Posts by Blotty

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

Blotty

" If “created” were the definitive meaning, we would expect all ancient translations to agree on this point, which they do not." - this is so untrue its not even funny (unlike some of your other comments, which are sometimes hilariously wrong) There are numerous other variations of scripture where if it were as cut and dry as you are trying to make out they would all match as well.. I can cite at least 10 off the top of my head, that if one word was the definitive meaning we would expect all variations to agree..

"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. " - yes he WAS temporally first in some sense (I am not specifying it so maybe you will be honest for a change and share it) and he still IS NOT an exception to the kings he is firstborn over.

David was THE FIRST to be "BEGOTTEN" by God (in the sense he was the first in his line to be chosen as a descendant of the messiah...) - There is one other interpretation as well which also requires temporal priority.

"However, the significance of the Creed cannot be ignored in this discussion." - I can ignore whatever the hell I want thank you - and I choose to ignore it - it is unbiblical and full of untruths.. so you can stop citing it to me - thank you. I will ignore whatever I want in this discussion - including you.

"Ephraim is called the “firstborn” over Manasseh in Jeremiah 31:9, though Manasseh was born first. " - there are 2 possible explanations to this... both have a temporal meaning, and it still doesn't negate the one called firstborn "coming into existence" OR being part of the respective group. This example is useless to your agenda.

"This is why Israel, as a nation, is called God’s “firstborn” in Exodus 4:22, despite not being the first nation." - but Israel was still temporally first in the sense, it was the first nation "adopted" by God... and separated from the other nations in this regard. This example is also useless to your agenda

a better one for you would be "the firstborn of death" - but that is even a stretch because it is still part of its respective group.

"However, these sources, while helpful, do not prove that qanah definitively means “create” in Proverbs 8:22." - Why does one of them literally cite proverbs 8:22 for such a meaning?

you also said "It never definitively means "create" in any of its 85 uses in the Old Testament. " - this is a bold faced lie as it does definitively mean "create" in at least 2 instances - Deuteronomy 32:6 & Psalm 139:13 - proven further by the LXX
Deut 32:6 can ONLY mean "create" because of what its in apposition to it

Gen 4:1 "create" is a possible rendering as "possesion" and "creation" are very closely linked in Hebrew thought.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

Blotty

" It never definitively means "create" in any of its 85 uses in the Old Testament. " - this is in conflict with many many scholars and is unfounded.. notice a common theme between ALL of these words - Something someone did NOT possess before.. never implies "already had"
God did not always have the heavens and earth

Eve did not always have her Child.

Just to cite a few:

"possessor - so Onkelos and Calvin; but koneh, from kanah, to erect, set up, hence found or create, means founder and creator (Gesenius), combines the meanings of κτίζειν and κτᾶσθαι (Keil), contains no indistinct allusion to the doctrine of Genesis 1:1 (Murphy), and is rendered ο{ς ἔκτισε (LXX.) and qui creavit (Vulgate) " - Pulpit

"Possessor.—Literally, creator, or framer. It is a poetical word, as are also those for “delivered” and “enemies.” The form of the blessing, moreover, is poetical, as it is arranged in parallel clauses." - Elliot

"possessor of heaven and earth] R.V. marg. maker. The word is poetical. It expresses the ideas of making, producing, creating, as in Deuteronomy 32:6, Psalm 139:13, Proverbs 8:22. It is more often used for “acquiring” (cf. Genesis 4:1), a sense which would not here be applicable. In Isaiah 1:3, it is found, as here, with the meaning of “owner.”" - Cambridge

"Possessor of heaven and earth — That is, rightful owner and sovereign Lord of all the creatures; because he made them." - Benson

need i Cite the hundreds more I have? - yep it totally never means created definitively in its 85 uses nope not at all... not once except in the other 2 instances cited by pulpit...

"does conflict with traditional Christian theology upheld by mainstream Christianity since the Nicene Creed, which distinguishes between "begotten, not made."" - so since the 4th century.... Which is where many manuscript variations come from - a creed which I don't care about... argument null and void in my eyes

"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 pre-eminence and authority, not chronological order" - again he is temporally first in some sense.. now are you going to be honest and cite the correct scripture or am I going too? He was temporally first in some sense - hence being called the firstborn...

being called Firstborn ALWAYS denotes a temporal factor in SOME form. and David is still a king.. NOT an exception to the group he is Firstborn of.

"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." - is he not the first of this chosen line? since that specific line was chosen by God?

"the language and genre of Job differ significantly from Revelation." - So why does BDAG cite it as a grammatical paralell? BDAG NEVER comments on genre or anything it cites ALL instances where the word means the same thing.

" While you may not have used the term “apostate,” your arguments appear to align with Arian interpretations" - So I NEVER called christianity apostate....
& if you actaully pay attention to what I write you would realise I dont actaully adhere to Arian theology atall because I claim Logos was created from something (Like Eve from Adam) not from nothing (What Arians claim, allegedly - wouldn't be surprised if Atha lied tho)

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

Blotty

"Quote from HERE:" - who wrote this garbage? you? I believe Britannica over you any day.. Aquila's hyper literal translation style would obligate him to render the Hebrew word literally... not its actaul meaning.

"Origen also takes the unusual step of commenting on the LXX translation ektise, “created,” that the Hebrew has qanah, supporting the view that he also knew that create was a mistranslation in the LXX of his day." - Does it cite specifically where Origen comments on it? I got to page 3 and gave up (I'm not reading any more of that garbage)
Does Origen state it was a mistranslation? he comments on alot of Greek words

"You claim that mainstream Christianity is "apostate" when it claims that the Son was "begotten, not made"" - Where did I claim this - quote plz, Where did I call mainstream Christianity apostate?

"David was neither the firstborn in his family nor the first king of Israel" - gotcha! Was David temporally first in ANY sense? the answer: yes

"Some resources for you" - oh look you literally just proved my point about you being in many other places causing the same sort of rubbish.... a quick google search on these links shows you to be the same person..

& if you think a dictionary is all I have - your dreaming I have plenty more where that came from... thats only 1 thing thats in my favor

- my responce to this post is to be continued when i have more time-

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

Blotty

"However, Aquila and other early translators chose “possessed” to convey that Wisdom belonged to God, not as something that came into being later." - so your going to ignore brittanica? Who said Aquila's translation was "slavishly literal" Aquila did not CHOOSE "posessed" for the reason you are claiming - rather it was his TRANSLATION STYLE.

" it highlights the Father’s role as the source, but this does not make Jesus less than fully divine. In Matthew 1:22, the angel functions as a messenger, whereas Jesus is described in Hebrews as the One through whom the universe was made (Hebrews 1:2). These passages serve different theological purposes, and therefore they are not directly comparable." - I literally dont give a sh** about your theological agenda get that through your head for starters...
second you didn't answer my question
third - WHERE did I talk about Jesus' divinity and making him "less than fully divine"?

"While some commentaries, like Barnes’, may favor the interpretation of arche as “first created,” this is not a universally accepted interpretation." - While it is not universally accepted, notice BDAG cites Job 40:19 as a grammatical parallel so yes this is comparable... on LINGUISTICAL grounds you would have to prove they are comparable.

Hence BDAG lists it as PROBABLE.

" Psalm 89:27, for example, uses "firstborn" to refer to King David, saying, "I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth." Clearly, David was not literally the firstborn in his family, yet he is called "firstborn" as a title of authority and preeminence." - But his family has nothing to do with this, Where are they mentioned in the context? - He is "FIrstborn" of the kings of the earth, the second sentence elaborates on the meaning and he is still a king not an exception

"Engaging in ad hominem attacks or suggesting that one needs to “debate a master” to validate an argument misses the point of a fair and reasonable discussion based on Scripture and tradition." - I said YOUR Master was beaten by Greg Stafford - never said “debate a master” and Im only using your own words against you... suddenly I'm the bad guy?

"Debating Greg Stafford or any other apologist is not the point here" - you seem fine "picking on" people on this forum - But when it comes to actual Greek experts who have disproven your claims, you now say its not the point?

Stafford has already debunked your claims on Prov 8:22 regarding the double accusative and typology..

When Wisdom was made "The begining" of Gods ways is said in 23 -25 - negating the need for a temporal marker in 22

"Personal attacks detract from a productive discussion. The focus should be on scriptural interpretation and evidence, rather than labeling each other as "hypocrites" or "frauds.""-

1) I have asked multiple times for a dictionary citaion... provide it - if you were not lying about it, you should easily be able to provide a pdf version of it or a title for it

2) Do I need to quote you, less than a year ago to Me, Wonderment, Slimboy and other Jehovahs Witnesses on this website? Or you on e-homo religiosus' "collection of quotes" post? calling the WT our "Master" or "Boss" or commenting under usernames such as "HAHAHAHA" and "LOLOLOL" - I know that was you, I know about many places you have been, and people you have annoyed with your theological agenda.

How about I do that? this is rich coming from you...

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

Blotty

"The primary argument here is not about quoting you verbatim" - because you can't - You are a fraud
While it is not about quoting me verbatim - you are claiming I said something I never did, so please quote me verbatim where I claim what you accused me of - We can go no further into this discussion until you do so.

or admit I didn't say what you accused me of.

and the dictionary citation plz

"The Church Fathers, such as Athanasius, affirmed that the Son was eternally begotten, not “ex nihilo” created in time. " - Where do i claim Jesus was created “ex nihilo”? as I said to others I claim he was created (or begotten, same thing) I never said what from... I am more inclined to believe he was created from something.. and not “ex nihilo” - fun fact.

"The preference of Aquila and others for “possessed” highlights their understanding that qanah did not imply temporal creation" - Or it was simply they were hyper-literal translators as Britannica states.. that's probably the best interpretation.. & probably the most credible one (basically any answer other than yours is credible, even other trinitarians on this site)

It really begs the question why the LXX renders QNH as "Ektisen" 3 times when it would make sense in the context - yet the other times retains the "possessed" meaning. Going by Aquila's translation style he probably would have rendered Gen 14:19 literally - yet the Lxx didn't.

" Your comparison to other examples, like Solomon building the Temple, is not analogous because Hebrews explicitly credits Jesus as the Creator of the universe, not merely a facilitator or builder in a secondary sense." - But Solomon is credited with building the temple.. Solomon is literally said to have built the temple.. Its just self evident he didn't. hence the comparison

Is the Angels work in Matt 1:22 inferior to Gods?

Origen credits the Father as autotheos and as the creator.. not Logos

"The passive or active voice does not change the theological assertion that Jesus is the Creator." - do you even know how the voices in Greek work? I am sure you would argue based on the voice that the NWT renders John 17:3 wrong... get over yourself.

How can Christ be the source of creation? When the father is said to be the source of it?

Why is the passive voice used in combination with dia for an angel (Matt 1:22)? Where again the distinction between upo and dia is made.

" "archē" in Revelation 3:14 can be contextually and linguistically interpreted as referring to Jesus’ role as the origin or source of creation" - see Barnes commentary... he would disagree..

it DOES NOT denote authorship..

"Scholars widely interpret ktizo in Proverbs 8 as a poetic way of describing Wisdom’s role in creation rather than implying that Wisdom (or Christ) is a temporal creation." - citation please

Clifford, Fox, Burney etc all don't interpret it this way.

When did Time start then? was it "before all creation"?

So what does Proverbs need to say to say that Christ is created? poieo? you have already admitted these are synonymous...

If you think you are so good why not go and debate Greg Stafford? He Just destroyed your master where you get most of your arguments from..

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

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:.

Blotty

"they use this language to describe beings that participate in divine attributes, without compromising the oneness of God." - would this not fall under "qualitative", I think you'll find it would

notice Jesus' quote from psalms has a plural noun before the verb

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

Blotty

Earnest - notice a pattern tho:
"to make habitable, to people, a place, region, island (Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus, others); hence to found, a city, colony, state, etc. (Pindar and following; 1 Esdr. 4:53)"

Biblehubs dictionary does NOT list a bible verse example for this meaning - making it irrelevant to the conversation since if there was a usage in the bible SURELY it would be cited here..
Just like teh varient in Rev 3:14 cited earlier - if it didnt mean First creation (compare Job 40:19) - Why was it altered and Why do BDAG and Aq'a possibly made up dictionary admit to another meaning for arkhe?

IF we want to bring the philosophical meaning in here, then i would love to bring in the Philosophical meaning for other words in the Bible that do not suit the trinitarian rhetoric - Aq cannot cherry pick where philosophical meanings apply and dont.. either we stick to non-philosophy menaings or we go philosophical meanings, Im sine either way but that is their choice

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

Blotty

Earnests comment also springs to mind :
""So, in the second century the versions of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion were prepared for Greek-speaking Jews, all of which revised the verb used in the LXX at Proverbs 8:22 which Christians (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria) were applying to Christ. In the third century Origen edited the LXX on the basis of the Hebrew and retained the verb ἔκτισε (meaning "created") at Proverbs 8:22 despite the alternative renderings in the other Greek versions. So there is good reason to accept the LXX translation as having greater authority for Christians than the alternatives you seem to prefer.""

Origen in MANY encyclopedias is credited with being one of the most HONEST scholars in History - I don't think you want to argue with Origen on the Greek Language...

this is why Aquia uses a greek word for "possesed" rather then "Ektisen"
"About 130 ce Aquila, a convert to Judaism from Pontus in Asia Minor, translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek under the supervision of Rabbi Akiba. Executed with slavish literalness, it attempted to reproduce the original to the most minute detail, even to the extent of coining derivations from Greek roots to correspond to Hebrew usage. "

(source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Early-versions#ref597387) - Other sources available on request

Next time include information like this in your posts - dont make go digging for it because it actually hurts your credibility if you knew about this

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

Blotty

Where's my citation for the dictionary? I now assume you have have provided fraudulent evidence. until you produce the original.

"You claim that the term "archē" in Revelation 3:14 must be interpreted as "first created" because it is listed as a “probable” meaning in BDAG" - quote me verbatum where I say this - WHERE do I say this?

All I say is the "First-cause" meaning is invalid as the BDAG negates the meaning - with its secondary statement about arkhe (and your fraudulent citation also negates the first cause meaning)

" the use of passive verbs does not negate the Son's role as the agent of creation." - Where did I claim it did - again quote me verbatum please
all I said was the focus was on what the father did through the son (Wisdom) - The Father is the source of creation not the son..

"In John 1:1-3, Jesus is described as the Logos (Word), who was with God in the beginning and who was God. " - there are church fathers who assert there was something that happened before the beginning of creation - The Father begetting (or creating) something before the Beginning is not impossible

Heb 1:10 is a quotation so the verb would naturally be active in this case (v 3-4 passives, burden of proof on you) abd there are plenty of examples of the instrument being addressed in a similar way to the actaul source - Lets see, Solomon building the Temple is actaully credited to God (tho God never lifted a finger, come to think of it neither did Solomon) and quite a few others.

"A more accurate translation is that Wisdom was "possessed" by God, not created." - possession and creation are closely linked in Hebrew thought - so your saying the LXXs translation is also wrong and in Gen?
Where the translators no doubt had a really good understanding of Hebrew

(modern scholarship has already debunked this argument... scholars can get it wrong.. please write one of your essays refuting them and publicly submit it for peer review.. (on a site like academia) - But i know you wont, because you are wrong.

you also have to get past the church fathers translation of the word (alot being "ektisen")
an a bunch of different scholars including but not limited to: Burney, Clifford, Stafford (not technically a scholar, but has done some incredible scholarship), etc

"Jesus is consistently portrayed in the New Testament as eternal and the agent of creation, not a part of creation. " - oh so now he is the "agent of creation" not the creator... thank you
The agent of creation is NOT the same as being the creator
Just as being a messenger for a king is NOT the same as being the King himself (tho is thought of as the person he is representing, is not actually that person)

Get past all of their evidence then you MIGHT have a point - but your a nobody on a forum making excessivily long posts desperatly trying to prove a point, these are well recognised and respected scholars who studied for years to know Hebrew and Greek - I believe them over you anyday

and you havent defined what this relationship is

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

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.

Blotty

"The term archē has a wide semantic range, and while BDAG might not list specific verses under "first cause" or "origin," this doesn't invalidate that meaning" - please cite another instance where a verse is not listed under a meaning for a specific word used. It invalidates the meaning in the bible as BDAG cites other writings for such a meaning but puts Rev 3:14 as a possibility for such a meaning.
And again as Barnes notes the meaning is "commencement" note "authorship" (What you basically claim) tho Barnes disagrees with the "created" meaning for theological reasons - atleast he can admit its the most likely meaning. (according to Johns usage it is, want a non-witness source who uses the same argument? its not invented by Witnesses, trust me)

Even in Rev, a quick look at the usages show, this John would also have used "Arkhon" or Pauls word for originator..

"Even if BDAG suggests first created as probable, it is only one possible interpretation and must be weighed against the theological and linguistic context of the passage. " - I think the authors would have done that... I think its more you not being honest..

" Jesus as the Creator, not a created being (e.g., John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrews 1:2)." - where do these verses say he is not a created being? Where does the bible explicitly call Christ "Creator"? Just one passage please - a simple statement would be nice

1:3 uses dia and a passive verb, keeping "ton theon" in focus (a function of the passive verb is to keep the last "subject" in focus) Origen notes a clear distinction.. So do others

1:16 has passive verbs (change them to active and God of V 12 is the creator, not the Firstborn)

Origen says "God commanded the Firstborn...."

1:2 has verbs where the antesedent is not "the son" but "God"

"While it is true that some early Christian writings reference Proverbs 8 to describe Jesus' role in creation, the New Testament presents Jesus not just as Wisdom personified but as the Logos (Word)" - you gonna mention the other important bit? or am I going to cite about 3 different sources from credible people that say something that trounces you? your choice.

" The dictionary I quoted is not in English, so you won't find it anyway." - I don't care, I want the citation please - if this dictionary exists, you would be more than willing to cite it. (starting to think it doesn't- which would make you a fabricator of evidence aswell)

you also clearly didn't read your own source because it says: " but even here, the meaning of ἀπαρχή is more likely." - look at the words "the meaning" tho the word doesn't occur, the meaning of the word "ἀπαρχή" should "more likely" be applied.

" Thus, any link between Proverbs 8 and Revelation 3:14 does not automatically mean that Jesus is a created being." - it would actually because by the time of Paul Christ was pretty much synonymous with the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 as can be seen in other Jewish litrature like sirach where every academic study I have looked at parallels Proverbs 8:22 with 24:9 and other verses.

and a paralel in Matt and Luke (I believe) pretty much make it an identification

and Paul literally makes it an identification.

(unbias sources from what I can tell - would you like them? more than happy to cite them)

"The interpretation of Proverbs 8:22 by some scholars as referring to a created being (Wisdom)" - cite an unbias source that doesn't interpret it, the way Witnesses do

btw the temporal marker for 8:22 is actaully in verse 23 :) as Origen comments about John 1:1b and John 1:2 - 1b gives NOTHING temporally about when The word was with God, 1:2 gives us the "location"

"You conclude by asserting that interpreting Jesus as the "first" or "beginning" of God's creation aligns with His title as the "only-begotten Son" of God." - try reading, that was someone else.

So Logos was the only one to have a relationship with the Father? What about the spirit? why is it not monogenes? what is the difference

and what is this "relationship"?