether Jesus Christ was of the "same substance" (homoousios) as the Father or merely "similar substance" (homoiousios). Arius taught that the Son was created and, therefore, not co-eternal with the Father, which undermined his full divinity. The assertion that Arian theology led to pagan Roman polytheism is baseless. Arians did not advocate for polytheism; rather, they diminished Christ’s divinity, which is a different theological error. The Council of Nicaea affirmed Christ’s divinity to protect monotheism, as denying Jesus' co-eternity and consubstantiality with the Father would fracture the unity of God.
The Council of Nicaea was not an arbitrary "vote" like fans debating which Star Wars episode is best. It was a gathering of bishops from across Christendom to preserve the apostolic faith in the face of theological division. The homoousios formula was not a novelty but a clarification of what the Church had always believed: that Jesus Christ is fully God, co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father. The claim that the Council was simply an exercise in "agreeing Star Wars is better than Star Trek" ignores the profound theological and pastoral concerns that drove the early Church Fathers to preserve Christian orthodoxy. This analogy belittles centuries of theological reflection and the effort to safeguard Christian truth against heresy.
The suggestion that the Trinity was "borrowed" from pagan sources is a recycled and widely debunked claim. The doctrine of the Trinity is grounded in divine revelation, not syncretism with pagan ideas. The Old Testament reveals a monotheistic God, while the New Testament clarifies the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 1:1–14, 2 Corinthians 13:14). Early Christians wrestled with these truths to articulate the mystery of God’s triune nature, not to adopt pagan polytheistic concepts. Pagan triads, such as those in Egyptian or Babylonian religions, represent separate gods who share a loose association. The Christian Trinity, by contrast, consists of three persons in one Godhead, co-equal and co-eternal, sharing the same divine essence. This is fundamentally different from pagan polytheism.
While later anti-Trinitarian movements (e.g., Socinianism, Jehovah’s Witness theology) share similarities with Arianism, these are distinct developments. Arianism’s core error was its denial of Christ’s co-eternity with the Father, whereas later movements often deny the deity of Christ altogether.
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

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

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
aqwsed12345
@Duran
1. The Man of Lawlessness (MOL, 2 Thessalonians 2:8) is described by Paul as an agent of lawlessness who opposes God and exalts himself in God’s temple. Paul says the Lord Jesus will destroy the MOL “by the breath of his mouth” and bring him to nothing “by the appearance of his coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8). The MOL is not limited to a single historical figure or future entity. Rather, it represents a recurring pattern of rebellion and apostasy throughout history. The Church Fathers and theologians often identified it with heretical movements, persecuting governments, or individuals who attempt to usurp God’s authority. The "temple of God" refers to the Church or the community of believers (1 Corinthians 3:16-17). Thus, the MOL operates within the Church or against it, leading many into error. The end of the MOL is tied to Christ’s second coming, as Paul explicitly states. However, this "destruction" is spiritual, not necessarily tied to a specific regime or individual in history.
So the MOL represents a pattern of rebellion against God rather than a single individual or political entity. As noted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12, the MOL is characterized by apostasy and self-exaltation, seeking to replace God within His "temple," which Paul uses metaphorically to describe the Church or God's people (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17). The MOL’s work culminates at Christ's second coming ("the brightness of His coming," 2 Thessalonians 2:8). Christ defeats the MOL through His divine power, not through military or human means. The "breath of His mouth" (2 Thessalonians 2:8) symbolizes the Word of God and His ultimate authority. The MOL has been manifested throughout history in various anti-Christian powers and movements, such as heretical sects, political regimes persecuting the Church, and false messianic claims. It is not limited to a single "8th king" or future figure.
2. The King of the North (KOTN, Daniel 11:45) is Antiochus IV Epiphanes historically, an oppressive ruler against the Jewish people. However, in the broader eschatological view, it prefigures future adversaries of God’s kingdom. The apocalyptic language in Daniel often shifts between historical events and prophetic symbolism. The KOTN’s end is described in apocalyptic terms: "He shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, with none to help him" (Daniel 11:45). This prefigures the ultimate defeat of all anti-God forces, culminating in Christ's triumph at the end of time. Catholic eschatology does not bind this prophecy to a specific modern political power or a future "8th king" as proposed by speculative interpretations.
So Daniel 11’s "King of the North" initially referred to historical figures, particularly Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a Hellenistic ruler who desecrated the Jerusalem Temple (Daniel 11:31). Catholic interpretation, rooted in typology, sees Antiochus as a precursor to the ultimate enemies of God's people in history and eschatology. The KOTN’s "end" occurs as divine judgment intervenes ("he will come to his end, and no one will help him," Daniel 11:45). The apocalyptic imagery signals God's sovereign action. This judgment, historically fulfilled in part, typologically points to Christ's final victory over all anti-Christian powers. The KOTN is not explicitly equated with the 8th king or the MOL. Your attempt to conflate them lacks textual evidence and relies on speculative eschatology, ignoring the historical layers of Daniel’s prophecy.
3. The 8th King (Revelation 17:11-14): Revelation 17:11 describes the 8th king as part of the series of kings symbolizing oppressive world powers. The text says the 8th king "goes to destruction." The beast and its kings represent oppressive regimes or systems throughout history that persecute the Church. The 8th king is not a single future ruler but symbolizes the final manifestation of anti-Christian power, culminating in its defeat by Christ. The text portrays Christ as victorious over the 8th king and his allies (Revelation 17:14). This defeat aligns with Christ’s final judgment and the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom.
So the "8th king" in Revelation 17:11 symbolizes ongoing opposition to God, encapsulating characteristics of the previous seven kings (representing historical kingdoms opposed to God’s people). The 8th king is more a concept of ultimate rebellion rather than a singular, future political leader. The 8th king is judged at the final consummation, which coincides with the defeat of all enemies of Christ (Revelation 17:14; 19:19-21). The Lamb (Christ) conquers the beast and the 8th king through His divine authority and the faithfulness of His saints. Your view imposes a literalistic, futuristic reading onto symbolic apocalyptic texts, conflating distinct visions into a single timeline. Revelation’s imagery transcends specific events, pointing to the Church's struggle throughout history and ultimate vindication.
4. The Beast and False Prophet: Revelation 19:20 describes the beast and the false prophet being thrown into the "lake of fire." The beast represents political and worldly systems opposed to God, while the false prophet symbolizes false religions and ideologies supporting these systems. Their destruction in the "lake of fire" symbolizes the ultimate triumph of Christ over evil. This does not imply a single event but represents the culmination of God’s judgment at the end of history.
So the beast and false prophet symbolize systems and ideologies opposing God. Historically, they have been associated with the Roman Empire's persecution of Christians, but they also typify all anti-Christian forces throughout history. Their judgment occurs in the eschaton, as described in Revelation 19:20. The "fiery lake" symbolizes eternal separation from God, a fate reserved for all who persist in rebellion (Revelation 20:10). Revelation's vivid imagery serves to inspire hope in God’s ultimate victory, not to provide a chronological blueprint of end-times events. The beast and false prophet are judged alongside other symbolic representations of evil, highlighting the totality of God’s triumph.
You conflate the MOL, KOTN, 8th king, and the beasts of Revelation, suggesting they are the same entity or regime. This interpretation is inconsistent with the texts:
- 2 Thessalonians 2 focuses on apostasy and rebellion within the Church, describing the MOL in spiritual terms.
- Daniel 11 reflects historical events (e.g., Antiochus IV) while pointing symbolically to future anti-God forces.
- Revelation 17 and 19 use apocalyptic imagery to depict worldly powers and their ultimate defeat, not specific individuals or regimes.
Your approach assumes a strict literalist reading of apocalyptic texts, which Catholic tradition rejects. Revelation and Daniel employ symbolic language to convey spiritual truths, not detailed timelines or political predictions. Each figure serves a distinct purpose within its respective biblical context. Conflating them ignores the nuances of apocalyptic and prophetic genres. Catholic teaching recognizes historical fulfillments (e.g., Antiochus IV, Roman Empire) as prefiguring ongoing and eschatological struggles. Your interpretation disregards this dual aspect. Apocalyptic literature often employs symbols to convey theological truths rather than provide literal descriptions of future events. Your rigid literalism distorts the texts' meaning. Revelation and Daniel emphasize God’s sovereignty over history, not a detailed timetable of political events. Catholic theology resists speculative end-times scenarios that distract from Christ’s present reign and call to faithfulness.
The "abomination of desolation" (Matthew 24:15; Daniel 11:31) refers historically to the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV. Jesus applies it typologically to future events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. It symbolizes acts of sacrilege and rebellion against God, recurring throughout history until the final judgment.
The "42 months" (Revelation 13:5) symbolizes a limited period of persecution. It parallels Daniel's "time, times, and half a time" (Daniel 7:25) and is not a literal timeframe. This period represents the trials faced by the Church throughout history, culminating in intensified persecution before Christ’s return.
The GT (Matthew 24:21) is not a singular future event but describes the Church's ongoing trials. It culminates in a final period of suffering but is not limited to the 42 months or tied exclusively to a future 8th king.
Your interpretation relies on speculative connections and a rigid literalism inconsistent with the symbolic nature of apocalyptic texts. Catholic teaching provides a more coherent and historically grounded understanding:
- The MOL, KOTN, 8th king, and beasts symbolize recurring anti-God forces across history.
- The "42 months" and GT represent the Church’s enduring trials, culminating in Christ’s ultimate victory.
- Apocalyptic literature conveys spiritual truths and hope for the faithful, not a detailed political timeline.
Your framework conflates distinct biblical symbols into a singular speculative narrative, distorting their meaning and theological significance. Instead, focus on the consistent message of Scripture: Christ’s triumph over evil and the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom. Rather than fostering speculative fear or obsession with timelines, Catholic eschatology encourages trust in Christ’s victory, participation in His mission, and hope in the new creation.
28
Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity
by joey jojo in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.
aqwsed12345

Constantine’s edict to burn Arian writings does not imply that the Nicene Creed or the doctrine of the Trinity was politically motivated or “invented” by Constantine. This decree must be understood in the historical context of Constantine's effort to maintain unity in the Church and the Empire. Arianism, by denying the full divinity of Christ, introduced significant division within the Christian community. Constantine’s decision to suppress Arian writings reflects his desire to quell what he saw as a source of discord, not a theological imposition.
The decree demonstrates Constantine’s role as a political unifier, not as a theological innovator. The condemnation of heretical writings, such as Arian documents, was consistent with the Church’s established practice of preserving orthodoxy and combating doctrinal error, long before Constantine’s time.
While Constantine convened and presided over the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, his role was that of a mediator rather than a theological decision-maker. The theological content of the Nicene Creed, including the term homoousios ("of the same substance"), was debated and determined by the bishops present at the council. Historical records, such as those of Eusebius of Caesarea and Athanasius of Alexandria, affirm that Constantine did not dictate theological outcomes but deferred to the expertise of the bishops.
Constantine’s advocacy for homoousios likely stemmed from the influence of his advisor, Bishop Hosius of Cordova, and was not a result of personal theological insight. Moreover, Constantine's support of the Nicene position fluctuated; he later showed leniency toward Arianism, suggesting that his actions were driven more by political expediency than theological conviction.
The claim that Constantine manipulated or destroyed early biblical manuscripts to align with Nicene theology is baseless. Thousands of New Testament manuscripts, including papyri predating Constantine (e.g., P52, P46), demonstrate remarkable consistency in affirming the deity of Christ. Early textual evidence, such as John 1:1 and Philippians 2:6-11, supports the Nicene understanding of Christ’s divinity. Scholars like Bart Ehrman, while critical of certain aspects of Christianity, affirm the reliability of the New Testament text.
Furthermore, writings refuting Arianism and other heresies, such as those of Athanasius, preserve extensive quotations of Arian arguments, indicating that opposing views were not systematically erased but engaged and refuted.
While Constantine’s decree against Arian writings might appear harsh, it reflects the standards of the time for addressing heresy, not an "invention" of doctrine. Heretical texts, such as Gnostic and Arian writings, were condemned because they contradicted the apostolic faith and sowed confusion. This practice aligns with the Church’s role in safeguarding orthodoxy, as seen in other periods, including the suppression of Montanism and Donatism.
So Constantine's edict to burn Arian writings was not an isolated event in Church history, nor was it an attempt to impose an "invented" theology. As mentioned earlier, it reflected Constantine's desire to maintain unity within the Church and, by extension, his empire. The Nicene Council’s condemnation of Arianism as heresy, and the subsequent suppression of Arian texts, were consistent with the Church’s long-established practices of combating what it considered doctrinal errors.
The Arian party, however, did not remain a powerless or purely victimized group. After Constantine’s death in 337 AD, his successors, particularly Constantius II, who leaned toward Arianism, supported the suppression of Nicene Christians. Figures such as Athanasius of Alexandria were exiled multiple times under Arian-influenced imperial policies. This demonstrates that the political alignment with theological positions was fluid and subject to change depending on the ruler. Neither Arians nor Nicene Christians were immune from persecution when they found themselves on the losing side of imperial favor.
The persecution of Athanasius is a prime example of how the pendulum swung against the Nicene position in the mid-fourth century. Athanasius, one of the staunchest defenders of Nicene orthodoxy, was exiled five times and faced relentless opposition from Arian bishops and emperors. During these periods, Nicene Christians endured significant hardships, with many bishops removed from their positions and exiled. This underscores the reality that the conflict was not one-sided but rather a series of struggles for dominance within the Church.
The Nicene-Arian conflict illustrates the close entanglement of theology and imperial politics in late antiquity. While modern sensibilities about religious freedom might criticize Constantine’s edict, it must be understood within the context of the time. The Roman Empire lacked the concept of religious pluralism as we understand it today. The prevailing view was that theological unity was essential for political and social stability. The suppression of heretical texts, whether by Nicene or Arian supporters, was seen as a necessary measure to protect the unity of the Church and the Empire.
It is also important to emphasize that the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity were not political fabrications but theological conclusions rooted in Scripture and the early Church’s reflection on Christ’s identity. The Nicene Creed was developed through rigorous theological debate among bishops who sought to articulate the apostolic faith. The term "homoousios" ("of the same substance") was not an "imposition" by Constantine but a term debated and adopted by the council to affirm the full divinity of Christ as consistent with Scripture.
Arians themselves relied on imperial power when it served their purposes, further demonstrating that theological disputes were not purely about doctrine but were often intertwined with political strategies.
To judge these events by the standards of modern religious freedom is to project anachronistic concepts onto a very different cultural and historical context. The fourth century did not operate with the ideals of individual conscience and religious pluralism that emerged much later. Instead, unity in belief was considered integral to the stability of society, and heresy was seen not merely as a religious error but as a threat to public order.
While Constantine’s decree to burn Arian books may appear draconian to modern observers, it was consistent with the norms of the time. The Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity were not inventions of Constantine but theological developments grounded in Scripture and affirmed through rigorous debate. Similarly, the Arian party, when politically empowered, acted no less harshly against its opponents. These historical dynamics highlight the complexities of early Church politics and theology, which cannot be simplistically reduced to accusations of fabrication or coercion.
https://www.fourthcentury.com
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

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

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

@Duran
I would like to ask you to avoid copying whole Bible chapters in the future, especially from the NWT, I can find it too.
You interpret the 42 months in Revelation (13:5; 11:2; 12:6) as a literal 3.5-year period, tied to a future reign of the "8th king." However, this approach overemphasizes literalism in apocalyptic literature. The 42 months (or 1,260 days, or “time, times, and half a time”) is a recurring motif in apocalyptic literature (Daniel 7:25; Daniel 12:7; Revelation 11:2; Revelation 12:6). It symbolizes a limited period of tribulation or persecution, not a precise, literal timeframe. This aligns with the apocalyptic genre's use of symbolic numbers to convey theological truths rather than exact durations. For example, the 42 months during which the beast "acts" (Revelation 13:5) parallels the period when the holy city is "trampled" (Revelation 11:2). Both depict the Church's trials during the current age, not a future geopolitical event. The 42 months and related imagery reflect the Church’s experience of tribulation throughout history, particularly under Roman persecution and later challenges. Catholic theology interprets these periods as representative of the Church's ongoing struggle against evil, culminating in Christ’s final victory. This approach avoids speculative futurism.
You equate the MOL in 2 Thessalonians 2 with the 8th king and other apocalyptic figures, claiming they are the same entity. This interpretation is speculative and unsupported by a careful reading of the texts. St. Paul’s description of the MOL emphasizes spiritual rebellion, deception, and opposition to God (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4). Catholic tradition often interprets this figure as a symbol of ultimate apostasy, which can manifest across history, not just in a single end-time figure. The "temple of God" where the MOL sits (2 Thessalonians 2:4) is not a physical structure but represents the Church or God's spiritual dwelling (1 Corinthians 3:16-17; Ephesians 2:19-22). This reinforces the MOL’s spiritual and ecclesiastical dimension rather than tying him to a specific political ruler. The MOL is distinct from the 8th king in Revelation 17, who symbolizes corrupt worldly powers opposing God throughout history. Equating these figures merges separate apocalyptic motifs without textual evidence. The 8th king reflects recurring cycles of political and spiritual opposition to God, not a singular end-time ruler.
You cite Matthew 24:15 and Daniel 11:31, arguing that the "disgusting thing" references an 8th king desecrating God’s people globally. However, this interpretation is overly rigid and speculative. In Matthew 24:15, Jesus references Daniel’s prophecy about the "abomination of desolation." Historically, this refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ desecration of the Jerusalem temple (167 BC). In Jesus' time, it prefigured the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Catholic theology sees this prophecy as partially fulfilled in AD 70 but also applicable to recurring desecrations of sacred things throughout history, not a singular future event tied to the 8th king. The "holy place" in these texts symbolizes either the physical temple (in historical contexts) or the Church as God’s spiritual dwelling. It does not necessitate a future geopolitical fulfillment.
Your framework merges apocalyptic texts from Daniel, 2 Thessalonians, and Revelation into a speculative timeline involving WW3, the 42 months, the 8th king, and Christ’s return. This approach has significant flaws. Scripture does not provide a precise sequence of events leading to Christ’s return. Attempts to construct detailed chronologies often distort the texts and ignore their symbolic nature. Apocalyptic literature uses symbols to convey spiritual truths about God’s ultimate victory over evil, not to outline exact future events. Over-literalizing these symbols leads to confusion and speculative interpretations. The Catholic Church teaches that Christ’s return will coincide with the general resurrection and final judgment (1 Corinthians 15:52; John 5:28-29). There is no intermediate millennial kingdom or extended sequence of geopolitical events between Christ’s return and the fulfillment of God’s plan.
You assert that the GT is a future, singular event tied to the 8th king’s rule. Catholic theology offers a broader perspective. The GT represents the Church’s trials throughout history, beginning with the destruction of Jerusalem and continuing through ongoing persecution and suffering (John 16:33; Revelation 12:17). While there may be an intensification of tribulation before Christ’s return, this does not correspond to a singular geopolitical event. Catholic teaching emphasizes that Christ’s return will bring an end to all tribulation, ushering in the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21:1-4). This event is not preceded by speculative sequences but remains a moment of divine mystery and fulfillment.
28
Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity
by joey jojo in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.
aqwsed12345
What Really Happened at Nicea?
The role of Constantine in the Nicene creed
The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) did not “create” the doctrine of the Trinity. The council primarily addressed the Arian controversy, specifically whether Jesus was of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father or a created being. The Trinity as a concept—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing one divine essence—was already a well-established belief in early Christianity before Nicaea, as seen in the writings of Church Fathers like Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian.
- Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 CE): Refers to Jesus as God multiple times, showing an early understanding of His deity (e.g., Letter to the Ephesians 7:2, 18:2).
- Tertullian (c. 200 CE): Explicitly uses the term Trinitas to describe the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Adversus Praxean 2).
- Origen (c. 185–254 CE): Describes the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, reflecting a nuanced Trinitarian theology (De Principiis I.2.6).
These early writings demonstrate that the concept of the Trinity was not invented at Nicaea but was already part of Christian theological reflection.
Constantine did not "create" or dictate the doctrine of the Trinity. His primary concern was maintaining unity in the empire, not theological details. He called the Council of Nicaea to resolve disputes that were causing division but did not personally influence the theological outcomes. Constantine's role was that of a mediator and facilitator, not a theological arbiter.
The assertion that the Council of Nicaea involved “a narrow selection” of attendees is misleading. While it is true that not all bishops from the Christian world were present, the council was well-attended, with over 300 bishops from diverse regions. According to Eusebius and other historical accounts, bishops from across the Roman Empire, including the East and West, participated. While certain fringe theological views (e.g., adoptionism and docetism) were not directly represented, this was because these views had already been widely condemned by the broader Christian community and were not under consideration at Nicaea.
The council's purpose was not to explore every theological perspective but to address the Arian controversy, which directly challenged the deity of Christ and the unity of the Godhead. By focusing on Arianism, the council sought to maintain the doctrinal integrity of the Church. Furthermore, the bishops present at Nicaea were deeply committed Christians, many of whom had endured persecution for their faith under prior emperors. The council's decision was not a "political imposition" but a theological consensus among the majority of bishops, affirming the deity of Christ as consistent with apostolic teaching.
While theological debates existed in the early Church, this does not mean the Trinity was “a late invention”. The debates often centered on how best to articulate the relationship between the Father and the Son, not whether Jesus was divine. For example the Apostles and their immediate followers affirmed Jesus' deity, as seen in New Testament texts (e.g., John 1:1, Philippians 2:6–11, Colossians 1:15–20) and early creeds like the Old Roman Symbol. Arius' position—that the Son was a created being and not co-eternal with the Father—was a deviation from the mainstream Christian understanding, which is why it was condemned.
The description of Logos theology as teaching a "two-stage existence" is a misunderstanding of the theological context. Logos theology, rooted in the writings of early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Origen, and later Athanasius, emphasized the eternal pre-existence of the Logos (Word) as co-equal with God the Father. The Logos was not "created" at the time of creation but was eternally begotten of the Father.
This concept is distinct from the Arian interpretation, which asserted that the Logos was a created being and thus subordinate to the Father. The Nicene Creed explicitly rejected the Arian view, affirming that the Son is "begotten, not made, of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father."

The claim that Logos theology was localized to Alexandria and a few African provinces is historically inaccurate. Logos theology was a central feature of early Christian thought, influencing not only Alexandrian theologians but also those in Asia Minor, Rome, and elsewhere. For example, Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian in Carthage also reflected elements of Logos theology in their writings.
Arianism influenced many parts of the Christian world, including the Roman Empire, Visigothic Spain, and North Africa. The assertion that "the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian" (Jerome) highlights the extent to which Arianism gained traction, particularly among ruling elites and some ecclesiastical leaders. However, this does not imply that Arianism was the dominant theological position within the Church; rather, it underscores the controversy and political struggles of the time. Jerome's statement that "the whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian" reflects the political and ecclesiastical struggles of his time. It does not imply that Arianism represented the authentic teaching of the Church but rather that it had gained significant influence due to imperial support and internal conflicts. Ultimately, the Nicene Creed prevailed as the definitive expression of orthodox Christian belief, reaffirming the Church's commitment to the biblical witness of Christ's deity and the unity of the Godhead.
The claim that Arius did not reject the Trinity is a misunderstanding. While Arius's Christology acknowledged some form of divinity in Christ, it fundamentally denied the co-equality and co-eternity of the Son with the Father. This denial is incompatible with orthodox Trinitarianism. Arius's teaching that the Son was a created being—albeit the highest of all created beings—was the central point of contention at Nicaea.

Furthermore, Arius's theology diverges significantly from modern Jehovah's Witness theology, which identifies Jesus as Michael the Archangel and denies his deity altogether. This demonstrates that Arianism, while influential, is not the same as later non-Trinitarian movements.
You claim that the Church may have destroyed early manuscripts to remove opposing ideas and subtly altered the New Testament to align with Nicene doctrines. This conspiracy theory lacks historical evidence and contradicts the facts about the transmission of the New Testament. We have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, many predating Nicaea. These include papyri such as P52 (John’s Gospel, early 2nd century), which show remarkable consistency with later copies. Modern scholars, including those critical of Christianity (e.g., Bart Ehrman), affirm that the New Testament text is well-preserved and that no significant doctrinal changes were introduced through textual corruption. Early heretical writings, like those of the Gnostics and Arians, were not systematically destroyed. We know of these views because the early Church preserved writings refuting them.
While the term Trinity does not appear in the Bible, the concept is clearly present in the New Testament:
- Matthew 28:19: Jesus commands baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, presenting them as coequal.
- John 1:1: "The Word was with God, and the Word was God," affirming the divine nature of the Son.
- 2 Corinthians 13:14: Paul’s benediction invokes the grace of Jesus, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, reflecting Trinitarian theology.
These passages align with the Trinity doctrine, which systematizes biblical truths rather than imposing foreign ideas.
The claim that no 1st-century Christian, including Paul, believed in the Trinity misunderstands the development of Christian doctrine. The Trinity as a fully articulated doctrine emerged through theological reflection on the biblical witness, not as a sudden invention. The New Testament contains numerous affirmations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as sharing divine attributes (e.g., Matthew 28:19, John 1:1, 2 Corinthians 13:14). Early Christians, including Paul, affirmed the deity of Christ (Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20) and the Holy Spirit's divine role (Acts 5:3-4).

The Nicene Creed formalized these beliefs into a coherent statement to combat heretical distortions, but it did not invent them. The idea of the Trinity is a synthesis of scriptural truths, not a creation of the 4th-century Church.
So the doctrine of the Trinity was not “invented” at Nicaea but was the natural outcome of biblical reflection and theological articulation. The early Church’s commitment to Jesus’ deity and the unity of God is evident in both Scripture and pre-Nicene writings. The widespread controversy over Arianism demonstrates the need for such councils to safeguard orthodoxy. Historical and theological evidence supports the conclusion that the Trinity is a biblically grounded doctrine, affirmed by the early Church and essential to Christian faith. Claims of political imposition or suppression of manuscripts are unfounded conspiracy theories that do not align with historical evidence. Instead, the Trinity doctrine faithfully expresses the biblical witness to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Some resources for you:
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

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

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

@Duran
While you may claim not to "parrot" JW interpretations, much of your eschatological framework aligns with their overall method of reading apocalyptic texts: rigid literalism and speculative sequencing of future events. The NWT is widely criticized for its theological bias, particularly in passages related to Christ's deity (e.g., John 1:1, Colossians 1:15-20) and eschatology. While you state that you consult other translations, your arguments often reflect the linguistic and theological assumptions embedded in the NWT. Using a more scholarly and widely accepted translation, like the NRSVue or ESV, would ensure that your interpretations are not unduly influenced by the NWT’s peculiar renderings.
While you distance yourself from certain specific JW interpretations (e.g., the timing of Christ’s kingship in 1914 or the first resurrection in 1918), your broader framework—such as equating the MOL with the 8th king, a rigidly literal interpretation of the 42 months, and a future physical reign on earth—still reflects an eschatological approach that relies on speculative and selective literalism, a hallmark of JW theology. Simply disagreeing with JWs on certain points does not exempt your overall framework from critique, especially when it relies on similar interpretative methods.
You assert that your interpretations are derived directly from Scripture. However, your approach selectively applies literalism to symbolic texts like Revelation, leading to conclusions that overlook the genre and purpose of apocalyptic literature. Revelation 13’s 42 months is symbolic of a period of intense persecution and opposition to God, not a literal three-and-a-half-year rule of a specific political entity like the "8th king." The 8th king (Revelation 17:11) symbolizes recurring systems of human rebellion against God, culminating in a final opposition before Christ's return. It is not limited to a singular future ruler.
Equating the MOL with the 8th king and other apocalyptic figures (e.g., King of the North, small horn) is speculative and unsupported by Scripture. Paul’s reference to the MOL in 2 Thessalonians 2 speaks to a spiritual rebellion, which Catholic teaching sees as applicable across history, not confined to one individual or regime. Your claim that the MOL sits in God’s temple (2 Thessalonians 2:4) being the same as the 8th king in Revelation 17 misreads both texts. The "temple" in Paul’s writing likely refers to the Church or God's spiritual dwelling, not a literal structure tied to a specific political entity.
Apocalyptic literature uses vivid symbols, not to create a precise timeline of future events, but to convey spiritual truths about God’s ultimate victory over evil. Over-literalizing these texts, as you do with the 42 months and the 8th king, distorts their theological message.
You cite Mark 13:24-26 to assert that Christ’s return occurs after a singular, future tribulation period. Catholic teaching agrees that Christ’s second coming will follow great tribulation, but it views tribulation as a recurring reality, not a one-time event. Catholic theology recognizes the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as a historical fulfillment of Jesus' warnings in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, prefiguring ongoing trials faced by the Church throughout history. The GT is not limited to a single end-time event but represents the broader struggle between the Church and the forces of evil (John 16:33; Revelation 12:13-17).
The Catholic Church teaches that Christ’s return will be visible and glorious (Acts 1:11; Matthew 24:30), culminating in the final resurrection and judgment. This return is not tied to a 1,000-year earthly kingdom but marks the consummation of God’s eternal reign (2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1-4).
Your interpretation of the "first resurrection" as a future, singular event tied to a millennial kingdom diverges from Catholic teaching and broader biblical context. Revelation 20:4-6 refers symbolically to the spiritual resurrection believers experience through baptism and union with Christ (Romans 6:3-5; Ephesians 2:6). This “first resurrection” is ongoing, not a one-time event. The bodily resurrection, described in John 5:28-29 and 1 Corinthians 15, occurs at the end of time for all humanity, coinciding with the final judgment.
You question why the dead need to be resurrected if they are already with Christ. Catholic teaching affirms that at death, the soul undergoes particular judgment, entering either heaven (possibly through purgatory), hell, or awaiting the resurrection. The bodily resurrection reunites the soul with a glorified body, completing God’s redemptive plan for humanity (Philippians 3:20-21).
Your eschatology borrows heavily from JW-style speculative frameworks, which fail for several reasons. Attempting to create a precise sequence of future events from Revelation, Daniel, and other apocalyptic texts contradicts Jesus’ teaching that “no one knows the day or hour” (Matthew 24:36). Linking figures like the MOL, 8th king, and others into a single, cohesive timeline imposes meaning on the text that is not explicitly present. This approach relies more on human conjecture than scriptural exegesis. Separating Christ’s current reign (Matthew 28:18) from a future, earthly millennial kingdom undermines the New Testament’s teaching that Christ already reigns as King, and His return will bring about the eternal kingdom (1 Corinthians 15:24-28; Revelation 21:1-5).
Your arguments reflect a speculative and overly literal approach to Scripture, particularly apocalyptic texts. Catholic teaching offers a more cohesive and biblically grounded eschatology, emphasizing Christ’s current reign, the spiritual reality of the Church, and the ultimate hope of the new heavens and new earth. While you critique Catholic doctrine as “lockstep,” it is rooted in Scripture, tradition, and the lived experience of the Church across millennia. By contrast, your framework is inconsistent, speculative, and heavily influenced by the problematic interpretive methods of groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses.
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

While some translations render Proverbs 8:22 as “first of His works” or “created me,” this interpretation is not the only valid one, nor is it the most consistent with the overall theological context of Wisdom literature. The Hebrew word qanah (קָנָה) is commonly translated as “acquired” or “possessed,” indicating that Wisdom is not a created entity but rather an eternal attribute or aspect of God. In the ancient Near Eastern context, wisdom is often portrayed as preexisting with the deity, and the use of qanah aligns with the idea of God “possessing” Wisdom from eternity rather than creating it as a separate being. This interpretation is consistent with the theological portrayal of Wisdom as an integral, coexisting aspect of God, without implying that it was created as a distinct entity.
Regarding the term nasak, you claim it only means “anointed” rather than “founded.” However, Hebrew words often carry a range of meanings, and nasak can indeed mean “to establish” or “to set in place” in various contexts. While nasak is used in Psalm 2:6 to mean “anointed,” it is not limited to that sense. Other lexicons and commentators, like Delitzsch, have noted that nasak in Proverbs 8:23 can carry the meaning of “appointing” or “establishing” Wisdom in its preeminent role.
Furthermore, the LXX translation uses ἐθεμελίωσε (ethemeleiose), which means “he established.” This demonstrates that ancient translators, who were closer to the original context, understood nasak in this passage to mean “established” rather than simply “anointed.”
You suggest that phrases like “from everlasting” (πρὸ τοῦ αἰῶνος) do not necessarily imply eternity. While it's true that some terms used for “eternity” can denote long durations without being infinite, the context here suggests that Wisdom’s origin is from an indefinite, eternal past. Proverbs 8:23 emphasizes “from the beginning, before the world,” language that in biblical literature typically refers to an existence beyond created time. This is consistent with Christian theology on the eternal nature of the Logos, who was “in the beginning with God” (John 1:1).
The argument that “ktizo” (create) cannot be understood in a straightforward Arian sense is based on the distinction between the Logos’ eternal generation from the Father and the temporal act of creation. While “ktizo” often means “to create,” it can also imply “to establish” or “to appoint” in certain contexts, depending on what is being described. Origen, for instance, did not interpret “ktizo” in Proverbs 8:22 as a literal creation out of nothing but saw it as an expression of the Son’s relational distinction from the Father while still affirming His divinity.
Origen and other early theologians maintained that the Son is eternally begotten, not made, thus avoiding the Arian interpretation that the Son is a mere creature. The term “firstborn” (prototokos) used in Colossians 1:15 aligns with this understanding of preeminence rather than suggesting the Son is part of creation.
You claim that there is no instance where “firstborn” followed by a genitive construction omits the subject from the category, such as “firstborn of the dead” implying Jesus was part of the dead. However, “firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) should be understood in terms of authority and rank rather than inclusion within the category of created beings. In biblical usage, “firstborn” often signifies preeminence and privilege, not literal sequence or category inclusion.
In Colossians 1:15-17, Paul clarifies that “all things were created through Him and for Him,” making it clear that the Son is not part of creation but rather its Creator and Sustainer. This is consistent with the understanding of “firstborn” as a title of preeminence rather than indicating that the Son is a created being.
You argue that the LXX holds a higher authority than the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, as the New Testament authors frequently quoted the LXX. However, the authority of the LXX does not necessarily exclude the insights from other ancient translations. Early Christian interpreters were aware of both the LXX and alternative renderings, which can offer valuable perspectives. While the LXX was widely used, the early church also engaged with the Hebrew text and other Greek versions.
The early Church Fathers interpreted the LXX’s rendering of Proverbs 8:22 in light of their theological convictions about the Son’s relationship with the Father. They did not uniformly interpret it as evidence that Christ was created but rather saw it as a metaphorical or poetic expression of His role in relation to God’s creation. This diversity of interpretation among ancient sources shows that the term “created” in Proverbs 8:22 does not straightforwardly support Arian or JW views.
While early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus applied Proverbs 8:22 to Christ, they understood it within the framework of Christian theology, which affirms the Son’s divinity. They did not view this passage as contradicting the eternal generation of the Son. Later theologians, especially in response to Arianism, clarified that “begotten” does not mean “created” and that the Son is eternally generated, not made.
For instance, Athanasius argued that “begotten” refers to the Son’s unique, uncreated relationship with the Father. The council of Nicaea confirmed this by affirming that the Son is “begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.” Thus, any early references to Christ as “created” or “begotten” were reinterpreted within the orthodox framework to affirm His full divinity and co-eternity with the Father.
In summary, Proverbs 8:22 does not necessitate a created status for Christ. The language of “beginning” and “firstborn” can denote preeminence, authority, and an eternal relational role rather than implying a literal creation. Both the linguistic and theological contexts support an interpretation in which Wisdom, personified as Christ, shares in the divine essence and stands as the eternal, uncreated Logos, fully God yet distinct in relationship to the Father.
The New Testament’s affirmation of Christ’s eternal existence (John 1:1) and role as Creator (Colossians 1:16-17) makes it clear that He cannot be part of creation. Therefore, reading Proverbs 8:22 and Revelation 3:14 as implying Christ’s created status is inconsistent with the broader biblical witness to His divinity.
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

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

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
aqwsed12345
@Duran
You claim you are not a JW while you parrot the JW interpretation, and use the NWT. Why not use a scholarly Bible translation like NRSVue?
You assert that Paul's correction of Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Timothy 2:17-18) indicates a future, singular first resurrection that aligns with Christ's second coming. However, this interpretation overlooks both the immediate context and the broader theological framework.
Paul consistently teaches that believers experience a form of resurrection in this life through baptism and union with Christ. Romans 6:4-5 states, "We were buried with him by baptism into death... so we too might walk in newness of life." This "newness of life" is a spiritual resurrection, distinct from the future bodily resurrection at the end of time. Hymenaeus and Philetus likely denied the physical resurrection entirely, asserting a spiritual-only resurrection. This heresy subverted the hope of believers in the final bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).
Paul’s rebuke of Hymenaeus and Philetus focuses on their denial of a future, bodily resurrection. This does not imply that all references to resurrection in the New Testament are exclusively tied to Christ's return. Catholic teaching distinguishes between:
1. The spiritual resurrection (AKA “first resurrection”), experienced by believers in baptism (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12).
2. The bodily resurrection (AKA “second resurrection”), which occurs at the end of time when all will rise for judgment (John 5:28-29).
Hymenaeus and Philetus were undermining the hope of the final, bodily resurrection. They were not addressing Revelation 20 or limiting resurrection to a future, 1,000-year earthly reign.
So the "first resurrection" mentioned in Revelation is best understood symbolically as the spiritual participation in Christ’s reign. Revelation's apocalyptic genre often employs symbolic language (e.g., the "beast," the "144,000"). The "first resurrection" represents the victory of martyrs and saints who reign with Christ in heaven, not a literal physical resurrection occurring before a millennial kingdom on earth.
You equate the Man of Lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4) with the 8th king (Revelation 17:11) and tie both to the Mark of the Beast (MOTB). This interpretation conflates distinct biblical concepts and relies on speculative associations.
Paul describes the MOL as one who "exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship" and "sits in the temple of God" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4). Historically, this has been interpreted as a symbolic figure or system representing ultimate rebellion against God, culminating in a future manifestation. Catholic teaching recognizes the MOL as a type of antichrist figure, whose identity remains hidden but whose rebellion mirrors historical and ongoing opposition to God’s Church (e.g., 1 John 2:18). So Paul’s teaching about the MOL in 2 Thessalonians 2 is a warning against false claims that Christ’s return had already occurred. Paul emphasizes that certain events—such as the rebellion and the appearance of the MOL—must precede Christ’s coming.
Revelation’s 8th king symbolizes a recurring pattern of oppressive worldly powers. These kings are not specific historical individuals but represent systems or empires opposed to God’s kingdom. The 8th king is not definitively tied to the MOL. Revelation's imagery serves as a warning about all anti-Christian forces, not a detailed prophecy about future global political systems.
So the 8th king in Revelation 17:11 symbolizes worldly power and rebellion against God, linked to recurring systems of evil across time. Revelation’s apocalyptic symbolism resists literal, one-to-one correlations with modern entities. Interpreting the 8th king as an end-time figure ruling for 42 months (Revelation 13:5) imposes a rigid framework not supported by the text's genre or purpose. Unlike the MOL, the 8th king is part of Revelation’s broader symbolic narrative about the Church’s struggle against evil, spanning all of history.
The Mark of the Beast represents allegiance to worldly powers that oppose God. It is not a literal mark but a symbol of those who reject God’s sovereignty (Revelation 13:16-17). The Catholic interpretation emphasizes the spiritual significance rather than speculative futurism tied to specific entities or timelines.
You argue that believers receive relief only after the MOL’s rule, coinciding with Jesus’ second coming and the first resurrection. However, this interpretation misreads the nature of the Great Tribulation (GT) and ignores the present spiritual reign of Christ.
The GT, described in Matthew 24:21 and Revelation 7:14, is not a singular future event but represents the trials and sufferings faced by the Church throughout history. These tribulations are part of the ongoing battle between good and evil. While the GT culminates in the final confrontation before Christ's return, it is not limited to a 42-month period or the rule of the 8th king. Believers already experience relief through Christ’s victory on the cross and His ongoing reign. Colossians 2:15 affirms that Christ has disarmed the powers and authorities, triumphing over them. This spiritual reality is the foundation of Christian hope, even amidst suffering.
In Matthew 24, Jesus speaks of a “great tribulation,” primarily referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This event prefigures ongoing tribulations the Church faces throughout history (John 16:33; Acts 14:22). Catholic teaching views tribulation as a recurring reality, not a singular event tied to a specific geopolitical timeline. The Church has faced—and continues to face—trials and persecution as it awaits Christ’s return. Paul teaches that relief comes at Christ’s second coming, when He defeats all enemies, including death (1 Corinthians 15:25-26). This marks the final consummation of His kingdom, not the start of a temporary, earthly reign.
Your claim that the first resurrection occurs at Christ’s second coming (the "last day") overlooks the symbolic nature of Revelation and the theological distinction between the present spiritual reign of Christ and the future bodily resurrection.
John 6:39-40 teaches that the final resurrection occurs on the "last day," which marks the culmination of history when Christ judges the living and the dead. This resurrection is universal (John 5:28-29), encompassing both the righteous and the wicked. Revelation 20’s "first resurrection" is distinct from this event, representing the spiritual victory of martyrs reigning with Christ in heaven.
Jesus repeatedly speaks of raising believers on the “last day” (John 6:39-40, 44, 54). This refers to the final resurrection and judgment, not the start of a millennial reign. Catholic teaching affirms that the last day encompasses the end of history, when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead (Matthew 25:31-46). While Revelation 20:4-6 describes those who reign with Christ, it does not indicate that this is limited to a future millennium. Instead, this reign reflects the current participation of the saints in Christ’s victory (Ephesians 2:6). The final resurrection of all believers occurs at the end of time, coinciding with the general judgment (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).
Revelation 20:4-6 speaks of the faithful reigning with Christ for 1,000 years. Catholic teaching interprets this symbolically, representing the current reign of saints in heaven. Christ’s kingdom is not a future geopolitical reign but His present rule over the Church (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20-23). So the 1,000 years is symbolic of Christ's current reign through His Church. This reign began with His resurrection and ascension and continues until His final coming (Matthew 28:18; 1 Corinthians 15:25). There is no scriptural basis for dividing history into rigid dispensations or claiming that the first resurrection is a future event limited to a select group of believers.
The JW eschatological framework relies heavily on speculative interpretations of Revelation and other prophetic texts, which deviate from traditional Christian exegesis. The attempt to fit Revelation’s imagery into a strict chronological timeline leads to unwarranted speculations, such as tying the MOL to the 8th king or associating the MOTB with specific modern events. Revelation’s symbols are meant to convey spiritual truths, not detailed predictions of future events. The Catholic approach avoids the pitfalls of overly literal interpretations that distort the text’s message. Catholic theology emphasizes that Christ is already reigning through His Church. The so-called "1,000 years" is symbolic of the Church age, during which Christ’s victory over sin and death is manifested through the sacraments and the proclamation of the Gospel.
Your interpretation simply reflects JW teachings, but these teachings face significant theological and scriptural challenges. Apocalyptic literature like Revelation uses symbolic language to convey spiritual truths. Treating the 42 months, 1,000 years, and other details as rigidly literal undermines the genre’s intent. The separation of Christ’s return, the resurrection, and the final judgment into distinct phases conflicts with the Bible’s teaching that these events occur simultaneously (Matthew 25:31-46; John 5:28-29). Linking the 8th king, the MOL, and the Great Tribulation to specific future events leads to speculative interpretations that lack biblical support and distract from Revelation’s core message of hope and perseverance.
The Catholic Church affirms the bodily resurrection of the dead and the final judgment at the end of time, as taught in Scripture. While Revelation’s imagery is rich and complex, it must be interpreted in light of its symbolic nature and the broader biblical narrative. Speculative eschatological systems, like the one presented here, distract from the core truths of the Gospel: Christ’s victory over sin, His present reign, and the ultimate hope of eternal life in the new heavens and new earth.
The Catholic understanding of eschatology provides a cohesive and biblically grounded framework for interpreting Scripture. It emphasizes Christ’s current reign through His Church, the hope of the final resurrection, and the ultimate renewal of all creation. While JW eschatology attempts to create a detailed timeline of future events, it does so at the expense of Revelation’s symbolic richness and its message of God’s ultimate victory over evil.
72
Romans 9:5
by aqwsed12345 in
1. watchtower
2. bible
na28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .

nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.

god, who is over all, be praised forever.
aqwsed12345
The phrase ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς (ho ōn epi pantōn theos, “who is over all, God”) is most naturally understood as modifying the nearest antecedent, ὁ Χριστός (ho Christos, “Christ”). Greek grammar heavily favors the attribution of a relative clause to the nearest antecedent unless specific indicators suggest otherwise. Breaking the sentence after τὸ κατὰ σάρκα (to kata sarka, “according to the flesh”) requires inserting a pause not demanded by the Greek text. Such a construction introduces an unnatural division in the sentence, making it less coherent.
The broader context of Romans 9:1–5 is Paul enumerating the privileges of Israel, culminating in the greatest privilege: that the Messiah, Jesus Christ, came from their lineage. Transitioning abruptly to a doxology about God the Father after mentioning Christ disrupts this rhetorical flow and detracts from the climactic point about Christ’s divine identity.
Early Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Athanasius, unanimously understood this verse as affirming Christ’s divinity.
- Irenaeus: “Paul declares that Christ is God.” (Against Heresies, 3.16.3).
- Tertullian: “The apostle speaks of Christ as ‘God over all.’” (Against Praxeas, 13).
These interpretations predate later theological disputes, demonstrating the natural reading of the text as affirming Christ’s deity.
While Paul does not frequently use the term theos for Christ, his writings unmistakably affirm Christ’s divinity in other ways:
- Philippians 2:6: Christ, "existing in the form of God" (μορφῇ θεοῦ, morphē theou), did not regard equality with God as something to exploit.
- Colossians 2:9: “In Him dwells all the fullness of deity (θεότητος, theotētos) bodily.”
- 1 Corinthians 8:6: Paul places Christ alongside God the Father in a reworking of the Shema, attributing divine functions to Christ as the agent of creation.
Romans 9:5 fits within Paul’s broader Christological framework, in which Christ is depicted as divine, worthy of worship, and coequal with God. While infrequent, Paul's application of divine titles to Christ is not unheard of:
- Titus 2:13: “Our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).
- Romans 10:13: Paul applies Joel 2:32 (“Everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved”) to Christ.
The rarity of theos for Christ underscores its significance in Romans 9:5, emphasizing Christ’s unparalleled divine status.
Critics propose that ὁ ὢν (the one who is) could be a scribal addition and suggest a hypothetical original reading: ὧν ὁ (of whom). However, this claim is speculative and unsupported by manuscript evidence. All extant Greek manuscripts unanimously support the reading ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς without any variants suggesting ὧν ὁ. Introducing such a change reflects conjecture rather than textual evidence. Metzger himself acknowledges that “there is no evidence in the manuscripts to support such a correction.” The hypothetical reading (ὧν ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς) proposed by Fitzmyer lacks parallels in Greek syntax and would create an awkward and unnatural phrase.
Some modern translations (e.g., Goodspeed, Moffatt) reflect theological biases rather than the natural reading of the Greek text. By introducing ambiguity, these translations attempt to avoid the clear attribution of divinity to Christ. The traditional rendering (“Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever”) is supported by numerous major translations, including the KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, and Catholic NAB.
Critics argue that Paul typically directs doxologies to God the Father. However, this general pattern does not preclude exceptions, especially in passages emphasizing Christ’s unique status. Romans 9:5 is consistent with other Pauline texts where worship and exaltation are directed to Christ (e.g., Philippians 2:10–11, Colossians 1:15–20).
Raymond Brown is cited as acknowledging the ambiguity of Romans 9:5. Critics argue that ambiguous texts should not be used to establish doctrine. However the doctrine of Christ’s divinity is not derived from a single verse but is supported by the broader testimony of Scripture, including John 1:1, John 20:28, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 2:9, and Hebrews 1:3,8. Romans 9:5 complements this broader witness, providing additional evidence rather than standing alone as definitive proof. While Raymond Brown acknowledges interpretive challenges, he does not deny the plausibility of the traditional reading. Ambiguity in translation does not negate the validity of the text as part of the cumulative biblical witness.
In conclusion, the traditional reading of Romans 9:5, identifying Christ as “God over all, blessed forever,” is strongly supported by grammar, context, and the broader Pauline corpus. Arguments against this interpretation rely on speculative textual reconstructions, modern theological biases, and an inconsistent application of interpretive principles. While Romans 9:5 is not the sole foundation of Christ’s divinity, it remains a clear and powerful affirmation of His divine status within the overarching testimony of Scripture.